An Inhuman World

Things are made for the benefit and convenience of businesses rather than for humans. This seems odd, as it is people that business, achievement, progress, or innovation is meant to serve—not the other way around. A small example is food, something seemingly obvious that it should be of use and benefit for people. However, food is not processed, packaged, or produced in the most nutritious manner. Instead, the focus is on convenience, yield, and longevity. Most foodstuffs will degrade and rot fairly quickly, from fruits and vegetables to prepared dishes; even with refrigeration, a week is a long time to expect food to last. In the distant past (more than 200 years ago), when people grew their own foods and had to store them, they developed a number of methods for preservation. Salting, dehydrating, fermenting, and cooling (think root cellar rather than ice box) are all long-standing practices. Because food is no longer produced locally, it is just a matter of logistics. We have food that needs to travel from production sites to some sort of store where it sits out on shelves for days before the consumer finally takes it home. This is true even of "unprocessed" foods, like whole fruits or grains. While this is where one reaches the borders of the argument about "genetically modified organisms" (GMOs), we do not need to enter that territory, but recognize that many such plants are quite different than in previous centuries. Most often, even these changes have been to make these crops more marketable (even if just more pest-resistant or larger). While this is a simple example, you may recognize other areas where the trend holds true: technology, clothing, or automobiles, for example.

There is an argument that the very existence of large population centers (cities of 5000 or more) exist as an expedient for business. One version is to get localized group of workers, ready to replace one another in whatever job is required, with infrastructure to most easily transport them to various destinations about the city while minimally supporting their biological needs. Beyond this, there are also ways societal expectations have been shaped by the needs of businesses for space, employees, materials, computers, etc.

Contrast that with a more traditional style, consisting of smaller groups (100-1000) who grow their own foods and make their own clothing, having time to pursue other interests and congregate for various events. For decades, people have been decrying the loss of "third spaces", meaning those places outside the home and workplace where they can gather and socialize. The only places that seem to exist are businesses which allow people to congregate as long as they spend money to do so: coffee house, public house, or event space. Recently, there has been much news about "offices standing empty" and "return-to-office (RTO) mandates" following the pandemic. This is not about people wanting to go back to commuting and being watched over by supervisors—it is driven by businesses wanting to re-establish control over and extract maximal value from employees.

This can only last as long as people allow it to, and that seems dependent upon recognizing how dystopian it actually is already.

Business as Usual

Interesting things can be done a number of ways or take a multitude of forms. If there were only one type of flower or bird, they would be boring. Useful, even essential, but dreadfully monotonous to only see one shape and color repeated endlessly wherever one looked, like grass. Playing a game that has only one outcome or way to progress is dull; the excitement of playing is in not knowing what will happen. Whether I win or lose, how we get to the end is novel each time — in a good game, anyway.

People talk about business as if it were interesting; there are entire TV channels and reams of magazines devoted to discussing business. The truth is that business is boring. Not in the sense of filling out forms or collecting data about productivity, although that is certainly tedious. People act as if there is some variability in business or there are novel discoveries waiting to be made in conducting business. While advertising and methods of payment have certainly changed over time, the business of selling is unchanged and unchangeable from ancient history into the future. All it consists of is getting more for something that what one paid. Whatever it is, from bikes to jewelry, clothes to food, babysitting to writing, every single action in business is determined by this simple, underlying principle: buy low, sell high. Whether it is goods or services, the only thing that matters is that I get paid more for something than what I paid to get it. There is no mystery, no novelty, nor any innovation here.

You knew this already. Everyone has heard "buy low, sell high" or that business must turn a profit. This is so commonplace that we don't talk about or recognize it; because it is so ubiquitous, it is trivial. The only thing interesting about this is the mystical, reverential attitude people have about "business". It places emphasis on a tool, the simple practice of conducting trade. Concurrently, this attitude extends to those who conduct it. The reason for pointing this out is simply to question the legitimacy of this worship of business and suggest that the attention paid to the subject would be better spent on other pursuits.

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.

Cowardice in Competition

Competition has long been a way for individuals and teams to determine who is the best at something. An honest contest, meaning no influence or interference, among the most able. Just being a competitor means already having overcome any number of previous challenges, and participation in this latest signifies a desire to meet the next one. Think of those who compete at the Olympics, a series of contests of athletic prowess by a world-wide selection of those at the very height of their sport. They have all worked audaciously hard in order to have a spot in the contest, and each seeks to outperform the others and their own previous best. There is courage in the attempt, in just showing up to practice or a local competition. Bravery in taking one's own skill to the very limits of one's individual ability. Finally, there is the need for other contestants. It does no good to be the best in a field of one; better having pride in achieving against the best in their chosen field. As much as highly competitive individuals are fighting the adversary of themself, there need to be close opponents to measure their performance against. Others who challenge them to do better, in a cycle of competitive encouragement. Even rivals in sport can appreciate how the other team raises the level of the shared game.

