Where Did the Money Go? Part the Second

Now that there are some general statements made about how the system works, we can analyze a couple points that should be evident as problematic.

Continuing with the assumption that spending is the proper function of money, then an obvious problem would be the opposite: hoarding. The refusal to use money robs the Economy of all the activity that money would produce. It cannot be loaned out and no longer circulates. This can also be recognized as “extracting money from the system”. The term extractive processes has become more widely used in recent decades, but typically gets ascribed to industries like mining, forestry, oil & gas drilling, fishing, and even farming. When it comes to the economy itself, or the practice of draining money from circulation into private coffers, it has not been invoked. However, the extreme disparity of “wealth” using terms like “the 1%” are fairly common nowadays. What if even this framework does not adequately contextualize the problem? Here lies the central question prompting this pair of posts. To continue, there are 2 main culprits to address when it comes to extraction from the economy: the obvious and the obscure. The first, which gets attention, is tax havens, off-shore accounts, and generally "mattress money". This is why stories like the Panama Papers are important, but only partly the answer. Certainly, if money is not declared for tax purposes, there are additional issues with that. But for discussion here, the point is the removal from circulation and how that decreases what is possible for others when a single entity stuffs its own "mattress".

Now, for the second and more difficult to spot, issue: separate economies. This may conjure up thoughts of crypto-currency, but that is not what is intended. Here, we must consider another way that money is stripped from the shared or standard economy. One way to begin to picture it that many are already aware of is criminal activity. Mostly conducted with cash, this is often activity which happens along-side rather than with the general economy. Once money is spent on illegal drugs, guns, or other business, that cash has to be processed in order to rejoin the regular economy. This is called money laundering, and indicates that the criminal and regular economies are not entirely separated. A closer example would be "globalization" and the system beforehand. While this is a series of agreements, treaties, and laws which allow businesses to operate more easily across borders, many people see it as just a way for business to move away from their own area. This means that whatever money the business or worker was paid gets taken (or extracted) from that local area. Before globalization, many places did have separate economies; the spending in one town or country did not effect others. However, as many economic crises in preceding centuries indicate, the world was not entirely insulated. With these examples, we can appreciate the intended “second” factor mentioned above. In this case, it is something which operates alongside the regular economy, but has little impact on everyday persons. This would be the economy of the wealthy, whereby those individuals have created a separate pool of expenses and purchases. When it comes to entire office buildings, “super-yachts”, luxury items (cars, watches, clothes, etc.), or personal staff, the amount of money involved is absurd from a typical person’s perspective. Beyond that, however, is the fact of how much of this money is never seen in the typical person’s economy. Here is meant not the amount, but the actual dollars. Measured in millions of dollars, once this money is spent, it does not make its way back to Jane and Joe Taxpayer. These high-end items are produced, sold, and maintained by a group of people who are also wealthy (not the actual technicians, but owners of the companies, of course). The neighborhood mechanic is not working on a Bugatti; Bezo’s super-yacht is not moored down at the public dock. This is the separate economy mentioned before, the place money goes when collected by those rich individuals. Even when it is not in a tax haven, it still does little to benefit the regular Economy the rest of us deal with. It’s counted by someone, and included into the overall economy, but does it really—actually—count? If it never circulates back into the hands of a regular person who spends it at the corner market, does it really circulate? A bit like a tree in a forest that falls when no one is around, does it make a sound?

In addition to the embedded links, the citation below is a useful source of some of the information used herein.

 Robbins, R. H., & Dowty, R. (2022). Global problems and the culture of Capitalism. Langara College.

 

Where Did the Money Go? Part the First

This pair of posts will highlight some assumptions about and practices with money in order to challenge them.


At a basic level, most people recognize that money is a token representing some amount of effort—people work to “earn” money which is then used to purchase things the ‘worker’ desires; this also means that, as a token, money is meant to be spent. [The word “earn” is loaded with connotations about “worth”, “deserving”, and how society values different professions. While this post will not get into those weeds, it is important to recognize such beliefs as a part of the system.] In part, this means money does not drop from the sky, it always comes from an entity or person. The money you have came from someone who got it from someone else who got it from someone else, ad absurdum. The point being, it does not stay still. The purpose of a token is to be used, since tokens are exchanged for something else. For example, money has no use as food, but can be traded for food. Additionally, because its function is to obtain other items, it is not serving this purpose when hoarded. Of course, someone from a poor background will object that any unspent money must be safeguarded, and rightly so. There is an unceasing need for those savings to be used at a moment's notice, often for essentials. Generally, in such circumstances, it is held against need using the "hiding it in a mattress" method; the mattress is unimportant, as the expression only indicates someplace “secure” enough and easily accessible. Because people who are poor have short and urgent timeframes, this ‘saving’ is insignificant from the viewpoint of economics, as it will be back in circulation soon enough. Once again, the morality of people being made to live in these circumstances must be a separate discussion, despite the need to bring such underlying issues to the surface. The reason for stressing the point about spending is because “saving money” is treated as though it is a positive accomplishment, as well as demonizing those who spend. However, it is possible that this is backwards, and mere marketing. Hoarding tokens serves no purpose but bolstering the ego of the hoarder, after all.

