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.

The Invisible Fence

Every student in the U.S. is exposed to these phrases: "...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and "...with liberty and justice for all." Because we live within the confines of an established, artificial system, it makes sense that we must understand the limits of those constructs. However, there seems to be an increasing amount of disagreement about where to draw the line on liberty. Since this concept is central to the founding and existence of the U.S., who is it that decides what it means? There are numerous laws and legal interpretations, but no particular committee or public office devoted to exploring what liberty means as times—and technologies—change. Additionally, how do everyday people conceive of liberty? Do we understand it as static, or as something adaptable? Do we only think we are free because we are told that? Is it that we are surrounded by media and other influences which tell us that this is what "freedom" is and so we accept this? Are there natural limitations—or only artificial ones—in modern society? These are more than "academic" questions, removed from the mundane concerns of regular people. In fact, they are questions essential for every citizen to consider because they lay the foundation for all questions that come after. Our understanding of liberty sets the limits and expectations about all decisions and questions which follow. If one thinks that liberty extends only to here, then one has difficulty asking what lies over there. These are the beginnings of liberty: thinking there is something which I have that allows me to take action or something I lack that keeps me from taking action.

There is—once again—an interesting aspect to games which is pertinent here. In part, this is because games are also artificial systems. Any game establishes what is allowed or prohibited on the path to victory. These rules are the freedoms players are allowed within the game, but they also reflect the degree to which players give up doing other things which might benefit them. The only succor we may take is that every other player is also bound by the same rules. Additionally, there are the physical parameters to games, but then there are the "soft" limits which determine optimal strategies and "hacks","cheats", or "exploits", especially in video games. Knowing how to work within the game's confines, yet still make marginal advances over other players, can confer large gains over the course of play. This analogy for liberty in real life is especially pertinent in video games using progression, quests, or achievements. These are things which limit a player's development until met or confer advancement (or extra benefits) when completed. They can provide incentives to play certain ways or make particular choices when they are solely achievable through the methods a game maker decides. It then behooves us to ask "who made the rules to the game of 'real life'?" and what have they incentivized or prohibited?

The overall concern of this discussion regards infantilization and disempowerment. Infantilization is the process of keeping or reducing someone to a less active status, to make decisions for them, and/or hobble their development. This may seem like it creates a dependent who then requires care-taking, but is often done for power; either the feeling of having power over another or to add that person's power to theirs. To act on behalf of another confers the power of the other onto the action-taker. This is the basis for representatives in a "representative democracy": the power of those citizens is conferred to their elected official who acts on their behalf. However, it often seems less like representatives actually enact "the will of the people" but are utilizing their power to benefit themselves. It seems self-evident that everyday people will vote to give themselves more control, liberty, and power over their own lives, yet their representatives are often doing the opposite. Instead of having more freedom, more free time, and better education to make informed decisions and participate in their lives (including governmental decision-making), people in contemporary society are infantilized. We are told that people are selfish, ignorant (if not downright stupid), panicky, greedy beings and it is better they do not have too much freedom. It may be better if we challenge those assumptions and demand remedies instead of accepting such a disempowering message.

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.

Who is the Best Dog Walker?

You are.

That is the answer, although if you want to know why then you must read on. We can break down the modern system like this: I do not have enough time to walk my dog because I am away from home so much, therefore I need to spend even more time away in order to earn enough to pay someone else to do so. This is part of the endless cycle of consumption and depletion, as we spend our life turning time into money that is then used to buy things with that money which are supposed to save us time. While it may be good for the overall 'capital-e Economy', it does not actually fulfill the promise to participants of freeing them from the spiral into exhaustion and madness. It is the circular logic of needing to work in order to afford necessities, which leads to not having the time and energy for enjoyable activities, only needing to pay for increasing numbers of things; every decision leads deeper into the labyrinth of losing ones' life to working. If the COVID-19 Pandemic has demonstrated anything about our society, it is that there are numerous flaws in its expectations and applications. Many had an opportunity to step back from "the rat-race" and experience a life not dictated by the clock, a job, or other demands outside the home. Why do we spend time on things that do not matter to us in order to be "given" time to do those things which do matter? With news articles and dubious experts lamenting and commenting on the shift away from work and towards life, we can see some of those expectations changing. 

This raises the next question of why is time caring for others not valued? Here, we are reviewing some critiques leveled previously by feminists. Let us take an important example: raising children. Certainly, if we repeat the above example and substitute dog-walking with parenting, there is a clear malfunction in the system. The desire to have children is similarly from a menu of selfish motivations, the most popular being love. This loving motivation makes parents want to spend time with and care for their own children. Now we return to the original question in its new form: since a parent should have the time and resources to care for their own child, why is that not a societal expectation? Why is the parenting role (or job) looked down upon as less important than working for someone else? Why are children made into a burden on individuals when all children grow up and join the surrounding society, which collectively benefits from another generation of adults? Kahlil Gibran wrote, "Your children are not your children." He was elucidating the point that while parents care for children, they do so temporarily and with the goal of turning them loose on the rest of us. It seems obvious that even a selfish person would want those parents to do the best possible job of raising healthy humans. This ought to make some of those flaws in society referenced earlier stand out more clearly. Let us conclude by examining one last aspect of this maddening system. The question of why this is not apparent to everyone and discussed in public as with other important issues we face?

This is a byproduct of the pace of life under the consumerism model. Both because we are trained to think that fulfillment comes from buying things and simultaneously to believe that we are the only ones responsible for our own condition. Also, being exhausted does not lead to reflection in those brief moments between work, shopping, and recovery from those activities. This is why it was only during the pandemic that people could get more of an outsiders' view of these issues, when so many distractions were unavailable. Also, why so many were uncomfortable with the state of leisure, similar to those who retire and do not know what to do with their time away from work. We could say that our exhaustion is a feature and not a bug of the system. The question now becomes what to do with the realization that this model does not serve the majority of people.

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.

Business Problems Require Business Solutions

It is ironic that many in business nowadays quote the aphorism "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail", and yet fail to apply it to business itself. If one only thinks about businesses, then every problem can look like something a business could fix.

It seems common knowledge nowadays that we tend to stay within a "zone of comfort" and that what one knows determines what is possible. Let us establish, first, what these mean in everyday life, and, second, how they relate to the topic at hand. The phrase "getting outside your comfort zone" is easily understood. This is about how it takes effort to break away from our typical pattern and feels risky, with the result of staying comfortable unless pushed out of that zone. We generally stick with a few standard skills or plans to overcome challenges, and struggle when those fail us. Next, what we think of as possible is dictated by the knowledge we have available. For instance, if I am ignorant of rechargeable batteries, then I will think they can only be replaced. It will not be possible for me to consider charging them again, because it is outside what I know. Therefore, it is easiest to stay inside of a comfort zone and be blind to information extraneous to one's usual activities. Our interests and education are additionally bound by the hard limit of time available each day. In the business world, there are many artificial skills necessary for success: laws and specialized regulations concerning each industry, best practices and tips from colleagues, as well as general workplace standards and culture. These things set the parameters for the business world, establishing what is possible and where people are comfortable operating. Finally, so much time is consumed by the functions of working that there is little opportunity for exploration. Being good at business and focusing on building one's skill in business naturally results in other areas of life not being as developed. Additionally, succeeding in business drives folks to stay within their successful areas, where they earn their status and self-esteem. Once this goes on for long enough, it may seem business should be the focus of everyone. Indeed, when the majority of socialization comes from the workplace, and even in off-work hours one is listening to business news and learning more about business through reading or schooling, then so much of life revolves around the activity it would be no wonder someone would think business is all-important.