Once a competitor reaches the end of their training, conditioning, and prowess, there is nobility even in accepting those limitations. This can, admittedly, be difficult to gauge. There are often 'plateaus' in training and competing; areas of performance during which the limit seems to have been reached, but which can still be surpassed by some new adjustment. However, there is also temptation to augment what one can do through artificial means; to overcome the natural limitations we all have. Rather than accepting those limitations, some seek to win when they otherwise would not be able to. These can range from using proscribed methods or substances to sabotaging rivals, exerting undue influence on self or other. This approach is generally agreed to be undesirable. Whether one personally cares about cycling, skating, baseball, or other game is less the issue than is the general agreement of a fair competition. If that is not the basic understanding, then much of the excitement is lost. It would no longer be a contest of human spirit, but of money spent. It would be less interesting to observers as the rules would no longer be understandable, but become a constantly shifting morass of who can get away with what. Referee, umpire, and judge would become much different roles, akin to assassins for hire.

The point of all this discussion is to establish the simple truths of what is healthy competition. While you may not (as I do not) have a significant interest in sports, I do believe we all have an interest in the arena of business. This is because private enterprise has tremendous impacts on individual success and politics. Whether it is how much we are paid as a worker, the likelihood of our personal venture succeeding, how much influence we have in our government, or what gets built in our neighborhood, there are impacts. Some believe that a free market economy is essential to efficiency and innovation. Those individuals should already understand the points I will outline and agree that regulations are necessary to keeping the game fair, otherwise they are being disingenuous in their assertions. The focus on courage here is to give a human sense to the artificial, impersonal, and depressing environment of competition in business. Despite being comprised of humans, displacing human beings, despoiling human environs, and arising out of human desires and needs, business has become a game nearly exempted from human concerns. The re-introduction of humanity into business practices is long overdue, as exemplified by companies lying about impacts to boost their profits (tobacco and oil being well-known examples). Which brings us back to the title of this post.

Above, we listed some attributes of courageous competition. Now we can look at well-known business practices and determine whether they fit with these ideals. First, keep in mind that while these mostly happen in larger businesses, the temptations and opportunities exist even in the "minor leagues". One such is the purchasing of competitors, which has expanded into buying intellectual properties before they are even in the market. Another avenue is to determine for buyers what is popular, historically by paying beautiful and/or successful people to use them, and more recently by utilizing social media to make it appear that it is already popular. Beyond this are the "bot farms" and "trolls", spreading messages and disrupting free speech to further the agenda of industry. This is also tied to the rise of "influencers", an absurd extension of marketing that is designed to not seem like advertising. It most resembles a multi-level marketing scheme, where personal connection is exploited in order to access otherwise unreachable customers. A related tactic is to utilize psychological research to manipulate consumers, like some guerilla COINTELPRO marketing operation. From flooding an area with messages and signs (relying on "mere exposure" effect) to putting inflated items on "sale" (FOMO and "anchoring effect"). In this technological age, where everyone has an online presence, that personal information has been commodified. The term "surveillance capitalism" puts some context to Facebook, Google, and others; rather than providing services to users, platforms typically collect consumers' info to sell. Or when an established company moves into a new area, it can use the profits from its other stores to fund the new one; allowing it to undercut existing, local businesses and eliminate competition altogether. If the low prices were genuine, we might consider this as benefiting the consumers, but usually those prices are adjusted upward after the competition is gone. Additionally, "green-washing"campaigns which foist onto consumers the impacts of industry. People are recognizing the silliness of a fictitious "carbon footprint" and how it focuses on minor, end-user contributions and steers discussion away from large-scale producer liability. The most egregious, however, comes in the form of manipulating the playing field and the very rules of the game. Here, of course, we come to "lobbying", the way that companies and industries corrupt governmental processes in order to succeed. Exemptions leading to the aforementioned harms are provided by government bodies influenced by the industries who did not want to lose profits to necessary limitations and safeguards. This is in addition to utilizing huge amounts of capital to fight basic complaints and lawsuits against harmful industry practices. Then the appealing of any judgements against (again, mostly larger) businesses, delaying cleanup and/or compensation to communities and individuals. Worker safety, healthcare, adequate wages, environmental impacts, collective bargaining, and whistle-blower protections are all basic rights that have been degraded by industry lobbying. We are all less healthy and less safe because of the hubris and cowardice of corporations, some just think they can buy their way out of unsafe surroundings-or even leave the planet.

Now we come to the section to evaluate the two areas of competition. I leave it for you to contrast the idea of brave competitors to cowardly businessmen. Do these examples sound like valid tactics that competitors who are confident of their skills, aware of their limitations, and proud of their ability to compete on a level playing field would employ? At a baseline of competition in an open field of opponents, the best-prepared and best-suited would prevail. This is often the stated goal of "free market" proponents: just give businesses an honest chance to compete and let the best ones win. If that were truly the case, they would relish the challenge of strong competition. If they were courageous, and capitalism were the valid pursuit they claim, it would lead to real innovation and improvements for all, rather than solely benefiting the few.

Why Should Religions Pay Taxes?