Next we will briefly differentiate the personal from the business activity of economics. Basically, gaining possession of something with the intent to sell it is a business activity rather than a personal one. In keeping with the notion of money as a token, we can use event tickets for our example. Ticket scalpers can give a general sense of how the personal differs from business activity. A person will buy a ticket to attend the event, whereas a scalper has no interest in the event and only wants to profit from the ticket. Money is like those tickets, meant to provide the holder with something the person wants. One major difference is that money is infinitely transferable. Once the money is spent, its purpose is served for that person, and it becomes ready for the next person to use. This also fits with the idea that it is meant to “circulate”, a word to describe spending or making money available to the next person. One thing to note is that while the Economy is reported as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), approximately two-thirds (66%) of this is spending! It is not trivial to focus on the circulation of money as an important part of economics. Finally, we can briefly consider using extra money to invest for profit. It turns out that much of the banking system works to ensure money is available for use through lending. For example, banks do not just lock up everyone's money in a vault and wait for them to come claim it. There is a certain amount that any bank is required by law to "hold in reserve" and make available to customers. The rest is used to lend out, as lines of credit and loans for business, homes, et cetera. Additionally, there are private investors (such as "private equity firms") whose entire business is lending money. This all continues the circulation of money while it is understood that the ‘investor’ (lender of the money) is owed the initial amount plus some extra from the ‘borrower’, or person receiving the money. This is the ‘profit’ of investing, oftentimes based on an interest rate agreed-upon beforehand. The Federal Reserve controls interest rates on most loans with the goal of encouraging or discouraging borrowing, depending on their read of which will maintain stability more effectively. This same federal system supports investors to feel confident in loaning out that money with laws around default on loans, collections, bankruptcy, and such. Not all loans go to individuals, of course. Much of investing has to do with lending money to businesses. Because of this, it is accepted practice that businesses publish accounts of their finances for review, which allows investors to determine the risk of lending money to these companies. All these safeguards create more stability throughout the economic system. This also means that, generally, there are records of where money goes and what is done with it. A few years ago the Panama Papers lent greater context to the importance of this transparency.

In addition to the embedded links, the citation below is a useful source of some of the information used herein.


Bowles, S., Edwards, R., & Roosevelt, F. (2018). Understanding capitalism : competition, command, and change. Oxford University Press.

A Group Effort

It is problematic that benefits accrue to those who already have them—things like being approved for loans for because of having assets already. Being let go for a minor offense because of not having an arrest record. However, it is not be unfair just because of a particular "-ism" involved, but because of the underlying assumption that someone is more deserving or "should" be treated differently. There is a common trope that "X would never happen if we had a woman president", or "some [group] have natural rhythm/can dance", "you know you can't trust anything they say because those people always lie". Whoever is included in that group can change; we saw it with waves of immigration in the 1800's. Whichever was the largest group last off the boat were the scapegoats. "White-ness" (aside from being an invention) was ascribed to longer-standing immigrant groups and withheld from the more recent ones.

Here is the heart of the problem: as long as someone can be marginalized, anyone can be. If some negative stereotype can be given to a group, it can be given to another. As long as it is accepted that there are different "kinds" of people, that some are inherently better (or worse), and that there exists some sort of "natural order", we are at risk of this happening. The only solution is to do away with all of them altogether.

Once no one can be labelled as "the problem" or "those people", then we will have peace. Until then, while we may make progress, it will be a constant vigil that another group is not vilified.

Transactional Relationships

Words are wonderful tools for understanding concepts and discussing them with others. This particular phrase has shown up frequently in recent days, for better and worse. First, let us be clear about what it means, and then we can see where it is impacting the culture.

"Transactional relationship" simply refers to having an interaction (either one-off or longer, on-going relationship) with someone which is based around providing a benefit to both parties as the basis for said interaction. Simple, yes; deceptively so. It may be self-evident that a purchase from the market is a transaction. What about the waitstaff at a restaurant? Or the 'crew' of a fast-food joint? In traffic, does my waving another driver through the intersection count? How about two co-workers who plan a social activity outside work? Finally, what about intimate relationships such as marriage? Truly, there are aspects to this concept which muddy that simple idea we started with.

The above examples are provided because they can certainly be transactional. Even though many cultures have moved away from dowries or bride-prices, marriage for love is still a recent convention, dating back only a few hundred years. However, money being directly involved is also not a determinant in this concept. Being "the beard" is a transactional relationship, but can be of social value to the parties rather than being a cash- or housing-based arrangement. Also, this introduces the aspect that one party can be ignorant of the true nature of their interactions because of assumed or undisclosed intentions. Similarly, if two co-workers seek to commiserate, it could simply be a trade; "give-and-take" or "quid pro quo" are other terms for transactional relationships. However, if one coworker is spying for the company or has romantic intentions, then it becomes a different dynamic. In driving, I could get something out of an interaction with another driver, but it could also simply be enforcing, or reminding them of, the 'rules of the road'. Causing others to adhere to accepted norms is part of social convention, and is less individual choice and more collective conformity. Both "waitstaff" and "crew" above are understood to be "servants" and the customers, "masters" (not the words typically used, but a replication of that traditional dynamic). Both provide customer service, are employed by the establishment, would not interact with those patrons except for the venue, and are limited by their role—but only one gets gratuities. This power differential only further complicates the issue, but neither determines nor precludes a transactional relationship existing. Anytime staff are providing customer service, however, it interferes with any other type of relationship; in other words, there is a transactional relationship as long as at least one party is acting in a professional, business capacity. All this demonstrates the complexity of our interactions and that a solely transactional relationship is rare. Especially if there is the possibility of multiple encounters, people tend to introduce kindness or other social aspects to the process. Think about if you witnessed a person purchase a drink and all they did was state the order, make the payment, and take the beverage—no eye contact or speech beyond "give me a [drink]". It would seem odd, rude, or downright antisocial for not engaging in the niceties we expect—to not even respond to a greeting, nor acknowledge the other individual's person-hood.

