BIG CHANGE
There's been some chit chat over at Jackson's blog about "the system" and its problems. I asked Tony Alva for some concrete suugestions for fixing the system, and we talked about the flat tax a bit, about spending, about the sytem itself.
I've made a few comments about eliminating the money, which are certainly half joking - but only half.
To me, the problem with "the system" is simple. The problem is that there is a "system," and it's based on human flaws that are no longer necessary.
The only way to fix the system is to eliminate poverty. Pure and simple. This isn't some kind of utopian ideal, or something we can legislate, debate, politicize, or mandate.
It will take nothing short of evolution. It cannot happen in our lifetimes, because evolution cannot happen to an individual. We're talking about a long term change in the very genetic makeup of our species. If we really want to solve the fundamental problem of "us and them" - which is, after all, the only problem - we're going to have to undergo a fundamental shift in our behavior, which is certainly possible but which will require possibly many many generations to bear fruit.
The fact is that our society is based on abstract concepts of worth, wealth, and money. These are abstract concepts - there's no such thing as money in the natural world. Of course, there are exchanges, which when abstracted can become the idea of money - using an object to represent a value. But the objects have no inherent value. Take your money to another planet, or the bottom of the ocean, and see how far it gets you. Eliminate the framework and the contents become meaningless - just look at what happened in New Orleans when "society" broke down. Money? What did money matter when there was no system of exchange?
We, as a culture and a species, can eliminate the idea of poverty, because that's what it is - an idea. Why is one person "worth" more than another? Why can't everyone have enough to eat, the medication and health care they need, and a home? The resources exist, but no amount of meetings between world leaders and rock stars will do a damn thing. We need to select out the connection between "worth" and basic human needs. One should have nothing to do with the other. Beyond a certain point, the ONLY reason to make more money is because you want more money, which can be defined simply as greed. That's the difference between the upwardly rich and the truly destitute. The rich want money, the poor need it. These are too completely different relationships to the same thing.
Behavioral evolution is a tough thing to define or study, but it's real. We've been undergoing it since our cells were floating in the ocean, and it will continue with or without our conscious knowledge or consent. But it's not an easy thing to manipulate. There are selection advantages for people (or birds, or rats, or amoeba) who take more than they give.
But as humans we have the ability to influence, or even define, our own evolution. Instead of looking for a cure for baldness or impotence, how about the cure for greed? Is it just "human nature" to want the biggest piece of the pie? It doesn't matter. It's not human nature to fly, or to send email.
"WASHINGTON (AP) - Before Hurricane Katrina, they were among the poorest of America's poor. In the hardest hit counties, some 305,000 people not only lived in poverty, their families' income fell below 50 percent of the poverty line — about $7,500 for a family of three. Now, many live in strange towns with only a few dollars in their pockets."
Yes, that's $7500 for a family of three. There is no reason this has to happen in our country. There's enough resources to go around. We need to start selecting out greed. It might sound like eugenics, but it's not.
We're talking about a change in the fundamental nature of how humans are interacting. If it happens, it'll be a long way off, and it will look a lot like utopia. But it can happen. We just need to start laying the foundation.
17 Comments:
VERY, VERY good post, and I love to share some real discourse here when I ask the following questions, or pose the following thoughts. So here goes:
"Beyond a certain point, the ONLY reason to make more money is because you want more money, which can be defined simply as greed."
I certainly agree with this statement at it's base, but the relative nature of the "certain point" is where it gets tough. Humans also have a compulsion to provide a better life for their offspring than they themselves might have had. They also possess what I believe is a natural instinct to protect their own as a priority (i.e. if one wins the lottery one will take care of family members before donating to charities or, in a life/death situation one will save family before strangers). I don’t necessarily identify these compulsions/instincts as negative traits. I’m guessing that the above statement is directed at those who are earning in income brackets at VERY high levels (several million a year), or asked more plainly, how much is enough? Good question. I don’t know the answer. I think some of those in the high tax brackets continue to earn more because that’s what their art is, it’s their craft, their purpose in life, like music is yours. They are that good at what they do which running a business. Many of these folks are also the most generous people in the world. I think athletes and other newsworthy wealthy freaks spoil it for the many. We hear far more about the Bernie Ebbers of the world than we do about the Carnegies.
