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.

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.

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.

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.

How Seeking Identity Sucks

While the push for individuality is prevalent and seen in diverse media throughout daily life, it is juxtaposed with the fundamental refusal of self-reflection within the U.S. culture. Briefly, this refusal is demonstrated by the constant blame of "others", denial of wrongdoing by "me" (whoever is speaking), and lack of transparency in discourse or dialogue. This dynamic becomes an inauthentic parade to display for others rather than actually express ones' individuality. Without the ability to find and accept who one is, the result is the suppression of self and taking on of roles. This can be seen in the way people talk about each other, as family, friends, coworkers, etc. Labels like "my rock", the "fun friend", "Blanche to my Dorothy" (substitute your own pop-culture reference), or the "go-to guy" are prevalent. One may seek to 'live up to' a reputation, or to use one of the above labels in order to be unique or, more precisely, to have value. Believing one only has value as an individual because of being witnessed and judged as being an individual does not indicate a healthy self-image.

 

A part of the pursuit of 'The Good Life' is the futile flight from conformity. Individuality can be an internalized form of domination when people are trapped by thinking that their value only has to do with money. The fear of being seen as the same as everyone else (especially potent in an individualistic society) means that wealth is the only way to be oneself since the wealthy are the ones seen as expressing individual flair (and deserving of the label 'iconoclast'). The Lego Movie shows us the danger of conforming, and how forgettable Emmet is before becoming 'The Special'. Even Wyldstyle disdains him openly for not being a Master Builder. The initial message is that anyone who has no discernible outward or visible difference is nothing. It is only at the end of the movie that we find the concept that every individual has something to offer as themselves. This mirrors the reality that people can feel and see, where social media and popular culture are filled with sensational, odd individuals and stolid, sensible people are dismissed.

 

The question of self can also be found when I blend in to various groups and don't seem to have a solid "me"-sometimes people will say they are a 'chameleon'. This is actually an example of humanity, universality, and commonality amongst all of us. It is not a problem or suspicious to be able to relate, since we are all more alike than we are irretrievably different. It also relates to the concept of code-switching, an important ability to act appropriately in different situations.

 

Finally, what would it mean to have an identity? If I do accept myself, does anyone else? Is the essence of who I am only valid without influence from anyone else or despite those around me? We are a social species, and depend on the social environment we swim through everyday to offer cues as to "how we are". What this means is that prejudice is learned through our surroundings, just as oppression is internalized. Contrarily, celebration of differences and equity for all can be learned through exposure to others. My ability to find and celebrate myself is a prerequisite for doing the same for others, so I hope we can make this process less daunting with time.

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.

"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

The Stake That Sticks Up is Hammered Down

The title of this post is taken from a Japanese proverb (see end of post). The reason I'm repeating a 'tired and misunderstood' aphorism is this simple: special people are ruining the world.

I believe this is the precise meaning and original reason for the saying. Not that every individual must conform or is prescribed a narrow role to fulfill. Rather, I take it to mean that those who "stick out" do not fulfill their obligation to the structure in which they reside. I see ubiquitous examples in a hyper-individualistic society like the U.S. From the person at a stop sign telling others to "go", sociopathic commodities traders, and the lobbyist/elected official 'revolving door positions' to entitled socialites, self-righteous Social Justice Warriors, and privileged children. These are all examples of persons who - by exempting themselves from common rules - cause havoc and unhappiness for others. As they are self-absorbed, it seems likely they rationalize by concentrating on the desired effect to themselves and ignoring the harm to others.

What would be the goal or underlying motivation for such seemingly diverse groups of people to behave so similarly? The simplest explanation would be fear. I could expand or de-emphasize it by using words like scarcity and insecurity. In the end, I am still talking about a belief that if one does not 'bend the rules' then one will suffer or 'lose out'. That belief is simply a story that intellectualizes the basic human emotion of fear. However, and more importantly, this belief confuses a want with a need. If I am willing to trample another person to get to a sale item, I have confused priorities. A TV on sale is not the same situation as boarding the last life boat on the Titanic. Not that I agree with trampling someone even then.

I will state my own opinion here: the minimum expectation to which people could hold themselves is of 'not taking my own stuff out on others.' In this case, eliminating or soothing my own fear at the expense of another is not acceptable. My emotions, even intense ones, are solely mine and for me to grapple with. If I require help, I am able to make requests. I cannot - in good conscience - use controlling behaviours to force others to get what I want.

Another reason why these are 'special' people is that they are not fulfilling a culturally necessary role through these actions. Even 'rebels' and 'deviants' have a place in society: that of questioning or challenging authority and complacency. This is noble and necessary. However, selfishly disrupting the harmonious functioning of culture by interfering with others for ones' own benefit is not. This is not conscious or peaceful protest of unjust laws, it is blindly acting out habitual, feal-based patterns. I will suggest calling it selfishness.

According to http://dictionary.reference.com:
selfish
1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself.

So, in the end, these 'special' people are just selfish people. It may be time to use the hammer appropriately on the selfish, for the benefit of all.


The following links are discussions about the meaning of the proverb:
Reddit
Wikiquote
Cultural Blog

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.