Now that we have this basic understanding of a transactional relationship, let us turn to the impact on our experiences. What is happening in the culture that makes this a noteworthy concept? Firstly, we can consider the reduction of social interactions into tools of profit. Secondly, how the culture encourages this approach and who benefits from the tendency. Finally, whether this is something which requires correction, and is that possible? Without going into an exhaustive—and tedious—list of examples and trends over decades, this is certainly a problem. Wave after wave of induced social phobia (things like "stranger danger" the 1980's, the "super-predators" of the 1990's, and the fallout from September 2001—again, from a perspective in the U.S.) caused many to increasingly think of the world as so dangerous that it would be better to just not risk interacting. This constant anxiety and withdrawal has become a self-reinforcing tendency; the more people lack in social connection, the more uncomfortable any interaction seems. Just as vitamin deficiency can easily be treated by adding the required nutritional sources, so can many issues be addressed by increasing socialization. As people double-down on their sickness, by giving even more hours to work (or other isolating tactics) and retreating from shared spaces (and other social adventures), it worsens the symptoms. In typical fashion, rather than acknowledge and address this issue, we are sold any number of remedies. This is akin to ignoring the vitamin deficiency and insisting that surgery is needed to treat the symptoms. One such idea is better living through accumulation: that acquisition can soothe the ache of longing. All this denial leads to the idea that we can buy our way out of any problem, which lends itself to settling for transactional relationships. As the idea that the only things which matter are those that "provide 'value'" becomes paramount, the very things that give meaning to our lives fade and wither. In part, this is because treating symptoms is more profitable than curing illness. Additionally, the tendency to invest in the system which makes the rich even more rich incentivizes them to maintain such a system.

In conclusion, I will answer in the positive: this must change and that change is achievable. Such changes are often as difficult as they are necessary, and begin with acceptance that our ideas have been wrong. Suffragettes, abolitionists, and various other civil rights movements throughout history have attacked oppressive systems, in part by alerting people to injustices perpetuated by the underlying assumptions of those systems. The lasting changes we need are only made when people come to understand the structure itself is the problem, and we must address both the symptoms and the cause.

How Success Can Lead to Failure

Historically, it seems there has been an acceptance of "successful" peoples' actions, methods, and recommendations for others, as though wealth or popularity conferred a sort of impunity and entitlement that those without were meant to subscribe to. The belief that the "powerful" and "elite" must know what they are doing, and inherently are to be trusted and obeyed. While in feudal times lords and ladies had both social and legal prerogatives, this was shifted during the European Age of Enlightenment. There was a sense that those in power were fallible and human, therefore structures should be enacted to combat such troublesome tendencies. During the more recent era (let's say from the Industrial Revolution) that seems to have swung back towards expansive privilege, and came to include "tycoons". It may be that these robber barons were given social cachet as their wealth allowed these individuals to craft a positive public persona. We ended up with the notion that the wealthy "can do no wrong" inculcated into public consciousness. We could seek explanation in psychology, and the desire for idealized role models; however, it is unimportant for this introduction. The point is to notice the shift in attitudes towards more or less latitude given to those "in power". A frightening example in recent years is the trend of "celebrities" who are "famous for being famous". This seems to mean that they are given status, afforded media attention, and discussed by everyday folk simply because they reached a threshold of public awareness. This recognition indicates no greater education, simply that the person has skills and resources enough to become noticed. A feat, we must recognize, that is easier in recent times with the prominence of social media added to the dearth of "news savvy"; if you disagree, I would point out how serial killers and, more recently, various "shooters" became household names. After some amount of time this recognition allows them to build a "following". Once established in the public consciousness, they can expand out from the initial event they became known for (in this I refer to sports figures and local political operatives—hopefully not murderers). This aspect demonstrates how people in the public eye are given no small amount of deference and power by those who listen or watch them, and how this is problematic.

Whether it is a celebrity product endorsement, an economic pronouncement from an industry leader, or just a fad hocked by an attractive also-ran, the attention paid to these individuals comes at a price. Not just because the latest diet does not work, the product is shoddily made, or the economic plan is self-serving, but also because it takes the thinking and discussion away from citizens. Inherent in the history of this issue is that "they know better"; that royalty, tycoons, or celebrities have a better understanding of the situation than those who are in it. It seems like some sort of confabulation between being trained and informed as a professional and just being popular. It can be alluring to trust: someone else has already done the tough job and all I have to do is agree or disagree. However, citizens are not only meant to be informed and engaged, but also the public should have a sense of how to analyze and discuss issues. If regular citizens are not involved in their own government operating in their best interests, and instead rely on industry or popular figures to make those decisions, the democratic process is suspect. The function of a public hearing and of voting is to get as many of those differing experiences of the problem under discussion and come up with a solution that will address it as best we can. The skills to do that work are not commonly taught in our schools, or discussed at the dinner-table. Most people do not have the time or inclination to learn how to come to consensus, and that is aside from having time to actually use such skills and discuss public issues. The other side to this is that without a wide section of the community involved, many aspects of issues get missed. Above, it was noted how professionals are expected to come up with solutions, and that expectation extends to the successful. The notion that we should listen to "experts" over those impacted by a situation becomes increasingly problematic. Look at recent discussions of 'race' and policing. How can we expect to make the best decision without getting an accurate picture of the issue? It would be like expecting a medical doctor to diagnose a condition without any tests or background from the patient. At that point, it is just guesswork and the treatment is more likely to fail. This exposes the biggest problem with handing over agency to someone whose credentials are just having been on TV: the image is not the reality.