The more controversial question I have is what place does individual and personnel accountability have in this discussion. We know that humans are the only species that actively protect the weaker elements amongst it’s folds to such an extent that we do. If you’re a strict Darwinist, or a believer in chaos theory, this pattern will surely lead to our demise at some point (from a population perspective that is). Knowing that many of us live in a free society, and in conjunction with the characteristics you mention in your post, how do humans keep from continuing to bare children they cannot care for? The Chinese have imposed inhuman measures to combat this very real problem under a socialist/communist régime and still can’t stop people from baring off spring they cannot feed. This is a real conundrum for our species. Given the same circumstances when it comes to all other species, natural selection takes care of this situation in it’s usual cruel and indiscriminate way. We all agree that nobody should be told whether to have children or not, but if we had to start all over again as hunter/gathers knowing what we know now, would we simply have as many children as our health would allow even if those numbers grew beyond the qty of nuts one could gather to feed and support them? The monkey wrench in the eugnenic’s philosophy is that we live in a free society which find’s this morally repugnant (Wouldn’t Hitler have called what he was doing a form of government sponsored eugenics?).
I know the discussion that inspired this post also addressed big business, which in my opinion is much maligned in general. I believe this because, with all due respect (remember I’m just looking for thoughtful dialog here) seldom are the positive aspects of these entities acknowledged even when they are plainly in sight. By this, I mean the simple fact that big business employs people and provides a living for them. I am fully aware that the greed equation rears its ugly head once you start diving into how these big businesses operate ethically, but at a high level they are extremely paternalistic and serve our populations well. Delta Airlines employs thousands down here. Many will lose their livelihoods if things continue to go bad for them. I think what you and I both agree on is the reason Delta is struggling can be tracked back to the greed of a few individuals IN CHARGE (exec’s who take way more than they give), but also, collectives (union’s who take more than they give). You might find this hard to believe, but the mechanics and pilots lobbied and received top pay in the industry from Delta on the sole premise that they believed that since they were the biggest, their compensation should be the biggest. You can verify this by asking those that made the “I Surrender All” record.
My philosophical belief is very Buddhist like. I think the answer lies in moderation and a combination of things discussed here which is the basis of where I hope our social evolution will take us. It’s a combination of our species internal desire to help the weak in combination of individual/personnel responsibility. I think if I had to rely on hunting and gathering to survive and provide, I be careful not to “breed more than I could feed” as the saying goes, and I’m saying this metaphorically of course. Of course, the study and tracking of our progress is tough to do since, as you accurately state, evolution occurs over the course of great spans of time. For every instance that can be cited for things going in the right direction, you can find one that indicates the opposite.
Man, this is a lot to type… So I’ll stop now.
This is always fun. John Cole over at Balloon Juice threw this link up as a goof http://www.okcupid.com/politics
Here's how I faired:
Social Moderate
(41% premissive)
Economic Moderate
(43% permissive)
You are best described as a:
CENTRIST
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.
Glad to get this validation, I can go home now.
Well, we don't have to worry about it because mother nature is getting ready to kick the human habit. She's sick of us making her sick, and we're all doomed. And yes, greed and selfishness are at the herart of our ecological woes. So spend, breed, live and don't bother to learn, because it's too late. Remember though, your children will suffer more than you, as will their children, if they aren't all sterile by then.
Thanks Jackson, now how did http://www.okcupid.com/politics score you?
Yes, the "certain point" is hard to define. But like pornography, I know it when I see it. If you're spekding more than $30 on a shower curtain, you're probably there. These kinds of things will always be subjective, but think about it this way - to determine if you have enough money, ask yourself this question. If someone took half of it away, how big a difference would it make? Would it be life and death? A family of 3 living on $7500 would certainly be affected if they lost half, whereas someone "worth" 100 million certainly would not.
If the rich are giving so much to charity, why are there still chilren dying of starvation IN OUR OWN COUNTRY? No one should be allowed to one a big screen TV or second car until this is eradicated. No one.
The problem is, making money is not the same as making music. To make music I don't have to take music away from someone else, but that's exactly what HAS to happen in a capitalistic society. Where did the people who benefitted so much from the 90's internet boom get their money? Did it just appear, or was it put into the system by countless investors, old people with their life savings, indeed everyone who bought a share of AOL?
Of course this all goes against the notion of capitalism, but that's what I'm saying. The system is, in a very deep and profound way, inhumane.
We can easily feed all of our offspring and the offspring of others as well. We just don't do it.
"Eugenics" is a dirty word, and I'm not suggesting we follow Hitler's example in trying to better ourselves. I'm just saying that someday, perhaps, there will be a species that truly transcends and cares for its own, and if we want to be that species, we probably can.
Speaking of moderation, I don't think the Buddha would've approved of a Porsche :)
You are a
Social Liberal
(70% permissive)
and an...
Economic Liberal
(13% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Socialist
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.
I demanded that all tacos be served on Corn Tortillas, what was your edict?
You are a
Social Liberal
(71% permissive)
and an...
Economic Liberal
(15% permissive)
Here are my results. Not very surprising, I guess:
You are best described as a:
Socialist
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc
You are a
Social Liberal
(71% permissive)
and an...
