One aspect of the beauty  of mathematics is that is precise and clear-cut. In contrast, human affairs are a tricky business, all way the from personal relationships up to the constitution of an entire country. I’m sure someone has studied whether mathematicians have weak social skills and have therefore chosen to “escape” to a domain where they have more control. But this sounds too simplistic and it’s probably not true in general. After all, mathematicians have to teach and this require some degree of social interaction.

I have in the past used an informal definition of democracy: anyone can do anything, as long as it does not impinge on the exact same right of other people. In other words, we all live in equally-sized “soap bubbles” of democratic rights. My rights ends exactly where yours begin. Technically, I’m not talking about democracy (= every citizen can influence decision making), but about equality. But I realize now that this definition is not sufficient. My right to own property clearly interferes with your right to own the same property. If you we can sort out the property rights, imagine a law which states that I have the right to kill anyone who trespasses on my property: no questions asked. This law is still symmetrical but clearly not desirable. We’d all have to stay on our own or public property. So, symmetry isn’t enough. But what is?

I’m sure that philosophers of law have sorted this out long ago. Or at least, looked into it. Sorting it out sounds impossible to me.

I’ve been watching the Americans. It’s a little like performance art. Somewhat entertaining activity, but mostly pointless. One of their big legal issues at the moment is the gay marriage ban challenge in the California. One has to give it to them: their arguments may seem primitive, but Europe is not far ahead, and the rest of the world is even further behind. But what really intrigued me today is another ruling: that corporations may now once again give money to political campaigns.

At first I was shocked. I have to agree with the dissenting opinion that this will drown out the ordinary American citizen. Democratic elections are based on an even distribution of knowledge. If I hear that candidate A is a raving lunatic, and that candidate B is a pragmatic down-to-earth philanthropist, I would vote for B. But this may be just one side of the story. Since I do not have the time for investigative journalism myself, I have to rely on the media for information. And, unfortunately, the media is for sale. Since corporations (and labour unions) have much more money, much much more, than ordinary citizens, they will “buy” more of the media. Ideally, corporations and unions should not exist as individuals, but around the turn of the century, they gained this status in the US and most other places. (I’m surprised that they are not allowed to run for public office; perhaps that is coming.)

But now consider the other side of the coin. Suppose that I’m a US citizen and wish to exercise my right to free speech to comment on a candidate and inform my fellow citizens of my opinion. How do I go about this? Do I write a letter to a newspaper? The newspaper is a corporation, and can choose which letters to publish. Do I publish a book? Publishing companies are corporations. Do I make a movie or call a radio show? Those channels are partly controlled by corporations. So the law restricts me to printing my pamphlets privately (on a press at home) and putting up posters around the neighbourhood. In reality, some corporations are already influencing public opinion. And in reality, the US government can already censure almost all expression of opinion during elections.

So, protecting the right of citizens requires broadening the right to free speech to corporations, which, ironically, will reduce the power of citizens to be heard. Of course only US citizens. But if you’re trapped in a train compartment with an elephant, you tend to notice every time moves.

This kind of reasoning is why I, too, would prefer to stick to mathematics.