Finally, there is the problem of disposability. The tendency to get rid of someone because of the slightest perception of impropriety. What this means is so subjective as to be meaningless, but every scandal is another possible end to a career. This demand for perfection traps not only the celebrity, but the citizen as well. In order to remain an ideal, these people are required to live up to unrealistic expectations. Those who aspire to public office face meeting those unachievable standards just to have a chance. This is only reinforced when a public figure makes an inevitable mistake and is thrown out. Most situations are multifaceted and need some unpacking to understand, and we rarely get that in public discourse. I am gladdened to see some public figures (a current example would be Senator Fetterman) having real-life struggles that do not immediately result in resignation. To admit frailty and failure—to be human—and still retain agency and engage in discourse as we are. Of course, I hope the Senator recovers, but moreover, I hope this is a sign that we no longer demand the impossible from each other and are instead able to accept human limitations while engaging in public discourse. This can only help more citizens to become involved and allow the bumptious process of democracy to flourish.

What is this "Labor Movement"?

I have often heard the concept mentioned, especially when referring to history, such as learning about early industrialization and the shift to factory work. However, it seems like it is equally distant when mentioned in the news today. It is talked about as if it were somewhere remote or unreachable, like a group of people separate from those I know and detached from society in general. This seems similar to how "the economy" is discussed; it is not talked about as the collection of purchases made by the citizenry, but as some distant and unknowable beast. However, these are similar as they are both the collective actions of all people in a society. This can be a challenging idea in a capitalist and individualistic society.

The labor movement is you, and me, and them. It simply refers to the collective actions of workers, and it can be beneficial to workers or to owners. When employees know and demand their rights, the labor movement is stronger than when employees are cowed and allow themselves to be taken advantage of. Believing that employers have the power at work keeps the labor movement from acting. Every time someone is paid less than another, time off work is denied, an employee is told to find their own replacement when ill, pay raises do not keep up with inflation, or a worker is fired for no good reason, the labor movement is weakened. It is imperative that the labor movement be strong, as it is the only balance to the overwhelming power of owners who gobble up more of society and the planet.

Being the Center of Your Own Attention

Rather than something like selfishness or egotism, this is referring to identity and self-perception. It is, in fact, about the commodification of those central issues and how difficult it can be to actually place ones self into the center of attention. First, let us examine what many people use as substitute for identity and then we can contrast that to what could be a more healthy construction.

Generally, when we talk of ourselves, we use job, status, and affiliation; this is not to disregard the value in having quick shortcuts that others can easily understand. However, by focusing on these items, we see our self and others as these labels rather than as a starting point to understand more. It becomes problematic when we are handed these definitions and given no choice about what they mean or how we are shaped by them. Rather than the label being an extension or expansion of who we are, it narrows or stunts that self-expression by deciding what we say or do. Some examples include "liberal" or "Republican", groups that give political distinctions and have developed numerous connotations over the years. If one expresses something different than the generally accepted view of what that label is, then one "is not really liberal." Whether one is a football or music fan, which team or artist is supposed to say something about who one is; whether "we" are winning this season, or if our artist is popular or obscure (and hence we are mainstream or counter-culture). Or we do not watch and follow sports and therefore are not a "real man", one of the most dangerous labels in society that leads to all sorts of twisted logic and harm. What all these labels or affiliations end up doing is inverting the expression of who I am by subjugating my identity to a team, party, or organization. How those are seen by others then effects how they see "me" because of my affiliation. When a political party leader or team coach says something I do not agree with, I am forced to do the work of distancing myself from that party or team because of the automatic assumption that as part of that group, I must agree with everything it does. There is a strong tendency to remain unaware of all these pitfalls and simply take the package of assumptions that come along with any affiliation. Many people act as if a descriptor determines who someone is; that by knowing one single label they can determine who that person is in toto. By pointing this out, the absurdity should become clear.

Rather than using the map as the terrain, it would be better to raise our eyes from the labels and affiliations to see the actual person before us. This does not mean to disregard that these groupings exist, but that they are expressed and experienced differently by each person. What it means to be part of a club can vary and mean different things to different people; being curious about what those differences are can lead to better understanding and connection. "I joined because they have cool hats", "I enjoy the durability of their products", or "I think they have answers for the problems we face" are all valid reasons for people to choose a group to join. They are, however, very different reasons and demonstrate how important it is to understand what someone's connection to a label is. For ourselves, recognizing that even belonging to a club does not define us is a start. The tendency towards para-social relationships, especially when we lack real-world connection, is strong and encouraged by business interests. Instead, we can remind ourselves that this label expresses one thing about us and not the entirety. We can even recognize some aspects that do not fit who we are, and make a conscious choice about our affiliation and it's limits. The main thrust of this is to not mistake one part of a person for the whole of who they (or we) are.

Why There Is No "Right to Privacy"

A right to privacy is explicitly stated under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation.” The Israeli Supreme Court Privacy Protection Act of 1981, Section 2 uses words like "harass" and "embarrass". These subjective terms illustrate the transient and variable nature of the discussion and concept of "privacy", as explicated in the following point:

"Another characteristic of the right to privacy which contributes to the difficulty in defining it is the fact the right to privacy is subjective in nature, culturally dependant, and is derived from the expectations of the society in a certain period of time. Therefore, privacy has been given different meanings over the years, being influenced by political, social and economic changes and by technological developments."[sic]. Yael Onn et.al., Privacy in the Digital Environment (Haifa Center of Law & Technology, Niva Elkin-Koren, Michael Birnhack, eds., 2005).