Economic Liberal
(15% permissive)
Here are my results. Not very surprising, I guess:
You are best described as a:
Socialist
You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc
My edict was no actions that lead to poverty.
No, Buddha was a Mercedes guy.
"The problem is, making money is not the same as making music. To make music I don't have to take music away from someone else, but that's exactly what HAS to happen in a capitalistic society."
Sorry, but I completely disagree with this statement ( I'm not taking offense, just don't agree with it). I, like many others, have never been given anything by anybody other than the education my folks were able to provide for me. They were only able to do that becuase my grandfather scrimped and saved all his life. Once school was over, I was on my own. I lived through tough times, but have managed to earn a decent living which includes two cars, a big screen TV, some recording gear, and yes, an old Porsche (I've always drove sports car that I paid for myself, Jackson can vouch for this). Never could someone say that I took something from somebody to get where I am (unless I'm missing your point). My success, if that's what one can call it, was not at someone elses expense.
I really don't see that it's that hard to state the problem were trying to solve here. What our goal should be is to create the opportunity or otherwise maximize the potential for success for everybody. If we can acheive this, the rest is up to the individual. Given a level playing field, some will pursue opportunity vigorously, and others will simply choose not to. My belief is that our moral obligation is to create that level playing field.
Without sounding to cliche, in most cases with a few exceptions, I think you get out exactly what you put in.
Have good weekend.
Yes. Let us all have a good weekend, let us all make music, and let us all have a nice car and big screen if that's what makes us happy.
I think Chris sets the bar a little spartan, but in essence I agree, I suggest a salary cap of two hundred grand, the rest goes back into programs like Free Tacos, or Neve strips for the poor.
I certainly can't argue with that.
I've got a tune in my head...
"All we need is Neve strips, all we need is Neve strips, all we need is Neve strips, Neve strips are all we need"
I wonder what the political affiliation is of those who beleive in the "soft" taco?
I'll bet they're Iraqi communists for sure.
I hate them.
I'm not saying that you, personally, Tony Alva, took away from someone else to get what you have.
I'm saying that to have the super rich you have to have the super poor, based on our system. The poor may be overseas, or they may be in our own backyards, but I don't see how it's possible to make a fortune without someone else remaining destitute.
One could argue (and I certainly have) that the very society you live in, the one that allows you to have a suburban existence and the opportunity for success, was built on the labor and lives of plenty of poor people, on stolen land, etc. etc. But that wasn't even my point, I was speaking more of the immediate situation, like millions working their asses off for minimum wage, who will never have the chance to rise out of poverty.
The playing field is completely and totally unequal. You don't always get out what you put in, and plenty of people have nowhere to put anything in; if you're born into absolute poverty and work just as hard as someone born into wealth, do you think you'll be worth as much at the end of the day? It's one of those fantasies of the right - that everyone can have the same opportunity, that hard work always pays off, that the world isn't REALLY prejudiced, which means that the poor generally get what they deserve.
To say you weren't given "anything" except the "education your parents provided" is an oxymoron. That is an incredibly significant thing to be given, as I know you'll find out when Katie's college bills start coming in!
Think about the kids whose parents can't do that, or the ones living in an environment where it's not even looked at as part of the real world, let alone something that can be dreamed about. This is the way millions of people live. It's real, and we're turning our backs on it. Kids die of starvation every day in our country. Think about that.
Where does the wealth come from if not from other people? According to your theory, everyone can be rich if they work hard and take advantage of opportunity, but I don't see how this is possible.
I suggest you read a book called "The Sirens of Titan" by Kurt Vonnegut. It's basic premise is that life is luck, and no one knows why.
I actually stopped on Real Time with Bill Mahr the other night on HBO because before I flipped the channel he mentioned that Kurt Vonnegut was going to be on. The guy was a raging lunatic. I’m aware of how prolific he was in the past so I'll read the book.
I recognize that an education is expensive. The only reason I was able to get one was because someone else (my grandfather), sacrificed for it. Both he and my father were career military men (NO WAY you could ever refer to them as "rich"). Sacrifice is part of success more than luck, although luck can be a factor.
I also fully recognize that with the playing field being unequal that many have to work harder than others, but what you will never convince me of is that if one applies themselves to success, takes advantage of all that is offered in this country, and makes the necessary sacrifices that opportunity abounds for all no matter what humble beginnings you come from. I may not qualify as one of these people since I was the beneficiary of my grandfather's prudence and sacrifice, but I know countless others that would.