However, there are problems in looking at the world through a business lens. One is simply that business remains an artificial pursuit. Spending so much time in this artificial environment, pursuing artificial demands to artificial ends, takes away the context and connection to what is real. People focused on business can lose connection and compassion for others. An example is distancing and downplaying impacts by referring to them as abstract concepts, such as when insurance companies describe amputating the wrong limb as a "medical misadventure". Another relates to areas of life which are counter to business practices. Frankly, medicine is one such area; medical decisions are not for financial gain or profitability. This is partly due to considerations about quality of life, as there are few objective measures to cover that. Additionally, an emergency is not the time to be considering money issues. Not just because it is such an emotional situation, but also that extraneous concerns can interfere with necessary treatment decision-making. Returning to the subject of a business mindset being problematic, we can recognize that business is a hierarchical practice. This means that it does not lead to egalitarian or democratic thinking, which is antithetical to much of our social and governmental aspirations. The tendencies of those in business to only consider certain viewpoints and respond more positively to higher-status individuals illustrates why. These are three of the most prominent examples, and should already demonstrate why it is important to recognize the limitations and dangers of this type of thinking.

The Future is Waiting, Part Three: Fulfills its Promise

     We have arrived at the real issue at hand: what makes systems non-democratic is not the monarch, nor slavery, nor a state religion, nor even disenfranchisement. Those are merely outgrowths of the underlying cause. Rather, the reason they are non-democratic is commoners being kept artificially disempowered by a ‘ruling class’ in order to perpetuate the hierarchical structure that benefits the few at the expense of the many. This can take many forms, and gets re-invented with every iteration of government and economic system. When we citizens are barely involved and have our concerns disregarded until we have ‘enough’ polling numbers or news coverage, that is non-democratic. When only elite individuals and corporations have the ears of legislators, judges, and the executive, that is non-democratic. When income and earning decides the value of a person (especially to the extent that they will be seen as ‘worth saving’ or mourning), that is non-democratic. We are left with the disappointing conclusion that what exists in the U.S. is not—and never has been—a democracy, which can be described as a system designed to be run by its citizenry. We are simply living in a system which disguises the continued oligarchy (or plutocracy) that actually guides the government and therefore the nation. This is far from a democracy; it may be an outgrowth of capitalism, but has naught to do with bettering everyone in the nation by banding together as a society. Democracy is the rule of all for the benefit of all; in the U.S., a “…government of the people, by the people, and for the people….” Again, it doesn’t matter whether the system is called capitalist, socialist, democratic, communist, or otherwise, what matters are the underlying assumptions and principles of the society betrayed by the laws and practices of that society. In the ongoing structure of the U.S., we can see how the foundational beliefs of expansion, conquest, and supremacy have continued in the unwillingness to discuss racism and treaties signed with native peoples, the ongoing resistance to action and legislation on equality (let alone equity), the lack of accountability of elected officials to citizens, and the continued extraction of resources from land and people by business to the detriment of society. We do not have a mindset of democracy-in-action; there is not a basis of mutual respect and willingness to work together which is required of citizens who wish to conduct the administration of their community.
     In order for any change to happen, it must first seem possible. So many people seem to believe that history is over, and that things are set. Similarly, some believe that there is an inexorable march towards “progress” and advancements cannot be lost. Neither is true. This is because we have not “arrived” at some “pinnacle of civilization”, nor are we “done” changing. This is a problem with thinking of society and history as an “evolution” and erroneously thinking of evolution as some “ascension” to an end goal. It is further ridiculous to enshrine the “founding fathers” as some apex of learning and thinking. They were men of their time, and wholly human; flawed and pursuing their interests while blind to the needs of many others. This does not make them bad for their efforts, simply not of a time when they could conceive of actual equality for all citizens. It is absurd, therefore, to dismiss all we have learned since the founding of the country which indicate improvements to be made. In democracy, the government is meant to be the structure which enacts the decisions of the populace to support the continued advancement of the nation as a whole. Sometimes that can mean a radical departure from the original course. Recognize that, if we had held to those original agreements, a significant majority of current citizens of this country would not be considered as such, rather they would be seen as property. We are better than that, both in morality and in knowledge. In truth, the purpose in building something is often in order to bring the next possibility into existence. For example, wooden frames are constructed in order to provide support for the concrete poured into the form. Once the concrete sets, it creates the foundation for the house which is the end goal of all the effort. Those wooden forms are as essential to the process as the finished product, as the foundation could not exist but for those forms. Similarly, one would not consider a plan or blueprint as frivolous. Without a blueprint, we cannot know how to build the structure we seek to inhabit. Just because the plan is not the structure does not mean it is unnecessary. The current iteration of democracy is simply meant to be the form which holds the space for what will be built on top, the next step in our construction project. This essay is an invitation to discuss what we want this next structure to look like. It requires input from everyone to come up with the plan to build a structure such as a democratic government. I submit that the real democratic revolution is about to begin and that the past 250 years have been but the preamble. This revolution of thinking is not just to do away with the few ‘elites’ owning and ruling, since that is not the real issue. It is to establish that each and every commoner is just as valuable a human being as any ruler. Really, that there is nothing special or unique about an emperor, president, judge, or CEO that most others could not fill the same function—given similar opportunities and education.
     Currently, rather than every citizen having an equal voice, people are silenced, marginalized, or preoccupied so they cannot fully participate in decision-making. A participating citizen requires time and education to understand and debate the matters which require governance; without those foundations, a citizen is unprepared and disadvantaged. This is because along with the rights of citizens, there are also responsibilities which accompany democracy, such as acting in good faith and being informed. This is the unfulfilled promise of compulsory education: to provide the skills and knowledge which enable citizens to participate fully. No person (even a legislator whose job is literally to evaluate, negotiate, and enact laws) can possibly do so; without these basics, there is no “informed citizenry”. Even if it were true that some people lacked the skill, knowledge, capacity, etc. currently, it would still be the duty of every person “in power” to help create a system that worked for and included a pathway for such folks to achieve capacity. Living in a society pre-supposes a willingness to be among people who are different than myself (since we are, all of us, unique), as much as recognize what we share in common. Further, in a democracy, it is necessary to accept differences and to work with others to make the community a healthy place for all. This is where mutual respect, compromise, and good faith negotiation are important. This is a suitable introduction of another tenet of democracy, whereby citizens are obligated to participate in the system of governance—not just be subjects. This is as much right as it is responsibility, as much burden as privilege. It is presumed to be the role of citizens, acting in accord, creating consensus, and using their collective agreements to make the laws and enact the will of those same citizens. These cannot be taken lightly, nor from a position of supplication or ignorance. A citizen who does not know how to debate, reconcile, compromise, accept new information, and respect another’s opinion and experience is not in a good position. Finally, we must allow for the sheer time that it requires to participate and debate the issues of our communities. Being forced to work just to earn enough to survive is an absurdity in the modern world. To do so without any guarantee of survival when unable to work is madness. It is this repugnant treadmill which traps people in poverty and despair, eliminating even their children’s chance at improvement. This modern slavery is even experienced by citizens who consider themselves to be “doing ok”—only because this means they can remain in place with less effort than some. It does not mean they have time to spend with family, or improve themselves, and certainly not taking time to participate in community affairs. These issues, along with other obstacles to participation, need to be addressed in order to secure our democracy and create a more powerful citizenry.
     With that in mind, I wish to recognize a few impediments, and acknowledge some facts about power and oppression. It often happens that whenever an oppressed people rise to power, there is a tendency toward retribution. Even without eliminating former oppressors, the ascending group will tend to re-institute a system of oppression, just with the “sides” swapped. Abuse of power does not require villainy, or even ill intent; it can come from a belief that there are persons or groups who are incapable of change or meaningful contribution. However, when people become convinced of such differences, and especially the in-humanity of another group, serious evil can be incited. It can be as simple as “I’m just looking out for me and mine”; this basis of selfishness directs systems towards an imbalanced outcome. It is about controlling the uncontrollable; the notion that the only way I can create safety for myself and my family is by outlawing or owning all potential threats. This inevitably impacts those outside the deciding group, since those peoples’ concerns are not heard or accounted for in the decisions. In order to prevent yet another iteration of oligarchy and oppression, we must act with conscious intent and radical acceptance. The democracy created must have a different basis in order to accomplish this shift away from historical oppressions. A true democracy most likely will need to be imposed upon those currently holding power, as those in control are often loathe to relinquish it—but this must also be done with central beliefs in the worth of each individual and the benefits of including all. Otherwise, there can be no democracy with equality and power for all citizens. We need to be able to make things happen, and can only do that if we are able to talk with each other. It is, after all, the object of community to have conversations and find answers together.
     In saying all the previous, I am pointing out one simple fact: we have tried every iteration of hierarchical structure possible. Every attempt throughout history has a vulnerability to those seeking power in order to consolidate and structure things such that they remain in power. This can be seen in monarchies, monopolies, and disenfranchisement; each concentrates power, and—once concentrated—that power is doled out as pleases those who demanded no one else have it. The issue is less the tendency to organize into hierarchy, but rather the idea that some persons are more suited to rule (or be ruled). This is the fundamental notion which gives rise to many problems we face. Even before the modern concept of “races” of humans existed, there were those considered above and others below. Likewise, in systems of trade before money, there were people considered of a ‘higher class’ than others. These hierarchical notions do not rely on capitalist oppression or racist doctrines to exist, they simply fit in more easily within these constructs. Obviously, a monarch is seen as “better than” commoners; we discussed how this was the argument made for why they were meant for rule. That is the self-evident example which, by abolishing “titles of nobility” we fooled ourselves into thinking we had solved this underlying problem. However, the insidious notion that some are better than others has persisted and continues to disrupt our societies and retard progress. It is time to try out something which is actually different, because no hierarchy has ever brought “liberty and justice for all”. This idea that a ruler had something special and uniquely different about them infects most thinking about ‘rule’ and government. It is this infection that a real democracy would address. In order to achieve actual independence, a lasting justice, and a true democracy, it requires a fundamental shift in thinking about power and each other. It is first by acknowledging this infection as the driving force behind many of our problems that we can discuss ways to correct it. We must stop the cycling of shame, whereby some must be ‘other’ and ‘lesser’ so that others can claim or believe themselves “better-than”. It is imperative that we accept that we are all fundamentally similar with exactly the same worth in our common society. We must also accept the responsibility of our power, individually and collectively; this means to claim our status as valued and respected members of society, as well as demanding that we have the capacity (i.e. time and money) to participate in our government. Once we establish the expectation that each person has a valid perspective and none of us will be sacrificed for the rest will we be able to act in ways different than our history. Only when all citizens truly are equal will we have succeeded in finally overcoming this fundamental obstacle. It is only by distributing power, as in a true democracy, that power cannot become a weapon used by some against the rest.