In the United States, there exists an explicit right to security in person and possessions, as laid out in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of this nation. It allows for legal search and seizure, meaning the outlined right is limited and readily circumvented through legal channels. This is why police are required to obtain a warrant to search a person or place: it supersedes the U.S. Constitutional right in cases where a judge finds the need. Thereby citizens only have as much security as allowed by laws that are interpreted by judges.

However, I am not an attorney and this not legal advice; I am merely outlining a few points briefly.


I propose that what is actually being discussed, at least in public discourse, is not privacy. Leaving that aside for the moment, it seems there are a number of different terms or ideas brought up in this discussion: privacy, secrecy, and security. Each of these may sound very similar, or even synonymous. If they all mean about the same thing, then what is the difference and why is there such argument over this topic? To reach those answers, we'll take a look at each concept shortly.

First, the much-lauded 'privacy'. When your someone read your diary, you probably screamed something about "invasion of privacy". This example indicates that there are certain parts of my life that are public, and others are not. Aside from being the opposite of private, what is public? It means "open to all" or "accessible to any individual." Public spaces are open and available to anyone who wants to be there. This is different from 'private property', where one needs to obtain permission to enter. This is analogous to 'public and private lives or information', where only certain parts are open to anyone. Essentially, we can define privacy as "the ability to choose what becomes known to whom".

Next, the idea of secrecy. This is information kept from the knowledge of others, or of certain people. This is getting a bit deeper, as secret has a connotation of confiding and/or trust. This seems a more personal choice, as many things are public by default or by law. A secret is something private that even those closest to me may not know; in a way, another layer of privacy.

Then, we come to security. This holds the other terms, in a sense. To be secure is to be safe; in this case, safe from the possibility of having privacy or secrecy taken away. This can be thought of as freedom from worry or threat of a breach in privacy. In this, we have the heart of the public discussion: individuals are worried (their security is threatened) that information about them that they considered confidential (private) is being given to others they did not agree to (sharing what was supposed to be secret).

In no way are these venues (social media, for example) clearly and solely defined as public or private. One may utilize "privacy settings" to declare one's preferences, but that only applies to the information one deliberately supplies, such as pictures and words. Behind the scenes, these platforms are collecting information on users that is not widely acknowledged: searches, purchases, connections to other users, demographics, etc. This is all used to 'target ads', meaning if I bought baby stuff recently that I may see more of those types of items; this is why Amazon.com seems so convenient, because it will suggest things that go with what I've already purchased and - even more broadly - what other people with similar 'profiles' have bought. None of this is entirely new, as TV (and before that, radio) was seen as a means for companies to advertise/sell their products to audiences. Certainly, television is a medium for ads and sellers pay money for advertising time during TV programs; many websites contain ads in a similar fashion, and both use those "ad revenues" to pay for keeping the TV station or website going. What is new is the ability to target ads even more specifically, based on the information collected by these websites. In addition, one has no control over how all that information gets collected, used, or distributed.

What this indicates to me is that the present-day talk about "privacy" is really a confrontation about ownership. If companies can collect information about me and then sell that data, it is just about who has a right to ownership and ability to sell information about 'me'.  Are those interests, preferences, and purchase histories my property (as they are inherently a part of me), or do they belong to the owners of websites I use to engage my interests? What we need is not necessarily a "right to privacy" as much as definition of personal information ownership. Once that is established, since ownership of personal property (even intellectual property) is clearly and legally laid out, we can settle the debate over "privacy" in this instance.

Breaking the Golden Rule

Most people have heard, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This precept is offered as a way to smooth relations and extend respect to others. However, it is as much simplistic as it is simple. It goes so far as to be harmful in some contexts, while useless in most others.

Too many times it is unwise or unkind to treat another person as I would want to be treated. This approach is problematic if for no other reasons than issues of perspective, culture, self-worth, abuse, shadow, and projection. The first two can be easily demonstrated by asking if I understand how a person of another gender or culture (or other background) actually wants to be treated. This is not my assumption and not how I think they would want me to treat them; those are important to recognize in order to see the difference between my thoughts and reality, but do not substitute for the information the other person provides. The next one is a bit tricky, since my own view can be skewed after surviving trauma. Obviously, I don't want to perpetuate the violence I have experienced, but I also need to be aware of my own post-traumatic stress reaction and how that can influence my actions towards others. Next, if I have poor self-image and/or self-worth, then I am liable to have poor self-care and tend to disregard my own needs and wants. Not only shouldn't I do that to myself, I certainly ought not treat anyone else that way. This ties in with shadow - which I understand to mean my unconscious and subconscious beliefs - and how it colours my interactions and decisions. These are often unaddressed, childish ways of seeing things. The same is true of projections, which are the ways I see those undesirable parts of myself in others. These trigger me so I do not think clearly and interfere with my ability to see others as they are.

Furthermore, it is improper for me to treat someone who differs from me as though they were the same. It is no benefit to ignore differences as though they were unimportant. These differences constitute each person as much as their name, and they are important pieces of identity for everyone. It is disrespectful to pretend that someone else is the same as me when they have different expectations for what constitutes propriety and morality. Likewise, if I treat someone with their ideal deference or obsequiousness, am I respecting my own needs? This notion does not sit well with some individuals I know.