Unfortunately, I have also experienced the converse, which is the elephant in the room in this discussion: Lazy people exist by the millions and won't lift a finger to better themselves (i.e. make the sacrifices). I’ll give you one real life example of what I’m talking about:
My company offers 100% tuition reimbursement for ANY college course work an employee wants to pursue (another example of Big Corps having some positive value, though I digress). I manage 12 people within my organization. Of the 13 of us here, only 3 of us has a college degree. Amongst the 13 of us, 7 work at what most would describe as manual labor/blue collar type jobs (warehouse workers, and good ones at that). Our facility sits right in the middle of a collage campus, Gwinnett Institute of Technology. I look out my window and can actually peer into the classrooms with instructors teaching as I type this. Gwinnett Tech offers a state sponsored program for tuition deferment when a student has an employer sponsored reimbursement program (basically, defer the tuition bill until the class is completed and then take the payment directly from the students company). Every year as part of my management duties I have to sit with each employee and have a career path dialog with them. Every year I BEG each one of these employees to take advantage of the companies/college’s program. Free college, Working on campus. Leave work, go to college. I really don’t think it could get any more easy than that. After five years of working out of this location to date, not ONE person has taken advantage of this amazing deal. How do I know about all this? Because I was so desperate to get just one of my employees to sign up, I went across the street and picked up all the forms and talked to the admissions counselors myself to make it that much easier for them. Year after year it’s the same non-response.
How would you classify this situation? Is there more that my company, the government, or I should do to compel 10 non college graduates to go to school for free? If there is, I’ll do it short of taken the classes for them. I know it’s only an isolated example, but it’s nonetheless a reality. Believe me when I tell you, I have beat it into them the fact that they are missing out on a GREAT opportunity that many wish they had. I even had one of them say, “You sound like my daddy…”. In the spirit of your most recent post, I’d say that this constitutes actually taking action vs. just dialoging about it.
Another relevant example of choices/sacrifices one can make is where one chooses to live. Again, its anecdotal, but I can speak from experience. I love New York. I would love to live in New York again. Why did I leave New York? I left New York because ever since I graduated from college I’ve wanted to own my own home plain and simple. From all I could determine, from all I could deduce, this prospect based on cost of living and my earning potential was not going to happen until I was much older if I stayed in NY. As much as I wanted to stay, owning a home was more of a priority for me, so I moved to a city where it was more affordable. I made a sacrifice (you’ve been here so you know that Atlanta is NO New York). No, it’s not New York, but EVERY one of my employees owns the home they are living in, including the hourly warehouse workers. For what one pays in rent for a single bedroom apartment anywhere in NYC, one could OWN an enormous house here in Georgia.
Sacrifice, choices, motivation. NOT the answer for all situations, certainly not those who live in third world nations, but if employed to the fullest extent, could, no WILL, improve the quality of life for many. With all due respect for what Kurt is going to enlighten me with, Luck may have something to do with it, but being an unlucky, self-loathing, Irishman, I’ve learned not to depend on it, and have done my best to prepare for a life without any.
Sorry, still not convinced.
Of course there are millions of lazy people, rich and poor alike. You were born into a family that made sacrifices, and that's luck. You were instilled with a work ethic and a belief that things can be better - but that was luck too. You could have just as easily been born into abject poverty and died before you were 2 years old.
I just believe that poverty is a necessary part of the equation.
My fundamental question still hasn't been answered. Why should we have children dying of starvation in this, the richest country in the world? Because they are lazy? Or because we need poverty to build wealth?
Companies offering their employees a college education is noble, but it really doesn't do anything to make the world a better place. Maybe it would allow these people to earn more money, but then you'd just have to fill the jobs with someone else who doesn't have the education.
"My fundamental question still hasn't been answered. Why should we have children dying of starvation in this, the richest country in the world? Because they are lazy? Or because we need poverty to build wealth?"
I don't know man, I think you're looking for fairness in life, and the only thing I can offer you is what my parents told me, and what I tell my daughter 10 times a day, "Who ever said life was fair?"
Oh, and believe me when I say this, my work ethic was the culmination of figuring it out on my own after years of stubbornness. I might have been fortunate to have a family that pushed the issue, but I can tell you the harder they pushed, the more I rejected it. This went on for MANY long years before I figured it out.
I do however see your point re: fundamental premise about the random providence of birth. Enough to motivate me to go out to Amazon and pick up that Vonnegut book.
I don't know about poverty being a necessity or not. As positive a thinker as I may be, I know that poverty has existed for as long as humans have been writing history and it won't be cured in our lifetime. That makes it tough to get over the ancient but popular "eat, drink, and be merry..." school of thought, but we must try so that we can leave this blue marble in better shape then we found it.
I know you said you’re tired of talking about it, but I’ve gotta say I’ve really enjoyed this blog post and appreciate your thoughts.
I think you've hit the nail on the head, so to speak.
Poverty has been around since the dawn of man, and I don't believe it will be eliminated in our lifetimes either. I think there is a depth of change that needs to happen that we can't even imagine.
The randomness of birth is enough to make life not fair. It doesn't have to be.
Post a Comment
<< Home