 

Edit October 2022: for a more scholarly look at this topic see Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It by Lawrence Lessig.

The Future is Waiting, Part Two: the Mythology of Democracy in America

     Once more—for clarity and to ensure we are working from compatible understandings of current systems—let us quickly outline contemporary “democracy”. This will allow us to contrast our circumstances with those historical examples of non-democracy we established above. I will assert that, as with individuals, it is much easier for societies and nations to point to the shortcomings or wrongdoings of others than to admit their own faults. The U.S. often looks out at the rest of the world and says “there is despotism, there is repression, and there is where inequality resides”—even when such abuses at home are evident. I hope that the desire to accurately understand things will overcome this tendency. Also, although I will be using examples from the U.S., I invite you to think of your own which mirror the points outlined here. We previously discussed how non-democratic systems were variations of ‘rule from above with impunity’. The fundamental aspects of democracy are that every person matters equally and the power of governance is shared; that all citizens are able to be heard and participate in the decisions of the community. In this context, “community” means neighborhood, town, county, state, and nation; all public (meaning “not privately held”) areas are subject to the rule of that community. The trouble is that for any discussion to be productive, there need to be parties willing to hear others and accept their own power and responsibility in the issue under debate. What is currently typical is people screaming about their own pain or fear. That is one of the difficulties we face, which stems from the very state of being human, that we must work to communicate and to listen to understand others. It takes time to hear from someone else, and it takes effort on the listener’s part to understand what is said, along with the speaker’s need to know they have been heard. All this work is supposed to be part of the democratic system: to hear the concerns of citizens, to study issues brought to the attention of elected government representatives, and debate the best course of action in order to address said concerns. These truths are expressed in sentiments such as: the government is “subject to the will of the people”, “one person, one vote”, and “liberty and justice for all”. Most modern “democracies” have done away with rulers by dividing the powers of government between different assemblies and persons. In the U.S., there are 3 major sections (often called “branches”) of government: the legislative makes laws, the judicial interprets laws, and the executive enforces laws. It is also common to have a “representative democracy”; this means that rather than directly participating in the particulars of government, citizens elect representatives to deal on their behalf. This allows citizens to go about their personal interests, rather than be consumed by governmental administration: committees, appointing positions, writing bills, oversight, diplomacy, and debating issues. This basic outline leads to a few questions which can demonstrate the current state of “democracy”. These are: why do representatives make particular decisions, how are laws applied, and in what ways are citizens involved?
     It is important to recognize that anytime one person represents another, or a group, that representative has a tremendous responsibility and obligation. This is the reason attorneys require contracts with clients, as well as why there are such serious consequences for malpractice. While it has never been the case that government simply enacts citizens’ wishes (the “will of the people”), we can assume it is partly due to the difficultly of knowing what that really is. Representatives have typically relied upon citizen engagement; this means people caring enough about something to voice their opinions on the topic. In modern terms, it is more of an “opt-in” system than “opt-out”, meaning that as long as there is little objection from citizens, everything is presumed to be acceptable. If it were the opposite, representatives would need to account for each constituent and build consensus which included all. Given the sheer number of both issues and citizens in modern times, we can see that it is quicker and simpler to rely on public outcry. However, it is non-democratic to bring up an issue to representatives and walk away; to hand over to an official the entire process, whereby they will “take care of it” for citizens. This is both because it removes citizen input from the solution, as well as their oversight. Also, while a larger group has more influence and obviously represents a greater number of citizens, it does not mean that minority opinions are invalidated, which highlights the notion of each citizen counting equally. Yet this is the way it is treated currently, whereby the simple majority of folks agreeing to something is taken to mean it will work for everyone. This is patently absurd, as evidenced by disenfranchisement, slavery, and criminalizing gender/sexuality. These all had supposed “majority support”, yet remain morally abhorrent and civilly untenable—aside from being obvious tactics to subjugate groups and prevent equality. Returning to the question of representatives’ decision-making, the complexity of modern systems compel representatives to rely upon subject-matter experts in issues of governance (i.e. taxes, electrical grids, or mining). When there are an equal number of opponents and supporters, it can come down to which group has experts on their side. This can easily lead to business interests steering the debate, and thus policy, related to areas they work in; especially when all the experts on the subject work for a private company. Let us take a step back from this in order to address how representatives get elected in the first place. Those who run for office must be financed in some way, as it takes money to campaign in an election. Once again, this process relies upon interested parties; at least in this case, every citizen is interested. It should be then, according to our understanding of democracy, that every citizen’s opinion and vote will count equally in an election. However, while a citizen is typically only going to vote for and contribute to one candidate for any position, a company is not so limited. While times have changed, and Tammany Hall is no longer ascendant, the manipulation of public sentiment has not been done away with. While most are familiar with a “smear campaign”, whereby a candidate is painted as undesirable or unfit for office, the growth of social media provides a new canvas. The erosion of healthy media and competent journalists and growth of “alternative media” has lead to regular citizens preferring to trust information from their “friends”. This has fed into the tendency to rely on social media platforms—despite the growing recognition of fake accounts and bot farms which propagate false and/or misleading information. Much of what has been learned about psychology is used against citizens, such as disinformation, game theory, investment thinking, and in-group/out-group biases. Rather than buying votes, non-person entities can simply spend money to drive fear campaigns which swing voters. It is not even that people have to switch sides and vote for what that entity wants, it can simply be dissuading voters from participating, creating uncertainty where there was clarity, or clouding the results after voting concludes. It cannot be the case where each vote is counted equally, when influence, advertisements, propaganda, disinformation, and search/suggestion algorithms are all exerting undue influence on the minds of citizens. Let us complete our brief overview of the election process. The simplest way for a candidate to run for an office is to join a political party, as those have the expertise in fund-raising and advertising for campaigns. In recent years the process of elections are treated less as a way of representing communities and their interests than they are seen as a contest between parties. This leads to careful grooming of candidates in order to present