There is a long history of debate and numerous arguments on both sides of this issue. I am not here to reiterate those points, nor would I be the person for that. However, I do have a couple points to make I have not heard before. First, it is important to know that the central issue behind tax exemptions for religious groups here in the U.S. comes from the old slogan "No taxation without representation". The reverse of the original statement is that if one does pay taxes, then one should receive representation for that payment. Because of the historic separation between religions and federal government, the notion that taxing religious organizations would entitle them to a say in the government was a deciding factor in exempting them. Second, the current state of government and all entities (religious or not) that operate within the U.S. is that everyone benefits from taxes paid. Roads, emergency response (although not all--a topic for another time), and public assistance are a few of the notable items which all citizens and entities gain from having in place. Whether or not your house or office burns down depends on your neighbors' as much as your own fire prevention. Similarly, if your neighbor draws from public assistance, you benefit by continuing to have a stable neighbor who is not incentivized to commit crime to survive. These facts adequately demonstrate the inter-connected-ness of all in the society. This includes religious entities, who draw from the public citizenry and utilize all those same services as other private and public institutions.

On to the big idea. I propose that the benefits religious organizations enjoy should only be extended to groups like Amish, who truly separate themselves and adhere to a dogma which does keep it from engaging in public life. All the other ones should be taxed, regulated, and expected to contribute as any other business, which they are. If religious organizations had no need of "act of god" riders in their insurance policies, and did not influence the insurance of others by their claims, then fine. If they truly were non-secular, uninvolved in contemporary affairs, and not subject to the benefits of government already, then I would support (and agree with others about) religious tax exemptions. If they did not involve themselves in government and have influence over elected officials, I could see how there was a separation. However, those are not the case, and they do all impact the society at large. Even without investigating their impacts on public opinion, policy decisions, and debates about various societal topics (which are many here), it is clear that the so-called separation is a contemporary illusion and needs to be addressed.

Money Talks

I appreciate the increasing debate about Universal Basic Income or a suitable minimum wage, and hope to contribute on what makes an economy ethical. I find that examining the foundations of systems to be most impactful and revealing, although I recognize I have only a rudimentary understanding of this topic. It seems most public and "expert" discussion about the hyper-capitalist economy in the U.S. assumes that it has nothing to do with "right and wrong". Money and economics are said to have nothing to do with ethics, because money is neither good nor evil, it is just a neutral tool. I will say this is nonsense, and not solely because it is heartless and demeans peoples' intelligence. As with most tools, it is use which determines right or wrong. Consequently, if I fail to use a tool to do good, then I am choosing to allow bad to occur. It is past time to own up to this, because it determines life-or-death outcomes for citizens.

First, a few basics. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the common gauge of "economic health" and is often measured in spending (as a way to calculate the amount of actual "product"). Most estimates place consumer spending in excess of two-thirds of GDP. That is, all the everyday citizens who spend their money on food, cell phones, clothes, and housing. This indicates how much an economy relies upon citizens having money to spend on goods and services. Money is collected by businesses-they do not "make" money in the sense of producing it for others to use. Nor do businesses make money useful by circulating it about the economy in quantities which rival that of regular citizens. Indeed, the money businesses collect tend to be given mostly to other businesses; businesses do not give their money back to citizens in a simple and direct cycle between the two. Further, businesses are not the cause of an economy, but the result; the desire and ability for citizens to spend their money on products would exist whether any particular business or industry was available or not. Finally, any business is owned by people, who are beneficiaries of the business's success-and also responsible for the business's impacts. This is all to point out that people remain more important than businesses, and that businesses are beholden to people in numerous ways.

This last should be self-evident; it really ought not require explanation that humans are of more value than a constructed legal fiction designed to allow commerce. However, in the time of Citizens United, economic downturns, and global pandemic, it seems things have been turned around. The rationale given is that businesses get the largest portion of relief because they are what cause citizens to be able to live and will draw us into a recovery. This would be absurd, and a repeat failure of the 2008-9 TARP plan wherein businesses were given the most money. This is, again, a problem with not acknowledging that money is used for good or bad. When the government gave its limited relief monies to businesses, it was choosing to allow humans to die. Citizens' money was given to businesses rather than used to directly pay for those same citizens' needs by giving them back their money to spend as necessary. This was especially true of citizens who ended up losing their homes, unable to pay back the banks which wanted that money to pay for the banks' own bad decisions. This lead to not just a loss of property or credit scores, but of peoples' lives as the reality of homelessness took its toll. While not bailing out businesses may have meant that some of them did not survive, more actual humans would have. A business can be replaced or rebuilt, but not so a human life. In truth, some businesses should fail; something we will come back to momentarily.