Finally, a word on reciprocity. Acting in accordance with the Golden Rule likely means that I expect the attitude will be returned - that the other person will pick up on how I want to be treated and give that to me. Yet how can that be, since if each person was following the Golden Rule, then they would each be pushing their own expectations onto the other in order to get the message across? Contrariwise, if I stop treating the other person how I want to be treated in order to treat them how they want to be treated, then I am breaking the rule.

So is there another way? Can all parties give and get respect in a situation without this Golden Rule? Indeed, but it is not so trite or simple. There aren't shortcuts to this method, but it has a surety to it. It requires acknowledging ignorance, and then finding out for every person at each initial encounter. Raising the subject for each person involved requires an understanding and mutuality that can seem difficult. This difficulty is often because there is competition, an undercurrent ubiquitous and unacknowledged because it is so commonplace.The presence of competition leads to scarcity-based thinking. The expectation becomes that if one person is afforded respect, then another will lose out because there is only so much to go around. If one person gives, they lose out on getting; if a person is given to, then they will hoard and not reciprocate. Instead, the opposite is true: The more respect I give someone the more empowered they are to offer respect.

I recommend rejecting assumptions and instead asking, being brave enough to be seen as imperfect and willing to admit such. It is a great way to demonstrate humility and humanity.

An Exploration of Nonviolence

There are a few points I want to make here, but they all lead up to what is the main idea I had for this post. I will work to be brief with the preliminary items in order to get to the point.

First, I find it cumbersome to define or describe something by what it is not. This may be better labeled peacefulness or "peace-able-ness", but the traditional term Ahimsa may be best.

Next, this works with human nature, not despite it. Not to get into another discussion, but there are a number of incorrect assumptions built up around what constitutes "Human Nature". I will leave that for another time, as I want to get to the point.

Finally, as social beings we are inclined not just to relate, but also will respond to the suffering and needs of others.

Nonviolence requires the development of an effective means of self-defense. The peaceful practitioner must not only engage in not harming others, but also in preventing the violence of others. I'm not advocating some sort of pseudo-nonviolent militarism. If we accept that all life is precious and deserving of preservation, then we consider the 'victim' as well as the perpetrator and surrounding community. It is precisely because we feel the pain of others that we must prevent the perpetrator from committing their violent act. It is because our own injury or death at the hands of another human would continue to hurt those who care about us that we must prevent the violent act of the perpetrator. We cannot always do this with kind words and calm requests. There is not always time to relate, especially when the other is out-of-control (meaning not rational in the moment). Most perpetrators regret or repent their acts, given time, incentive, and opportunity to examine them. It is imperative that we avert the calamity and the near-perpetrator progress towards repentance. To accomplish this goal, we must have a way of incapacitating the perpetrator that is effective, but does not inflict undue violence (as this would make us a perpetrator in turn).

This also stipulates that the prevention of violence is always the 'highest good', and it would not serve a 'higher' cause to suffer or die instead.

Why We Work

I often hear people refer to the so-called "helping professions". I have a sense that this is disingenuous. Every job, every field, and every profession is about helping others. This may not be the expressed or intended purpose (since most businesses operate to make a profit), but helping others is what actually happens. I also believe this is what motivates most people to do their jobs, that inherent sense of reward. Customer service and nursing, banking and policing, teaching and trash collection are about serving and helping others. It may be that nobody wants to do that particular task or people are so specialized that they don't have time or knowledge to do the job; either way, the one who steps up to that role is helping others by doing so.

Proclamation

I have to start sometime, and it might as well be now. I am often right, but I keep my mouth shut and let others run the show. I don't speak up or tell people what I know and think because I'm afraid. I see the answers all the time, and can't keep silent anymore.

I have to start somewhere, and it might as well be here. There may not be many who agree with me, but the number who do seems to be growing. I don't reach out to them and say what I feel because I'm afraid. I see the need everywhere I turn, and can't stay silent anymore.

People are in pain. It needs to end. There are things we can do. It is time to start.

An Armed Society is A Violent Society

I have often heard the maxim that, "an armed society is a polite society." Most often I have heard this stated within a conversation about "solving the problem of crime" or lamenting the loss of "good, old-fashioned values". The reasoning goes something like this: more people having firearms means that those with ill intent would not feel they could get away with crimes. To me, this is reminiscent of the "Wild West" era in the United States; a time when firearms were readily available, poorly regulated (if at all), and, most importantly, worn openly. The image of the rough-and-ready "cowboy"/gunslinger, leather holster on hip, willing to draw on another man at any provocation is well known through movies and TV shows. Dramatised, certainly, but grounded in a reality of insecurity and competition. At that time people were actually defending their homes and lives from the threats of outlaw bandits, claim jumpers, and the Native peoples (who were still defending their own rights to the land, which is a tale for another time). These were real threats that no one else could defend these homesteaders and settlers from, they had to do it themselves. The conditions of the "Wild West" no longer obtain, however, and even then they were artificially heightened. Further, we now have trained and armed public servants policing our nation, investigating and preventing crimes. Just turn on your television and you're bound to come across a show involving one or more of these agencies. Their job is not as easy or glamorous as it's shown, but it still gets done. Most property battles are waged in courts now and death most often comes from greasy burgers and automobiles. This discussion is aside from the notion of "Justice". There is no claim by this author that the court system in the United States (or elsewhere) actually administers just and objective outcomes to citizens. This argument is oxymoronic (mostly moronic) in that what is being said is that the constant and pervasive threat of citizens carrying firearms and being responsible to use them to good ends is preferable. This is not an either/or, in that "either we have more guns for people or we will have more crime". This is because there is no correlation between prevalence of guns and crime deterrence.