their “most likely to succeed”. These will typically be a person from an accepted/majority group, and therefore not connected to those already under-represented. Representatives need never serve in public office again, as donors can certainly profit from a single-term investment—as that official will have a bright future in the private sector upon leaving office. This is a common enough occurrence that people will refer to the “revolving door of public service”: the process of persons achieving public offices and utilizing that station to make decisions favorable to private businesses, then returning to their service in those businesses after leaving office. Another component is that of lobbyists (sometimes those same ‘revolving door’ individuals) whose political experience and familiarity with law-makers allow them greater access to steer representatives towards stances favorable to business. These ideas do not come from the communities they impact, from the citizens who live there, or those elected representatives; they certainly do not reflect a benefit to those communities—despite businesses’ constant claims that they will. Look to the ongoing water crisis in Michigan (and increasingly elsewhere) or mining industry disasters (Exxon Valdez, Rio Tinto, fracking, or Deepwater Horizon) in order to understand how government lobbyists lead to worse conditions for communities. Additionally, this illustrates the ability for the process to silence or marginalize citizens’ voices. It is remarkably difficult to meet and talk with representatives, and more difficult still to appeal to that official in a manner equal to that of a lobbyist. The goal of politics in a democracy is to resolve complex, difficult issues in order to serve society and citizens. There is precious little of this in the past few decades, with politicians preferring to make grand-standing declarations from absolutist positions before walking away from debate and resolution.
    Next, let us address the question of how law is applied by the judicial section of government. Whereas in non-democratic systems there was one rule for the commoners and a different set for the aristocracy, democracy is supposed to apply the same laws in the same ways to all. The judiciary is meant to be “objective” in making decisions about what the laws mean in specific instances.The clearest demonstration of judicial partiality comes from implicit bias tests, although citizens can see the real-world results of different judicial outcomes based upon skin color just by the percentage of incarcerated people of color. Even if the “impartial” ideal were met, it is a system with its own language, paperwork nearly inaccessible and incomprehensible to laypersons, rife with counter-intuitive traps, and subject to obscure previous rulings. The adversarial legal system may allow for spirited debate, but it becomes simply another game of “winner-take-all” based upon who can afford the better attorney. Given the disproportionate distribution of money in the country, it seems self-evident that there can be no “blind justice”. Even given attorneys of equal talent, a public defender (guaranteed by a relatively recent ruling on the 6th Amendment) is overworked, underpaid, and understaffed, as well as facing the difficult task of convincing a biased judge who wants to keep their position in the next election and therefore cannot appear “weak on crime”. The number of forced plea deals and persons wrongly convicted further demonstrates the lack of equality and justice in our legal system; it hints at the central issue with this section of government: that the application of law is about something other than legal protection of citizens. The “corporate citizen” argument is a common one throughout modern history—even outside the legal system. This notion is often invoked when companies argue for concessions from local governments; it is claimed that as an “upstanding, caring, and neighborly corporate citizen”, the company will obviously do all it can to benefit the community once it establishes an office, plant, or hub there. Again, look to the examples in the previous section, or Nike, De Beers, Apple, and countless other companies which utilize slave labor under euphemisms like “sweatshops”. The logical end to the legal fiction of “corporate citizen” is that their “right of free speech and expression should not be infringed upon”; this leads to companies “expressing” politically via money. One recent example of how the judiciary impacts citizens’ voices and ability to participate is the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruling in Citizens United v FEC. This was decided in such a way that allows for unlimited political contributions by corporations, obviously placing the general populace at a significant disadvantage.
    Finally, let us sum up the answers to the question of how citizens are involved in this government “of, by, and for the people”. Representatives are elected, by a plurality vote, to work towards the interests of their constituents. If elections are the major time each citizen ‘counts’, then it is indeed vital. I will submit that it is incorrect to relegate citizens’ roles in government to simply that of “voter”. Returning to the matter of elections, the choice of candidates is pre-selected via a “party” process. This demands wide recognition and broad acceptance, leading to the possibility to get enough votes to succeed. Citizens’ opinions are shaped by what they learn from trusted sources, which become heavily influenced by business interests during an election (and, increasingly, outside those brief periods). Once in office, representatives are meant to listen to citizens’ needs and act on them. However, there is no mechanism to compile all citizens’ voices, or for representatives to demonstrate they align with constituents. The decision can come down to who seems to make the most impact on that representative (which can simply mean money) or upon the media (meaning their chance for re-election or removal). This leads to the judicial branch, whereby citizens petition to sanction a representative, remedy some error on the part of the legislature, or make a change that could not be passed into law. Think of the numerous court cases brought to challenge Jim Crow laws and then to force Civil Rights legislation into reality. These judicial actions were always costly and never guaranteed to bring the results that citizens wanted—or even what the laws required. These battles can be with non-person entities afforded the same protections as citizens, without the same limitations and with immensely greater resources. Often, these cases would rely upon media attention to raise citizen awareness of a great injustice. While media is (mostly) outside the government, and so outside the scope of this essay, it certainly demonstrates the need for the public to be accurately informed about issues, especially ones they have no direct experience with. This summary obviously does not include the final component to government, which is the executive. This is because there is little for citizens to do about this single individual besides removal from office. The executive is essentially a “manager” in charge of the administration of laws and government; do not mistake me as calling it trivial, just that there is little influence citizens have in this area except through their representatives or judiciary.
    We can conclude that answer to the above questions about the function of government officials is to maintain power; whether a representative seeks re-election or a private business position, or a judge affirms a decision to maintain “separate but equal” facilities, these functionaries are protecting power. That this is true in particular cases or in general is immaterial, because it is a conclusion we can make based upon the facts of the situation. If it were impossible to make this connection, we could be assured that the government was operating under the will of the people and democratically. I contend that these simple examples demonstrate how democracy is lacking from government and how much is still under the control of a small group of individuals. This leads into the final section of this essay, and the conclusions which we can draw from the information we have outlined.