Currently, we are in the midst of a physical health crisis as the global pandemic progresses. Again, and even more directly this time, if citizens do not receive adequate support from the government, people will die. Rather than focusing on businesses this time, we should focus on human lives and preventing unnecessary suffering by providing government relief directly to citizens. This may be a good time to point out an additional fact of economics and further difference between business and person. Most large businesses hoard money, as do the wealthy who benefit from those businesses; they actually diminish the economy when they secret their wealth 'off-shore', as it becomes inaccessible to the economy it came from. In contrast, regular citizens will save a small portion of their income (if possible) and spend the majority of it. This is a two-fold point as it reinforces the importance of consumers to the economy, but also highlights the necessity of adequate regulation and taxation of wealthy individuals and businesses. When lamenting the lack of funds available to provide relief to citizens, and forcing people to work in harrowing, life-threatening circumstances, it is helpful to look at how much would be available if this simple step were taken. Again, businesses do not "earn" or "make" money. The money businesses collect from citizens owes as much back to the economy as those businesses get from it; the cycling of the economy demands that no individual or group stop the circulation of money. This goes back to the GDP and how vital spending is to the health of an economic system. Much as with a real person's budget, once a portion is set aside as savings, the rest can be disposed of. This is where a healthy tax system can benefit an economy, by making those excess monies available again.

Meanwhile, because an economy is comprised of humans and devised to serve human needs, it follows that the system must address such issues. That is, since life is unpredictable, the crucial function of an economy is allowing citizens to reliably obtain what they need to live. Ideally, it would also serve to improve their status, which is what proponents of capitalism have claimed it does. However, when government under-regulates vital industries and fails to prepare for inevitable disasters (especially when doing so due to the influence of private interests) then the economy nearly collapses and magnifies the impact of otherwise manageable events. This is what turns an urgent need for action into an emergent crisis which could cripple the nation. So far this century, the U.S. has seen two major economic "downturns" in which spending was significantly diminished. In each, those most impacted were the most economically vulnerable, which is to say poor. That disproportionate impact has been death, which is just an acceleration of the typical trend of the economy. Even in "good times", those without adequate income are not always able to manage and survive. These are clear signs that the economy is not healthy and our current approach does not work on the practical level, let alone the ethical.

Let us return, finally, to the idea of businesses not having a "right to life". Looking at the history of various industries, it is evident that long-term success or reliability has not been a goal. Beaver trapping, whale hunting, timber logging, commercial fishing, coal mining, and on along the list continues with examples of failure to account for anything beyond today. What does it benefit a nation if they have no future built upon their current practices? Each practice and industry ought to be building towards a better future, or else it is contributing to stagnation and failure. In economic terms, the practices which lead to each of the above-named industries being so lucrative were the same which lead to their collapse: exploitation. It's possible that analysis of these industries could have slowed the commercial pillage of resources and contemporary mitigation practices could have been implemented earlier. Possibly that collapse and the resulting unemployment of large numbers of loggers, fishers, and miners would have been avoided. The current practices around energy production have echoes of these past failures, as we are encountering the consequences of diminishing supply along with environmental damage. These are not businesses which need to continue, nor do citizens need to take on further burdens to sustain their out-sized profitability. Again, the purpose of an economy is to meet needs, and the basis of capitalism is supposed to be that as "markets" [potential customers] become available, then businesses will develop to meet the new needs. This necessitates the end of old or unfit businesses, as economic factors change.

Here is where the disparate strands of this post converge: the responsibility of economics. One way of explaining ethics is through who is responsible for what and to whom that responsibility is owed. General conversation about economies and economics takes the stance that there is no responsibility involved. I think we have established that is nonsense, and that any economy has impacts on the general populace. Anything that has an effect on a person has a responsibility to account for, and an economy is not exempt from that accountability. An economy does good and bad, and by choosing not to take this into account or denying those impacts we hamper our ability to make improvements.

Money for Nothing

The notion of "in-game currency" is fairly commonplace these days. The psychological tendency to lose track of the value of this currency in relation to "real money" is also known. It turns out to be much more work to translate or convert the value of "gold coins" or "gems" in a game into U.S. Dollars, so we mostly skip that work. This allows game companies to collect more real-world money from players who purchase in-game money with little thought to budgeting. In fact, many contemporary games which advertise themselves as "free-to-play" are relying on this fact. The tendency of a small number of players spending enough money inside the game to make it profitable is hard to imagine to those of us who have so little, but there it is.

Most see nothing odd about using currency now, excepting those who want to "bring back the gold standard". It is an interesting point that real "currency" is a fabrication not based on any real item. It does not represent an ox, a unit of work, or even a gumball. It is a translation or conversion of time spent working into a portable exchange token that can be redeemed for items that are of actual use. I propose that money is actually analogous to "in-game currency" because it cannot be used outside the system that spawned it. Of course, that system is nearly all-encompassing, and local currencies can be exchanged for travel outside the area. However, one cannot eat money nor use it to fuel a machine, and if one is lost in a wilderness, it serves no purpose until returning to the "game zone". I am not saying there is anything "wrong" with money, only that it is helpful to recognize what money actually is and what it does-both intentionally and unintentionally. One of those effects is that folks do not immediately think of money as a unit of life. If I thought of money as representing the finite resource of my own life, I would approach it quite differently. It is easier to spend $40 than to ask if it is worth 2+ hours of my life in order to obtain a shirt. Yet it is the same thing-it takes at least that long to get the money to buy the item. This reframing of money is not original, as it can be found from a number of financial advisors. Linking this disconnection of how people spend their lives to the new method of paying for entertainment is the focus of this post.