This does, however, speak to the underlying belief as to the cause and motivation of crimes and those who perpetrate. It is a childish fantasy that their are "good people" and "bad people", and further that the "bad" ones can be deterred by something as silly as threat of violent retaliation. Thanks to researchers like Philip Zimbardo, we can understand better what actually instigates asocial behaviours and drives any individual to "criminal" intent. You really want to give every violently jealous lover, every self-righteous religious believer, and every minimally-competent, "freedom-loving" militia-wannabe-member access to firearms? Because I don't hear the N.R.A. placing any restrictions or competencies for ownership and those are the sorts that are most likely to want a gun in a hurry or "just in case". In my opinion, except for handguns being used by women against their abusive partners (the gun owners, most times) to end their cycle of violence, they have no business being in the hands of private citizens. Even then, there should be better solutions; certainly ones where victims need not go to jail.

In closing, if we take this argument to extremes it could go something like this: we decide on what is a punishable offence, and when that happens, all the nukes go off. Instead of having a gun, everyone can get "The Button", allowing them to stop any crime at any time with a simple press of the finger. The threat is so extreme that no one would dare hurt another individual, right? At least, it's true according to the theory expounded by "gun rights activists" that external control over people can alter their behaviour in all circumstances. In reality, more nuclear warheads have not a safer planet made. The threat of destruction by thermonuclear war is not healthy and has not lead to peace, just an ever-increasing level of posturing. Neither could the threat of bystanders holding "The Button" (or a gun) be a real deterrent. No threat of retaliation can bring reason back into an unreasonable situation.

An Expanded Letter To Gun Sellers

My father, uncles, brothers, and myself have all served in the armed forces. Outside of combat, there is no need or use for most guns. Even then only highly-trained and supervised individuals should be using these dangerous tools. Having assault weapons and high-capacity ammo clips available to anyone else is irresponsible profiteering at best and could be considered aiding terrorists in many ways. The moral thing is to stop all sales of anything other than single-shot, manual-action-bolt rifles used for hunting and legal sports. Simply hiding behind excuses of "there's no law against it" is cowardice and doesn't make a bit of difference to those shot and killed. What would be meaningful is to lead the way by demonstrating that human lives mean more than profits.

That is a message sent to legislative representatives, gun stores, and other retailers. Since I have a bit more space and leeway here, I thought I would expand on it. First, I trust that you know "assault weapon" here refers to automatic and semiautomatic firearms. These fire multiple rounds per second and, in order to maximise their potential damage, call for large "clips" of ammunition. The specification made above for a "manual-action-bolt" would force users to eject the shell and reload the chamber themselves for each shot. I recognise this goes beyond the calls for gun licensing and mandatory background checks, which seem to be the most strenuous and abundant of late. However, I acknowledge that all of these are just precautions to slow things down which offer the illusion of protection. I'm far more interested in solutions that address actual problems than messing about with superficial glossing-over or with appearing to do something. I'd much rather just do what needs done. I am going farther because I feel the only real protection is not having a threat at all.

Guns are a danger that we manufacture. Literally.

If we stop making them and destroy the ones that exist, that actually eliminates the threat. Yes, that is "extreme" and I'm comfortable with the notion. My point really is that all firearms are obsolete, the notion that we would need to shoot each other is a barbaric relic of our past. Of course, facing this requires that we address many other facets of our society such as socioeconomic inequality, ecologically-sustainable and equitable resource management, and the prison-industrial complex. Not popular this, as it's far too comfortable not to even acknowledge them. However, there is no single answer that will eliminate our societal ills. If we are going to make a difference, we need to get serious about how we take on these subjects and accept the hard work that making improvements entails. It's high time we did so.

A Discussion About Debate

I feel it's important to keep this subject in mind, especially during such emotional and challenging times as these. I am letting go of needing to be "right" or "bright": of finding the answer everyone should abide by or saying the witty, pithy thing everyone admires. I am stating my feelings here without expectation; I am stating here my desires without attachment. You choose to listen and/or hear just as you choose how to interpret my message. There is no goal I have in mind or ultimate "me" I need to become, only the pursuit of becoming more clear. In that pursuit, I want for us to talk about important subjects with the intensity in our hearts, with truth and reason in mind, and with compassion.

I am consciously not commenting on the many tragedies occurring right now, those that have been reported in the past couple weeks, or any potentially looming. I am focussed instead directly on the meta-conversation and meta-debate. I am drawn to the value-indeed, necessity-of holding and reminding ourselves to hold discussion of how and why we have discussion.

I, like you, have opinions. I feel things much as you do. I have wishes and dreams and believe you do also. I am imperfect, and think we are similar in this also. Most of all, I have questions. We are similar enough that I think you have questions as well. I even have a favorite question: "What Is It?" This is the shortened form, compressed and distilled into a purified reminder. It means to ask about reality, about what is true, and what is behind what we see. What moved behind, what motivated, what "caused" that which I see? It's my favorite both because I ask it all the time and because it covers so much of what I'm interested in.

Why am I sharing this and why should you bother reading it? Because I think it's the same question you are asking.

Why are we talking to others if not to understand? Why are we being open and vulnerable to one another if not to be understood? Recognise that we are all very similar and want similar things. By this I mean shelter, food, clothing, friends, a sense of fulfillment, a legacy, and fun. We are not so different that we cannot understand and be understood. We are not enemies that cannot coexist. We are not so alien we cannot communicate.