 

Edit October 2022: for greater examination of historical information, see Why the West Rules—For Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future, by Ian Morris.

The First Rule of Power

This is quite a simple one, almost deceptively so. There is a truth which determines the nature of actions taken by individuals of all types, in any arena, and whether the goal is subjugation or community. The foundation is this: the first rule of power is to keep that power. Before rewarding loyalty, before enjoying the conquest, even before resting after an exhausting battle, this must be done. The first actions upon obtaining power must be to hang onto that power, or else all the effort will have been for naught. This can be seen in any number of fields, with numerous examples. It is the reason dictators eliminate potential rivals, sometimes the very moment their coup succeeds. It is the impetus for monopoly companies working to get laws in place to prevent competition or solidify their place in the market. It is also why the first to establish a new profession set criteria for admissions to the profession. It does not seem to matter whether the intention is beneficent or malignant, because even the most magnanimous king has to maintain rule in order to do good works. Any threat to the king's rule must be eliminated, lest a harmful king gain the throne. This is true, and must be true, as long as power is concentrated. This rule only becomes unnecessary when power is distributed among all. Once the "king" cannot be replaced, because it is every person, there is no threat of being overthrown. This applies to ideas as well, I contend. It is not just the person who is king, but the very idea of "king"; the notion that there is-or needs to be-such a thing. As long as the idea of "supreme ruler" is dominant, any other idea about how government can be done must be quashed in order to protect that idea. If this were not done, and continually renewed, then other ideas could creep in to subvert the hold that ruler has on the citizenry.

Servant's Industry

There is an acknowledgement of the shift from a previous economic base of manufacture and innovation to one of services and personal attention. This has been going on for decades, and is a byproduct of the globalization of trade and business. What it essentially means here in the United States is that workers no longer have a solid employment future at a company that makes goods because of the need for those goods. People are instead increasingly at jobs which perform services for others. These jobs regularly place individuals into lower-status and lower-power positions related to those they service or serve. The categories are huge, from hospitality, caring, and leisure, to financial, education, and sales. These include numerous specific titles: clerk, teller, waitstaff, nurse, consultant, cook, painter, instructor, manager, sitter, mechanic, driver, therapist, technician, and on ad astra. Included are food service, personal assistant/shopper, driver (chauffeur or taxi), host, and performer. Here "performer" includes not only actor, artist, athlete/competitor, or musician, but also buskers, content creators (YouTube or otherwise), and sex workers. This last group is no longer restricted to in-person services or pre-recorded videos, but nowadays includes "camera models" who can interact with online audiences through chat features. It is also this last group which I think best illustrates the issues I find with this trend. It is not about the commonplace argument about loss of talent, as I think many individuals could be incentivized into a manufacture trade if that were necessary. After all, all the folks in these jobs are skilled, often talented, and intelligent workers. It is actually about status and power, the ability of professionals to maintain autonomy and pursue advancement, and an overall stability for the economy.

In many ways, the move to "independent contractors" was not driven by employees seeking to expand their freedom and escape the confines of employers, but was a move on the part of employers to escape the confines of legal requirements around employment. Rather than pay one full-time person a guaranteed wage and minimum hours, providing benefits like holidays (or other paid time off) and medical insurance, it turns out to be cheaper to pay just a wage more workers to do the same work in a part-time capacity without all the other requirements. This has lead to not only a decrease in the number of individuals who can afford to live, but an increase in the costs to communities as those workers must find public services to offset the lost benefits. Similarly, the supposed "disruptive technologies" around sharing apps are advertised as an 'opportunity' for workers; they end up being just another way for the few to exploit the many. Much of this is what has been called the "gig economy", where a worker will not have a single job but cobbles together a living out of multiple "gigs".

Supposedly individuals more directly 'own' their work (or effort and skills) and are empowered to sell it to business owners in the 'free market'. Claiming that 'independent contractors' are in a better position than an employee, I think misses a few points. These workers are not subject to the protections employees are, and are desperate enough to jump into something-even if it's as risky as a pyramid scheme (Multi-Level Marketing, or MLM). Being ignorant of the practices and standards of a profession they are only in as a "side hustle", they don't know the history of folks who have worked in the field which led to the protections these self-proclaimed "disruptors" are side-stepping. Not that taxi driving is glamorous-nor is it the road to riches-but it is an established profession with understood guidelines and protections. Those are all the results of years of struggle by drivers to obtain the bare minimum of legal recognition and safety regulation. This cycle is played out in various fields in diverse ways, all summed up in the same manner: eliminate security for workers and increase benefit to owners.

How to Ruin Any Game in One Easy Step

I have played games since I was a child (before we had to specify "tabletop"), and am thrilled to enjoy the variety of games that are available these days. After years of playing casual as well as competitive games in various settings, I have noticed one trend. Being something I considered disappointing, I began thinking about this trend and have come to believe it illustrates a larger pattern. You may recognize this once I describe it, as I consider it to be quite commonplace. The effect is that which a 'rules lawyer' has on a game. A 'rules lawyer' (RL for this post) is an individual who spends time getting to know the rules of a game with the intent of being better-versed than other players and using that knowledge to exploit lesser-known aspects of the game or make arguments to their favor. Usually, the game will involve complexity or advanced strategy in addition to aspects of chance. Rules are, in one regard, just another aspect of the game that every player can access. They are readily available and essentially in place to keep things fair by eliminating confusion, imposing limitations, and level the playing field. However, most people just want to play, not 'waste' time with an intimate understanding of the rules. After all, the point of a game is to play, not sit around reading how to play. They get a 'good enough' sense of how to play and then set off to have fun. Instead, what often follows is everyone playing around the RL and trying to not get caught in some minute detail. If the game has a "master" or impartial arbiter, then the RL spends time using the rules to convince that person to decide in their favor. The RL will allow other players to make mistakes, then point out the error and declare a penalty; this can also lead to players resenting or fearing the rules being used against them. RL's will spend time haggling and protesting until others simply give up, also setting a tone for the rest of the game. The RL does not need to be successful-or win-in order to alter the course of the game; just the constant threat of their antics is enough to change the mood and decisions of other players. Rather than playing the game for enjoyment, everyone else is left playing around one person; this is because if they do not counter the RL, they stand no chance of continuing to play. Once this process has started, there is no 'legal' way to change it; after all, the RL is "just playing by the rules". It is also a challenge to object because a RL is not entirely a bad faith actor. It is not that a RL seeks to stop the game, prevent others from playing, or derail the game into pointlessness. The RL is usually playing to win, even if that is accomplished by every other player quitting in disgust. Again, this is contrary to what most people see as the spirit of competition, or "sportsmanship". There is no rule that says which ways of playing are acceptable, and it isn't contained in any rule-book. It is just generally understood that games are for enjoyment, and that anything which diminishes players' fun is discouraged. In a low-stakes, relaxed setting wherein people are just together to have a good time, this is merely a nuisance. My proposition is that the same pattern plays out in other areas of life, with significantly more serious consequences.