This is because I think what this demonstrates, in turn, is the tremendously unsettling idea that we don't need to know how something works in order to use it-and have it used against us. That the psychological mechanisms of gambling are only loosely understood, yet they are expertly used by casinos to gather tremendous profits from customers. In this case, we didn't need a model of "video game currency" to understand how divorcing currency from it's origin could make people less cognizant of its value, and spend more freely. As soon as we established that we exchange time working for coins and bills, we became more willing to buy frivolous items because we didn't spend the time making them-we just shelled out some tokens to buy someone else's work. We may discover even greater abuses of psychological tendencies which had been exploited by canny individuals or businesses precisely because the phenomenon was not understood. In the end, Barnum may have known "there's a sucker born every minute," but did he ever state (or understand) the companion: "everybody thinks they are not the sucker, which makes them easier to manipulate"?

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.

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.

Top down versus bottom up

The idea being that collectively deciding, or cooperative (like the old idea of the co-op), we make better decisions and more people benefit. When an individual decides or makes the decision for a group or multiple others, a person can easily and erroneously make decisions based on their own interests rather than that of the groups. In business, decisions made by "thought leaders", CEOs, a small number Board of Directors, or just the owner of the business – these are all examples of this tendency. It is also this tendency for small groups to think small, or to limit their scope of value, that leads to cutting corners, outsourcing, and overvaluing the bottom line, and in the end disaster (see: Bhopal, financial crisis 2008, Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Horizon, Hurricane Katrina/New Orleans, etc.).

So this tendency is inherent in hierarchical system, and most businesses, and does not lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. The values and priorities of the few (elite) do not reflect those of the many (majority).

On the other hand, collections of individuals (working toward a common goal) value "people goals". Instead of maximizing profits for the business, people value maximizing happiness, capability, and helping others. It is through these actions that people both get and give fulfillment. So rather than a successful individual driving the economy, as happens now with "luxury" being prioritized over functionality – see Flint Michigan. Rather than expensive vacations to exotic locations, custom vehicles, designer clothing, and mansions, what most people would choose to value is stable income, safe and reliable housing and transport, some expendable income and leisure time, and choices around having children. These priorities are not reflected in the economy, where Apple, ExxonMobile, deBeers, and Microsoft top the investment banking worlds.

Much like micro loans, being given the power and opportunity to fulfill everyday citizens' dreams, this is very important. What is currently happening is, instead, the same individuals being told what opportunities they will be allowed to have and even what dreams to pursue.

I recommend The Wisdom of Crowds, published in 2004, written by James Surowiecki.

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.

"Crowd" sourcing

Work is supposedly about employees trading their labor for wages, pushed as a model of simplicity and equity. It can be seen as extracting from workers the lifeblood that keeps businesses alive, rather than supplying workers the means to live. What began as layoffs, outsourcing, and downsizing became the new normal, and is now being sold to workers as 'freeing' and a boon to 'motivated self-starters'. The idea is to work two or three low-paying, part-time jobs without benefits because, "Why put your eggs all in one basket," and, "Why depend on work for health insurance"? In addition, we have a slew of 'startups' that want to (allow workers to) take advantage of these conditions. Uber, Airbnb, and other 'collaborative consumption' companies - supposedly parts of a new 'sharing economy' - offer the illusion of opportunity, profitability, and a community base. They are packaged as creating opportunities for individuals to live the dream of independent contracting: set your own schedule, choose which jobs to take, be 'your own boss', and leverage your assets into unlimited earning potential.  The upstarts claim disruption, and an alternative to 'the establishment', supposedly easing the way for regular folks to cash in. Rather than taxi companies hogging the market, these companies will allow regular people to get in on the action. Instead of paying for a mortgage (or lease), one can become part of the hospitality industry and get a little extra for minimal effort. However, they are still privately owned companies looking to maximize profit for themselves.

It could be that the change started with personal vehicles being used for business delivery. This process shifted the burden onto individuals rather than businesses for business expenses. While offset by requirements to laws regarding reimbursement and insurance, it still placed the burden on the employee to learn, abide by, and then enforce these regulations with their own employer. This is most problematic in fields that had no history of doing so. The essence of all these actions is the uncertainty faced by workers. The question that follows is whether this change is better for workers, or only benefits the business. The test is how each practice happens and the results in the real world, not just the theory. In reality, Uber bullys cab companies, drivers, and local governments to get what it wants. Airbnb displaces responsibility and implies more than it delivers.

A few examples, with sources and further reading at the bottom of this post. In the City of San Francisco Airbnb should have collected and remitted $1.9 million in taxes, over 90% of hosts surveyed spent nearly half what they made on living expenses, and it continues to use drip pricing (which does not allow consumers to preview their total price). The legal agreements that Airbnb members are required to accept amount to "55081 words," equivalent to a short novel requiring several hours of reading time. In San Francisco, Airbnb hosts who control multiple properties comprise 4.8% of hosts and control 18.2% of the listings; in a similar company (HomeAway), 14.8% of total hosts control 46% of listings . These "super hosts" are like property mangers without any oversight or accountability. People also use these sites to set up Hacker Hostels (so-called because they lure techies and the like into short-term accommodations), which are problematic because they may flout a variety of city rules on overcrowding. Finally, for some perspective, a city such as San Francisco typically adds 2,000 homes in a year, and these companies take 200+ units off the market - a meaningful percentage.