Therefore, in the interest of understanding and being understood, to realise the goal of knowing what is real, valuable, and true I ask you to commit to debate. We may be rivals, even opponents at times, but only to the extent we choose to be. Let us choose to value differences and allow for them. Let us acknowledge common needs and work together to meet them. Let us discuss with the intention of reaching the end together rather than separate.

Occupy Your Democracy

Okay, granted I'm a late arrival in commenting on the movement, but I've been an armchair cheerleader this whole time. I support all those out there, in various countries around the world, who are taking their time and energy to stand or sit against the 1%.  I am also writing to urge everyone to not lose focus or energy around this issue.  Real changes can only be realised if we keep pushing, even after they say we've won or that they can't give any more.  I look back at indentured servitude, slavery, serfdom, rule by divine mandate, physical or financial force and wonder what could arise from a real change in our system. Can we eliminate the inequality? Is it possible that we might only take back some of the ground we've lost in the past 30 years?  Either way, it would be better than leaving it in the same hands that have limited and controlled us all this time.

My suggestion in this case is that we "act as if" instead.  Rather than only getting those things that we are allowed by the "powers that be", we should create our own system and act it out.  If your business requires that you cover piercings and tattoos or wear a uniform, don't.  The 99% reaches down to management, it reaches down at least to the upper offices and echelons of large companies.  Don't fire those under you for stupid rules that even you don't agree with.  Take back your time.  Be more human and allow yourself to enjoy life free from the oppressive tyranny of work, work, work.  As long as the majority can agree on these things, we can implement the changes we desire!

Deep in the Heart of Dumb-ass

Recently there was a move by the Texas State Board of Education, just another day on the job; they are, however, trying to create a new generation that is better to their liking.

The Gift of Giving

There are very few valid reasons for anyone to have an excess of a commodity, basically only two: in order to give it to others or to save it in the short-term for a known or unknown need. This is true of any commodity, whether it be food a farmer grows or money a "philanthropist" has accumulated. Why do I say only these reasons? This is because any other rationale is an excuse for self-serving and unnecessary hoarding. What could be the broad, human benefit of holding on to things one does not need?  Whatever you just thought or actually said out loud, those are the selfish and short-sighted excuses I mean.  The system of capitalism encourages artificial scarcity and hoarding because it thrives on insecurity.  This has to do with the desire of business owners to have a workforce they can control and is another topic altogether.  There is no rational, valid reason for any to suffer when there are so many resources available; it is just that those who are able-and allowed-to keep more than their share want to leverage more power and status.  All this leads not just to suffering of those who do without those missing resources.  It is also that those hoarding the resources are doing without the joy of giving and providing to others, they are lacking that basic connection to those around them. 

Public Education v. Private Interests

There is a move by a fairly large group in the U.S. to privatise primary and secondary education, thereby making the ability to pay requisite for an adequate education.  This attack on public education follows on the heels of privitising other governmental functions such as the military, retirement, and utilities, all with consequences we have experienced.  The established order of the public education system is to provide this basic and necessary service to children without regard for ability to pay.  This has been our choice because being adequately educated is intrinsic to the ability of citizens to participate in a democracy.  It is untenable and undesirable for all to privatise this system and I include those trying to enact it.  Firstly, the promise of compulsory universal public education is to better not solely the individuals, but rather society at large by improving each participant's interactions and ability to contribute.  The goal being that as each member is elevated, we raise the collective society that much more: the sum is greater than its parts.  Secondly, having a minimum level of education  increases the satisfaction, self-worth, and capability of each citizen.  When people are educated they are (and feel) better prepared to discuss ideas and have opinions rather than trusting someone else's argument or spouting nonsense based in ignorance. It is a basic drive, as a social species, to relate to others and it should be rewarding and uniting to do so. Third, the argument that private education is better than public is nonsense.  The differences between the two are largely cosmetic and the "improvement" seen in private schools would be mirrored in public schools if some small changes were made there. Public schools are overwhelmed by the sheer number of students, often who have been unsupported at home and in the community.  Many of these children model behaviour which is counterproductive to their own needs and disruptive in the school environment. If corrections were made in these areas, public schools could be as "successful" as the private ones.  The secret motive behind the push to privatise is to further separate individuals and communities and this is the opposite of what we need.  Integrating with others and establishing cooperation are key components in overcoming many of the problems in society today.  If we begin to separate people more strongly into classes even earlier we will only strengthen the attitudes behind and problems with declining advancement.  I believe there are a few who are cognisant of these factors and are counting on these effects.  It is to the capitalistic benefit of the few to be able to easily manipulate and control the majority.  It is not, however, an improvement to their personal, spiritual, relational, or integral well-being.  For these reasons, I would stand with those who oppose all "voucher programs" and any such thing which undermines the promise of education for and improvement of all.  This means that "private schools" may want to watch their backs, I might have a post about them later.

Volunteers Needed, Inquire Within.

The funny thing is that volunteers often do better work, are more dedicated, and are willing to work harder even though they know they will receive absolutely no monetary compensation for their efforts. When there is an emergency, disaster, or just a need for many hands, volunteers are there. When great change is required, volunteers step up; all social movements have been driven by people that do not get paid. That means the most important events in our history from ending slavery to overthrowing dictatorial governments were all instigated and carried through by volunteers. This gives lie to the belief that extrinsic, monetary rewards are the best way to motivate people and improve results. Take that, capitalist model.