Indeed, if we take the above examples and apply them to actual lawyers, we can find similar situations. An attorney-at-law will study the 'rules of the game' (laws, administrative rules, legal precedents, etc.) and interpret them to persuade judges. These legal rulings determine how things work in the real world and reflect what is considered "just".  However, lawyers are not hired to pursue justice, but to get the result the client wants. These legalistic opportunists seek to exploit every angle and loophole in order to win. In doing so, they leave no room for actual justice, arguments for virtue, or humanity. After all, the "justice system" is intended to strip away the human, emotional component in order to arrive some dispassionate and objective ruling. It was meant to eliminate the arbitrary and biased system of personal favor and "keeping people in their place". This is where the examples from above begin to sneak in, because those same RL tendencies to bend the rules towards personal goals are what have crept back into the legal system. Just the same as in the above RL examples, it is all there, in black and white, they are "just playing by the rules". Just as above, even if it is a minority of 'players' using the RL approach, it begins to change the way the 'game' is played for everyone. I recognize this can sound harsh, and I am using this tone in order to convey how harmful I see this approach as being. It is not to disparage the professionals who work within the system designed in this flawed manner. The criticism is that some number of actual attorneys are willing to take the RL approach, and this serious flaw has been allowed to warp the legal landscape.

There is no "level playing field" when a minority of the players start out with an intent to play the game to crush the will of other players rather than adhere to the "spirit" of the game. Because, truly, there is no way to demonstrate-clearly and ineluctably-that supposed "spirit". Finally, it is an irony that laws are the rules of our "justice system", yet even they cannot determine what constitutes justice.

Back to Branding Cattle

I recently learned about Edward Bernays and how he changed the way advertising is done. The basis for his work was that of his uncle, Sigmund Freud. In case you are unaware, here are a couple facts: Bernays instigated the field of 'public relations' (around the time of the first world war) and later wrote a book called The Engineering of Consent. Similar to how the weaponization of racism by the Republican Party in the mid-1960's represented a fundamental change in politics, so did the introduction of propaganda at home alter everyday life. Rather than advertising a product on its merits (or outright lying), Bernays used techniques to manipulate consumers in subtle and gross ways. Rather than a factual, rational basis for buying a product, the intent was to introduce an emotional, non-conscious desire for something (or what the object represented: freedom, power, etc.). A common example is hiring attractive women to smoke cigarettes in public so as to reduce social stigma in order to sell cigarettes to the other half of the population. It is commonplace for "celebrities" to endorse a product in order to lure customers, with the most recent version being social media "influencers". The very label is indicative of the crass nature of the field, and a blatant (if unheeded) warning to individuals about what they are consuming. In recent years, there has been much made of 'building brands', discussions of what a 'brand' means, and how 'branding' builds customer loyalty. This can be seen in advertising slogans and campaigns going back decades, telling us we are part of something when we make the choice to buy one product over another (sodas or cars). All of this is actually just refinements on the original use of psychological discoveries to lure consumers and keep them "loyal", which is to say "spending their money with us instead of elsewhere". This is the basic concept of advertising: to turn individuals into consumers (a commodity to be drained of capital).

 

Now we return to the subject hinted at above, since this all seems to me related to the idea of "race". This notion of "race" was initially used to differentiate groups of people based on appearance and eventually to justify slavery. The seductive excuse of 'superior' and 'inferior' races, for instance: ones which possessed inherent traits that determined whether they were capable of reason or not. For a quick explanation of this, I highly recommend this TED talk. To this day, the discussion of race bears the mark of this origin; just by using the term, we are framing our conversation around an imaginary, outmoded idea of differences which do not truly exist. While advertising and "race" may not seem immediately related, allow me to conjecture a link. Bernays' version of ads are about utilizing psychological understanding in order to manipulate consumers and drive behaviors. The explicit goal is to collect more money; the underlying goal is to trap consumers in a system whereby their primary drives are used to steer them into choices, in other words: to exert control. Can the same be said for the concept of "race", or its concomitant, racism? Whereas advertising is a relatively straightforward process, the weaponization of "race" seems less so. I will rely on former U.S. president Lyndon Johnson, who most clearly expressed it thus: "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." Again, while he is overtly speaking in terms of 'emptying pockets' of money, unpacking it reveals the real motive is power. He is speaking of the utilization of "race" as a means to drive citizens to give up their independence of thought, freedoms, and even rights in order to prevent some prophesied calamity due to an other "race". Again, this can be seen in history; one recognizable example would be the trope (at least in the U.S.) which sexualizes "black" men and creates a primal fear in "white" men about loss of status and potency. You likely know the name of Emmett Till, who is but one of many innocents who lost their life to this insidious lie. So there is no confusion: I am not excusing racism or racist behavior, only seeking to understand how it works; understanding something allows for change to that thing.

 

To resume this exploration of how "race" is used to control individuals, we must understand that while the idea is to place some group "superior" to another, neither is free as long as the structure of "race" exists. Just as the above trope illustrates, any supposed "superiority" must be jealously and closely guarded. This means that the "superior" group is trapped in a fight (with an imaginary foe, played out with real persons) and cannot have an unguarded moment, lest some sign of the falsity of their narrative be found out. After all, what would it mean for Johnson's "lowest white man" if they were just the same as that "best colored man"? Because we are looking at this through a (non-professional) psychological lens, we can recognize that these motivations can play out without conscious thought or direction. In fact, the strategy of racism, and subsequent control of racists, does not require any particular cohesion. Just inculcate a fear and hatred of some group, and let those motivators work on people; the results are stunningly predictable. This is terrible enough, but-as mentioned above-what is worse is that no one is free of this system as long as the concept of "race" holds sway. The greater risk is that a construct becomes an overwhelming force within society-something one can either work for, or against, but cannot ignore or escape.

Why can't I get my idea off the ground?

At least part of the reason we are not told that most innovations and advancements are made by people who have financial stability (if not pre-existing wealth) is that we will not continue to believe the lie that "anyone can do it". The constant refrain of impossibly 'bootstrapping' oneself into a better life leads to tremendous numbers of individuals falling for pyramid schemes and other 'get-rich-quick' schemes. Because we cannot make the connection between the necessity of having proper, adequate resources and the resulting ability to thrive, risk, and invent, we blame ourselves for any inevitable failure. Contrariwise, we can recognize the inherent unfairness and give in to hopelessness because the system is truly rigged. Certainly, there are other ways to fail, however lack of adequate resources is one we-as a society-can do something about. While it may be enough for many folks that it is "the right thing to do", for others the rationale that it increases productivity and creativity (think engineering, not art, if it helps) should be persuasive. 

There is no beneficial motivation to a majority of folks to be faced with destitution and/or death. Every decision we make does not need to be life-or-death, that sort of desperation does not lead to consideration or deliberation. It puts people into "survival mode" where they believe (not incorrectly, for certain) that they must do certain things to stay alive. Anyone who believes they are fighting for their life is willing to resort to extreme measures to accomplish that goal. Placing people into this position when it is unnecessary is both inhumane and foolish. There is overwhelming evidence that tired, distressed, under-nourished, and dependent individuals do more poorly at work, school, and in social situations. Relieving this burden would free up all that lost "human capital" so all those individuals could make more contributions.

There is no good reason people should starve, struggle, or die in modern times. The myth that 'misfortune is our lot' or 'suffering is good for the soul' allows some to justify the absurd notion that there needs to be some extra difficulty, when in truth life is hard enough, even with basic needs taken care of. It is past time to discuss the real reasons this system continues along with the underlying beliefs that perpetuate it.