I propose that choice is most meaningful when individuals are fully informed about consequences and willingly accept. In new and untested situations, these conditions do not apply and the potential for abuse is acute.


Wikipedia list of companies

Excellent article on pros and cons


Uber and taxis

Airbnb and San Francisco

Frivolous Nation (or How Pointless Consumerism Kills Self-Image)

The downfall of quality goods made by skilled craftspeople, along with the rise of the cheaply made disposable product, has long been lamented by those nostalgic for a 'more wholesome' age. While increased production capacity has allowed for a market saturation of products, it has undermined the ability to rapidly change or recover from disruption, both in the workforce and the production line. In the U.S., what was once labor-saving and a boon to business (automation or mechanization) has become a cyclic trap of lost living-wage jobs, shortened product life-cycle, consumer-based economy (as opposed to production-based), and frenzied pursuit of 'The Good Life'. These issues are troubling enough, but I believe there is even more to it.

To begin with, 'The Good Life' is more conceptual than practical. The notion of 'The Good Life' has been reduced to the sum of possessions and ability to purchase (a.k.a. income) because that is the observable part. Those without see what prominent people have and equate those items with success; having the trappings of success becomes success. The illusion of wealth and prosperity is more valuable than the actuality of hard work, planning, and saving. Partly because that approach takes time, and partly because nobody can wear a bank account balance. This means that as long as I have those signs of being successful, I will be seen as such and therefore I am living 'The Good Life'. In popular culture it seems that the more useless and ridiculous something is, the more valuable it becomes as a demonstration of wealth (and disregard for reality). I convey that I do not need to worry about paying my bills when I can wear this name-brand handbag/wristwatch. Beyond this, the illusion of not having to work becomes valued as a status symbol unto itself. Here we have the idea of leisure time, out of which arise Arts and similar activities. For example, fashion arose from people using free time to focus on the embellishment and enjoyment of clothes. These leisure activities and products quickly became part of 'The Good Life'.

It has been the promise of capitalist economic theory that more citizens would be able to access these leisure activities due to upward mobility and "labor-saving devices". When the promised rewards were not forthcoming, credit stepped in to fill that perceived gap. The promise of getting today and paying tomorrow may have started a boom in borrowing, but it also signaled the end of patience. Having the option to borrow soon became the first choice - so as to not miss out - which then became the default, as "Why go without?" was adopted as the reason to buy anything. Many families live 'beyond their means' and pay more than an interest rate by way of perpetual debt, item repossession, home forfeiture, bankruptcy, etc. Returning to the subject of fashion, it is important to stay "in fashion" since fashion changes, otherwise it is a sign that one does not truly have the leisure time or wealth. This means that the pursuit of 'The Good Life' is never-ending, since it requires constant maintenance. In this, we also encounter the conundrum of value: as soon as something can have value, it can also lose its assigned value and become worthless. Additionally, the amount of time and work it requires to obtain an item determines the perceived value of it. This can mean that buying an item on credit imparts no intrinsic worth because it is simply purchased and lumped in with all other items purchased with credit . If this is the case, then things bought with credit are valuable only to the extent that they support the illusion of success.

Commodification is the process of taking what is rare, unique, scarce, or precious and making it available to all. Again, the claim has been that this process equalizes availability and thereby reduces inequality. However, given the points made above, that is not all that occurs. Once the queer becomes expected, it loses much of its appeal and value. What was once a treat from exotic locales becomes the rotting detritus of everyday life. This is the way of Capitalism: the quest for the next new thing or market. Another way to look at this would be to call it profaning: bringing objects, practices, or beliefs out of context and making them a possession...common, base, ordinary, pedestrian. No longer is tobacco a rare religious symbol, for instance, instead it is a commodity that is ground underfoot after a 5 minute break from work.

The final component is the tendency to equate my self with possessions. Once 'The Good Life' depends on the continued accrual and maintenance of possessions, then my value to others and myself depends on those same possessions. If I lose them or they fall out of fashion, then my self-image is imperiled. I can only feel positively about myself (or my self) as long as my possessions support that positive self-image. This is the central contradiction: possessions hold all our value, yet simultaneously hold no inherent value.

Free Wheeling Market Theory

In the United States, I have often heard the proposal that most national issues (not just budgetary) could be alleviated if the government simply stopped its "interference" in business. The biggest problem with this argument is it ignores a ready example. There has been a model in place for many years, but it isn't demonstrating the outcomes claimed by those pro-free market, "laissez-faire" individuals. This may be why those same individuals won't even acknowledge it. The un-regulated, un-incentivised, and un-taxed market I'm referring to is one where goods are available despite the government. So what is this market that is not "interfered with" by the government? Why has it not been incorporated into the main flow of commerce? Because all the goods on the Black Market are illegal.