Competition, Saviours, and the Fate of Us All

There is a persistent idea that there is one answer: an individual, a correct path, or "way".  I see this in religions, with their "one true" gods and messiahs, in medicine, where disease A gets treatment B, and in government, where the answer to any and every problem is more and stricter laws being passed.  This single-solution thinking leaves us vulnerable to snake oil salesmen when we pin all our hopes on this or that all-in-one device. This becomes magical thinking when we believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that one answer can be applied to every situation. It's also self-sabotaging when we expect only one thing from ourselves, one way of being. We are all complex and experiential animals who vary in reaction and ability, sometimes from minute to minute.  We are capable of both amazing generosity and destructive selfishness.  We can be both saints and sinners, brave and cowardly, knowledgable and ignorant.  These are all just parts of being human.  Expecting one without the other-thinking a person is only either "good" or "bad"-is childish.  I am reminded of a phrase I heard years ago. I think many of us have heard of a "silver bullet" which eliminates a mythic problem. The real problem is neither of them exists; I mean neither the werewolves nor the "magic" bullet solution. The phrase which I heard is "silver buckshot" because there isn't one "bullet" that will dispel the "monsters" we need to deal with. Rather, by taking a larger-scale approach of putting a number of holes in the problem using different methods will we be able to truly and realistically solve these problems.  In my judgement, single-solution thinking is destructive and deceptive, there is no one size that fits all. It is not about having the right answer, or even one that everyone can agree on.

I don't claim to have "the answer", or at least I should not-especially after this post.  What I try to do is make observations and hope to instigate discussion. As individual and unique as every one is, as every individual is a universe unto themselves, I don't believe there can be such a thing as "one way".

Dis-connection

Going back to an earlier topic, why is it that we are encouraged to specialize in particular areas, and to be completely ignorant of others? Should we not be able to do things for ourselves; are we so limited that we can only grasp a small portion of what makes up our world? Isn’t being alive all about making connections, about having relationships with others? Doesn’t it seem ridiculous to hear about a doctor who can’t do laundry, a mechanic who doesn’t know to cook, or a Chemistry teacher who can’t answer simple questions about History-to carry it further, what about not having friends that are different? Who decided that we should not know people who don’t have as much money, or have backgrounds removed from our own? Aside from a question of the quality of our education, this is about the focus of our knowledge, or the restrictive nature of focus. Having a specialty is great, especially one that grows out of a true passion, it allows for the immersion into a subject that few people choose to explore. This seems increasingly important as there grow to be more and more people; for example, if only .001% of the population enjoys swimming, how crowded are swimming spots if there are 60 million of us, and how about when there are 6 billion? As the sheer number of people competing for the same resources grows, the same percentage of the population cannot get that same experience as they jostle amoungst all the new people who share that interest. In response, there need to be new experiences that open up so that we don’t get the intense pressure to compete more fiercely within those old practices. Otherwise we will end up fighting each other over whose turn it is to fly their kite at the beach while timing people as they stroll down the road in the woods. There may be a drive or need to funnel enjoyment into activities or narrow categories because of population pressure, but this should not lead to the exclusion of all other pursuits. It should never be necessary to limit ourselves so severely just so that we still have fun. We should always be having fun, in everything we do there should be some enjoyment. After all, if we aren’t having fun, what is the use in living?

What Is Wrong With...?

It may be a bumper sticker, but it still holds true what it says, “None of us is free if one of us is jailed.” The idea being, of course, that if we don't all get there together none of us can truly get there. This statement may seem ridiculous on its face, but it bears some thought. After all, what is wrong with some or even one person “getting there” and why if one person does would we all need to? Competition, and its adjunct capitalism, is based upon the concept that every situation results in either ‘win’ or ‘loss’. The idea being that if only one can ‘win’ then all will want to be that one and strive for it, but only that one individual will succeed and gain the reward; all others will ‘lose’, resulting in feelings of defeat and envy, discouragement-any number of things which supposedly motivate them to try all the harder next time. These people are not actually ‘losers’, they are capable and deserve their own reward, and are just as worthy of a tangible prize for their considerable efforts. This is part of the problem: no one should have to put forth such energy in an endeavor to receive nothing in return. Competition always results in a substantial misuse and/or waste of effort and energy. Further, competing means that every participant loses. The very act of competing against one’s fellow employees or applicants, classmates, family and friends, etc., creates tension and strife. It is undesirable and unnecessary since the same outcome can be achieved with different means, which preserves everyone’s self-worth and contributes to the harmony and performance of the whole group. Finally, every ‘win’ is only temporary; so even the happy ‘winner’ will be unhappy later when they ‘lose’ too. When the only way to succeed is to ‘win’-whether in a sport, relationship, or job-we miss the point.
The point of performing a job is to do the best one can, not just to out-perform another person; in recreation the idea is to play a game the best one can, not just better than a particular opponent. In a relationship this attitude could mean that one is out to ‘win’ arguments, always be “right”, or in charge, and/or make the decisions. Competing or inciting competition means that you are driving people to fight against each other which cannot be beneficial. The only real ‘winner’ is the person who reaps the rewards of the efforts of all the participants, which more and more is none of the competitors, but someone who already has power. Basically the artificial creation of inequalities is unnecessary and deprives every person involved of integrity, compassion, and unity. The idea of interdependence is key in many philosophies, and in practice allows for all people to ‘win’. When we recognize the necessity of everyone and their contributions and stop fighting against each other, then we will be able to achieve more and “get there” more happily.