Controlling the Narrative

There are things you don't want anyone to know, for fear of judgement; they may be things you're struggling to understand and are uncertain of how to address them. How far can this be taken before it is harmful? Can it ever be healthy? On a basic level controlling (or attempting control of) what is known is distorting reality-also known as lying. If every part of each aspect of a situation were known to others as I know them, there would be no mystery or deception. When I work to keep information from others-in part or in whole-then I want to shape another persons' perception. I do not want them coming to their own conclusions; rather, I want to control what they think. This may be an extraordinary interpretation, but it is not an irrational one. It is commonplace, and often unconscious, to tell only part of the story-even to tell the story which places us in the best light. Whether it is malicious or harmful is separate from the fact of it happening. Note that I will use "lie" as the root word for this discussion for the sake of brevity and simplicity.

Positive public relations in business puts a "spin" on things by only giving out particular information. It is a recognized form of public affairs, and can rely on claims of "intellectual property" and "trade secrets". This can move from complete and factual statements about something into "cherry-picking" only positive aspects, even to suppressing vital 'negative' information that consumers would need in order to make a fully informed decision. The need for private companies to be seen as beneficent entities leads to dubious statements. Naturally, this has extended into advertising, with companies making claims about products that are rather ridiculous lies. Similarly, individuals in the public eye (i.e. celebrities, politicians, and spokespersons) can have personal and professional needs around public image and control of information. We can see this in various campaigns and agencies. However, sometimes "staying on message" can be a form of disinformation-a special kind of lie. Again, we return to the idea that not everything is exposed; there are some things that those advertising their wares are scared of coming to light. These examples can have a far greater impact than those of an individual. I skim over this aspect because it is not the focus of the post, and deserves more exploration another time.

When it is an individual controlling or seeking to decide what is seen or known, we may call it 'privacy', 'secrecy', or 'confidentiality'. We may have select friends we tell all things to, while others receive only cursory or superficial versions of events in our life. Social media is an excellent example: the struggle to always appear positive and likable, as having it all together. It may go beyond "polite" topics, and become a neurotic competition for approval. However, in these situations the harm is fairly restricted to a few individuals around the liar. While it can lead to fervent defense, shame, and "family secrets", it will not have widespread impacts. There's more going on, and as much denial as is put into it, a person cannot succeed at 'spin' and remain authentic.

This is where the topic becomes more intriguing, because an unintended effect of lying is one of denying authentic connection. Rather than letting ones' mistakes and limitations be known, one chooses to obfuscate and deny their existence. This places a barrier between parties, known on one part and sensed by the other. The liar must guard against the lie being found out, for fear both of being judged for the original action as well as for covering it up. The other party begins to place the liar out of reach, as being 'other' in some way; they may not suspect lying, but know that somehow the liar is different. We all know that we are imperfect, and either we have a damaged self-image and think we're alone in that or a healthy self-image and recognize that everyone makes mistakes. If others don't own up to mistakes, we have to suspect something is wrong somewhere.

Finally, it is this social aspect that is at the heart of the matter. Because we are social creatures, and require connection, how we achieve that connection is vital. Basically, either we can connect to others through control or through vulnerability. There is a part of being around others that involves the challenge of judgment. The fear of rejection is the most common motivation for lying. Yet losing connection is the biggest risk of lying. This is an inherent tension of willing to be known by others. Additionally, others cannot struggle with their own judgements if I am not putting who I am in full view. This-again-is part of being human: to experience judgments. Here it is both judging others and being judged by others. The opportunity to be challenged by differing judgments or facts. These judgements are separate from truth or self-image; however, they matter because a healthy human requires the acceptance of other humans. That challenge of facing a difficulty and encountering it directly builds a more solid individual; we could say that it builds character.

What Keeps Us Safe

I propose that it is business that is the best defense. Guns and bombs aren't "making the world safer," and "a strong military is the best deterrent," is false. Instead, what keeps people from attacking and destroying a place is that place having what those people need. It is very difficult to destroy the only source of food or clothing, and it is a tremendous waste of effort to occupy a country just to insure they continue to produce them. Instead, establishing a mutual business relationship is securing the interests of all involved to maintain the status quo. People will go to great lengths to eliminate a bully, and nations are no different.

Relationship as Ownership

With popular culture singing about "my girl" and "my best friends' girl", is it any wonder? When "you should have put a ring on it" and "I need you to need me". From Pretty Woman to An Officer and a Gentleman to "I want to know what love is". There isn't any rationality to it, and because there is not supposed to be, people assume or play along that everything is the way it ought to be.

These pop-culture consumables are not meant to be models, at least not overtly, yet they end up being-in so many ways-just that. Without healthy models in their own lives, so many children end up needing something to base their ideals of relationship on. They can turn to the ubiquitous presence of music and visual media to learn. An understandable mistake, although a crippling one.

I will propose that it is not to own or be owned; that much is certain. However, the fear of being committed should not keep one from relationship. It is not about belonging in the sense of ownership, if we say "they belong together". It is the kind of belonging like birds belong in the air and fish belong in water; it is that right-ness of being that every moment else was not wrong but can never be right in the same way again.

How Rocky Ruins Expectations

Initially, I was planning on demonstrating my thesis by using the film as an example of absurd wish-fulfillment that feeds viewers lies about achievement and twists expectations about success. However, I went back and re-watched the film; my narrative did not entirely fit the actual film. With that in mind, I am re-working this post, and therefore it may seem mildly disjointed. I think this may fit with the topic, although I appreciate your patience and understanding.

Rocky is the quintessential "American" story. It is about one man who overcomes all obstacles and wins a championship despite having many disadvantages. It is, in fact, the persistent drumbeat that anyone in the U.S. is familiar with whether they acknowledge it or not. I will add that it is an emotional and dramatic movie, and does display some of the struggles regular folks face. This is the reason I cannot use it as my example, although it still bears examination and demonstrates part of the message I seek to convey. In fact, the best examples of this issue are social media and video-sharing sites. The latter made it so any person with an account could upload videos of anything they like which visitors to the site could view, instead of needing expensive recording and broadcast equipment. Both are platforms which were initially purported to allow everyday individuals to easily distribute their messages to other users/individuals. They have not necessarily lived up to that early promise.

How does this show or even relate to expectations and their ruin? Both types of platform contain only the best, polished, edited version of what users want others to see. What I mean is that you won't find people's failures or mistakes on display, unless it's for ridicule. With the introduction of "likes", videos that do not fit this mold are voted out of mainstream. Typically, anything short of perfection is edited out, leading to much worse than simple jump-cuts. Only our best successes are allowed to be broadcast, the exotic vacation or fabulous event that gets posted. My criticism is not that people's triumphs or pride should not be seen. My point here is not about gloating or hubris. It is more about the underlying messages to both creators and viewers. There are three fundamental errors or injuries that arise from this system.

The first is found in the axiom "life is not a straight line". It is an immutable fact of being human that we do not learn as much about something by getting it right the first time. An exemplar of this is children. While adults know how to do things the child needs to learn, no adult can learn the experience or skill for the child; no matter how caring the adult may be, they cannot short-cut the child's process to learn for themselves. In fact, proficient individuals can learn from watching inexperienced persons build proficiency-it is helpful and desirable to explore ways to fail at a thing because that builds expertise. Failing to recognize or demonstrate this leads to individuals who think anything less than success is unacceptable or wrong.