Of course the example we have is one outside the law, since all other goods and services have been regulated. Their wares include illicit drugs and guns, people (in the form of slaves/prostitutes and other trafficked individuals), and counterfeit or other prohibited items.

I will briefly address the list of grievances from the pro-free marketers: regulations and oversight, incentives or subsidies, taxes, and public (or common) ownership.

The only form of regulation is law enforcement, once past that it's wide open: there is no paperwork, oversight, inspections,  or stockholders to answer to. There isn't any OSHA, safety inspections, quality control, or equal opportunity employment; no right to sue an employer or organize a union, no arbitration or unemployment insurance. Without regulation, workers in the fields involved are egregiously unsafe. Consumers are at risk for more than just lost investments, and have no recourse when injured.

There are no government loans or insurance to get a business started or keep the doors open. This means that any entrepreneurs looking to enter the field must seek investments from private individuals. Also, there is no training program or college degrees to prepare for any of these fields, which makes for excellent opportunities for scams and swindlers.

Another problem is that demand does not drive price-it certainly creates impetus of supply, but it cannot impact how much suppliers charge. There are a limited number of competing suppliers (and often this competition involves literally making a killing).

Finally, these businesses pay no taxes, and that means tremendous amounts of lost revenues for helpful governmental programs. The only taxes or fees for operating one of these businesses are bribes, and that means money going to certain individuals who already have power and not distributed fairly amoungst all citizens. Since they don't offer stock or open to investment, there is no opportunity for citizens-at-large to benefit from the business.

There are risks for these businesses: loss of product, competing providers, and potential for actual governmental interference. Which may be why these areas are illegal, but ineffectually dealt with.

I'd like to pretend that cops are good, laws are just, and that crime doesn't pay. I'm old enough to recognise these notions are myths. If crime didn't pay, we wouldn't still have cocaine, hookers, and, well...politics-as-usual.

Are You a Spectator or a Player?

My sense is that we are comfortable thinking of this in terms of sports, that when we hear the word "spectator" we think of an observer of some sporting event.  Just that notion can be provocative, despite how commonplace it is.  It brings up ingroups, preferences in contact versus non-contact sports, and notions of gender ability/equality. However, none of those are the focus of this post.  As soon as we begin a conversation around "our" sport, we either have a rival or ally: is this person with us or against us, do they wear our colours or not?  First we have those spectators, the persons watching in the stadium or on T.V.  Then we have those whose professions orbit and are in close contact with the players and games.  This includes jobs that describe, analyse, promote, and plan strategies to win games.   Finally, we have those doing the difficult work of hefting the ball, running the distance, stopping the opposition; those people who make a living playing and being "on the field (track, pitch, etc.)".  So we have three categories: those who actually play, those who act as support staff to the players, and the many more who pay to watch the players.  However, I think this applies to much more than sports and that it indicates something more than just "people like to watch."  I get a chuckle out of the terms "Team Edward" and "Team Jacob", for example.  It is the fetishism around or commodification of another activity into this mold.  Given that we are in the throes of an impending national election in the U.S., I think the relation to politics should be apparent.  There are a few who are actually involved in politics-the elected and appointed officials and candidates-who are "in the game", the support staff-think tanks, P.A.C.s, lobbyists, and news coverage-and then there are the majority of the population who watch what these "players" do.  The problem here is that in a Democratic Republic, that's not what is supposed to happen.

We are not spectators to our government, it is not something that happens without us or in spite of us.  We don't just show up "for the game" and spend the whole time "filling the bleachers", passively observing what others are doing.  Nor is it sufficient participation to "cheer for our team" and say "we won" when our party's candidate is elected.  The very words Democratic Republic have meaning because they are a definition of what this nation is and how it's supposed to operate.  The truth is that an election is only one small part of the process.  The same is true of laws, court appeals, hearings, committees, etc., these are all parts and not the end-all or be-all of this form of government. It's also not a money-making enterprise for the elite who exploit their position to extort money from "fans" and "advertisers".  This is the travesty it has become: a spectator sport for the masses to feel vicariously empowered by instead of participating in, complete with the panoply of money, advertising, fabricated drama, and hyperbole of any major-league sport.  Actually, it reminds me mostly of the former W.W.F., with made-up backgrounds for caricatures of "good and bad" that never really lead anywhere because it was just entertainment instead of an actual sport.  Fun to watch, but in no way suitable to government.

Going Deeper into the Heart

I felt I might need to be a bit more explicit about what the problem is with this situation and what I meant by saying, "...trying to create a new generation that is better to their liking."  The article gives an overview of the process and consequences but it comes down to money being the motivation rather than education or the needs of the students.  This large buyer in one area is determining what is going to be printed by these textbook companies in all areas.  The school board with the most buying power is setting the curriculum for most other school boards.  It's the equivalent of Wal-mart where the store tells the manufacturer what they will pay for the product instead of the manufacturer selling to the store based on how much they spent making the product.  In this case, the school board is telling the publishing companies what will be included in the textbooks regardless of what consumers or authors want or need to be included.  These are the same types of companies that use large amounts of the money they get to influence elections and lawmakers to continue allowing toxic (by differing definitions) products to be made and sold unregulated.  Companies which are willing to trammel the rights and opinions of others.  Companies which operate under the guise of "free enterprise" or even "economic Spencerism" if you will.  These companies are actually rigging the market and government regulations to their advantage, continuing to dupe the public.  I will address the "money in politics" issue soon, as it is necessary and unavoidable.