This leads into the second error, that if one only sees success then failure seems aberrant. The problem is that there is harm done by ignoring the fact that everyone messes up and fails at times. If the expectation established by these platforms is flawless performance and immaculate appearance, how can I keep up in everyday life? It leads to thinking that if everyone else is doing this thing, then by not doing (or even being able to do) it I am wrong. The most proficient athlete, scientist, or chef will make a mess and have to clean it up. There is value in acknowledging this, even to witnessing or hearing the story of this mistake. It normalizes the fact of human fallibility, and allows individuals to have compassion for themselves and others. This creates greater opportunity for connection and forgiveness.

Finally, the third error around expectations. The entire exercise is inauthentic, meaning that I do not show who I actually, truly am. If the goal is to be able to share my life with social media, how do you get to know me when I only show the "good" side? This is more of the same as in everyday life where we want to be seen as admirable and capable. Any failures or limitations count heavily against us, and we work hard to deny or prevent them. It is not authentic to hide our shortcomings because we all have them and they are as much a part of our selves as the parts we want others to see. I will suggest that living a lie is barely living, and the constant fear of being "found out" leads to real, negative effects.

This is why it is a cultural and not a personal failing-that we are encouraged, if not required, to show no weakness or flaws. This does not lend itself to resilience or grit because it is an impossible standard to meet. This pattern of success-centric content creates unrealistic expectations whereby I think I should just be able to do something with minimal effort or "if I'm not good at it right away, I'll never succeed." This thinking does not recognize or include the tremendous amount of work that goes in to every piece of media, even a photo. Anyone who has sat for professional pictures received a glimpse of this.

The Case Against Charity

I recognize that charity does good, and I think we can all see some of its positive effects. The part I don't hear in any discussion is the attendant negative, where charity causes harm or gets in the way of greater positive change. I will be using the term "mendicant" only because I like the sound and broad applicability, not because it is proper or best; I prefer it to 'poor', 'beggar', 'of modest means', or any number of synonyms or euphemism.

If two acquaintances meet and one who cannot afford it asks the other to pay for the meal, that's considered rude and the mendicant will be told so in a manner either large or small. When the same two people meet and have equal means to pay for the meal, often one will offer to pay for the other without prompting or judgment. The only thing different in this example is how able both are to afford the meal. The absurdity is that paying for the other is acceptable when there is no need or request. This situation seems to put the value on perceived status rather than the inherent worth of the person.

Then comes the case of giving to a mendicant on the street. The scenario seems straightforward: here is someone in need, and I have the ability to help with minimal effort/impact to myself, so I'll pitch some coins into their cup. However, not everyone who can contribute does so; again, there are judgements involved and different factors to consider. These may include one's sense of security, mood, visibility of the act of giving, having already given recently, if this mendicant has money in their cup, how long they have been in this same spot, and more. Society expects that the act of giving/helping is an individual choice, so that each contribution is not coerced, while at the same time leaving the decision (and potentially someone's life) totally to the caprice of various strangers. None of which is connected to the needs of the mendicant. There is no way to determine, in the context given, whether the donations are needed, suitable, adequate, or effective. This begins to demonstrate an inherent flaw in the current system of charity.

Another scenario is the "donation/resale center". This is a place where people with means can give items they don't need to people who do. It could be directly, with the items provided to the mendicant, or a larger operation that sells the donations to "give the proceeds to those in need". One thing that seems to appeal to those donating is that it's a more sterile and removed process. One never need to even see the unappealing mendicant, but simply drop items off at a convenient, aesthetically pleasing, well-lit location. This begins to show other issues with the charity system: since we rely on staff to do all the work, it is susceptible to various abuses. From embezzlement and graft to extortion of vulnerable persons and outright fraud. I'm not saying these things are common, just that there is no way of knowing with the current system. I believe that most workers in this field have noble intentions and wouldn't think of abusing their position. However, there is no oversight outside of each company/corporation/foundation. The closest thing would be a complaint to a government agency that oversees taxation, labor practices, or possibly business practices. I'm looking at you, Cancer Fund.

Finally, the establishment of a charity for a particular cause, such as an under-studied disease or other specific need (domestic violence or animal shelter). Here we can have specific individuals who have enough passion, or money/influence, to work towards change in a special area; often this will be a Foundation. Many times I have heard the founder or most well-known proponent for an organization talk about a personal impact; they had a friend or family member effected, driving them to take action. Noble, but so random and narrow to be laughable. This model also demonstrates an underlying inequity: who establishes and contributes to such charities, and therefore decides what is a "worthy cause"? I put this in scare quotes because - again - every individual is inherently worthy. That cannot be otherwise, else we risk the other-ing that leads to sanctioned and targeted neglect, killing, and even genocide. I may seem to digress, yet this is an important point in the discussion. By making certain individuals (be they mendicant, or person of color, or differing sexuality/gender than oneself, or religious affiliation) other we take away some of their power because we consider them to no longer have the same status as we do. This is easily seen when discussing mendicants, just notice your own reaction when hearing "vagrant", "bum", or "beggar". Returning to the point here, consider that impact on how charities could select only certain individuals to assist, while leaving others without. In order to receive what a mendicant needs, they need to conform to some established criteria and be an acceptable case - not a "lost cause". Those in power continue to determine how "worthy" someone is and whether they receive aid, directly and indirectly, by tying support to metrics established by those in power. For example, let's say an orphanage receives funding from a religious group. That funding could be limited to helping people the religious group deems 'worthy' and not for helping "unrepentant sinners". I say this demonstrates the core of unhealthy power dynamics: that one would consider a mendicant to not have the exact same rights or is incapable of having them.

This leads to another point, one central to helping others, which is that of self-determination and empowerment. When I give something to another person, it makes a difference whether they "earned" it or not; this can be seen in the difference between a busker and a mendicant. Giving to someone who is sitting passively with a cup feels different than giving to a performer-this is true on both parts. When a busker performs, they are demonstrating a skill and pride in their abilities. Contrast this with a mendicant who simply asks for others to act on their behalf. I am exclusively using this to demonstrate how an active or passive part in ones' own life changes more than having a single meal; this leaves aside ability/capacity, for example. The notion of autonomy is central to mental health and recovery. Think of times when you may have felt helpless or taken advantage of and get an idea of how important this can be. When that state becomes typical or standard, self-esteem and even hope are lost.

Finally, I will mention another point from a mental health view. A number of charitable organizations have taken to providing impact statements, documents that demonstrate action on the factors mentioned above. This is the start of accountability. However, when services/items provided are not adequate the assumptions seem to be 'they got something, that is all that matters', 'we can't do enough with our current budget/we need more to do more', or 'this is not meant to actually solve the issue, we are only providing enough to keep mendicants out of the way'. Harm reduction is important, and I do not intend to dismiss this aspect. It is simply that when we forego solutions we are not reducing but instead prolonging the harm; what sense is there in treating a condition instead of curing it?

The points so far: the focus on perceived status/value of mendicants, the random nature of giving that is not tied to outcomes, continued dis-empowerment of mendicants, lack of accountability, and vagaries of what cause is recognized as needing. My intention is to demonstrate how the underlying truth of our current system of charity is control. It is, in fact, an expansion of the Capitalist System that forces individuals to conform to the demands of those with money/power. This ranges from whether one gives to a mendicant on the street (act nice to the passers-by to get money to survive) to establishing a foundation (fill out these forms to apply for benefits...to survive).

"Charity" comforts us that we are 'doing something' instead of recognizing how backwards and broken the system is. Rather than fooling ourselves this way, it is time to analyze and address improvements to this system. The real value must be placed on choice and empowerment for the mendicants, with the end goal being the ability to dig oneself out of a difficult circumstance.