I recognize that it may be uncomfortable and/or difficult to read too many of these posts in one sitting, so please, pace yourself and do not become so enraged by these injustices that you do something reactionary.  Any real change to these problems will require conscious, thoughtful, coordinated, and sustained effort.  Join up with others who understand the situation and make yourselves heard.  Remember what Margaret Mead said!

Today I called my senator, here's what I said.

I'm calling to urge my senator to stop this healthcare travesty. We need real reform, not more compromise. I know that it's people like myself who end up dying and suffering over proposals like this one. For too long, necessary steps have been blocked by the vested interests who have grown rich off the labor of common, hard-working folks. At the same time these same individuals continuously promise us more than they ever deliver: in workplace safety, in food safety, in living wages, affordable housing-any housing!-yes, healthcare, or automobile safety, and on and on. More compromise in this case means more illness, more unnecessary pain and anguish, more death for people like myself. Our only offense is that we are forced by this system to work more than is needed to get less than is deserved. How can you honestly tell someone with two or three jobs that we don't deserve to have healthcare? That we are unworthy, just because we weren't born with a certain skin color or the "right background"? This, as with so many other things in our country, is a problem we are too long in finding an ethical, decent solution for. Instead we are forced to listen to more talk and excuses about "economic interests", about how "businesses can't survive", or "it's unfair to insurance companies". These entities are not alive, they don't matter when measured against the death of a mother or father whose disease was not treated in time, of one more child who goes hungry to pay the insurance, or one more brother or sister who slides into poverty under mounting medical bills. It's time to stop this insane practice of "we can't", it's time to say not only "we should", or even, "we can". It's time to say, "we will."

Choice and Consequence

Capitalism is not a system that allows people to exercise free will, even though it is supposedly based on choice. We are told that we are free, that because we can pay for what we want and because the capitalist system provides so many options, that we have real choices.  However, all the choices boil down to the same one: pay or die.  If you can't afford food, you starve; if you don't have the cash for health care, you'll get or stay sick; when you need a vacation, you'd better have plenty of cash.  The problems of capitalism are ameliorated by factors like insurance, subsidies, and donations, but these are not solutions.  Also, the illusion of choice is exposed by having only those select "approved" choices. In this I mean not that we should be able to break laws or do without them altogether, those are collective decisions and necessary for societal well being.  I mean simply that true innovation and free thought is stifled.  We are caught up in the system and have to work within its confines.  This is due to spending so much energy just to meet our "cash needs" (food, clothing, shelter, recreation) there isn't much left over for exploration.  There is only funding for research that "those in charge" allow for, and they only want to pay for things that will get them more money and power. If we want to do something, we have to get their permission and support.  If we want to operate outside of their purview, we still have to work inside the system and have those same  "choices".  It is a self-fulfilling, self-perpetuating cycle whereby the more one plays the game, the more the game controls the player.

Volunteers Needed, Inquire Within.

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

Capitalism as Favoritism

What I would like to point out this time is a basic and prominent flaw with this system. Simply put: the ability of those with money to do what those without cannot. When money represents the ability to make desirable things happen, then those who have little or no money are left out. This is not just about being able to afford a sumptuous dinner of natural, contaminant-free foods, although that is an example. This applies to everything from transportation and housing to hair and body care. One obvious example that many can relate to is speeding tickets. I use these because they are things which most citizens agree are unfair. What I mean by this is that these tickets represent an informal tax, a fee to circumvent inconvenient laws (I mentioned this in my post "Legal Fiction" of 19Mar05). There could be valid reasons behind speed limits, certainly, but the only real check on dangerous behaviour and which leads to actual safety is self-regulation. Psychologists might refer to this as an internal rather than external locus of control, but it means that an individual is in charge of herself. Getting back to this discussion: when one breaks a law and the penalty is financial in nature, that is unfair. There is no motivation for actual, long-term changes in the offending behaviour, there is only the fear of being caught and having to pay more money. This means that those who have little money are more effected and those with more money do not experience the fear or supposed change in behaviour which the fine is supposed to instill. This also holds for being imprisoned, since it has monetary repercussions, as well. There is the immediate effect of not working while in prison, but the further difficulty of having a criminal record which will limit job prospects in the future. Even more unfair, since most people with money are able to get a great attorney, they get to keep themselves out of prison or pay a fine (can I simply call it an inconvenience fee yet?) in lieu of jail time.  What does this mean to you?  Are you entitled, in the dominant class, and without worry or care for this situation?  Do you feel this is the way things ought to be?  While you may consider yourself above the law, you may wish to reconsider that position.  The only way that laws have any power is by consent and when they are imposed on people there is only one outcome.  I don't mean to expand on that now, as it is a topic for another post.