Where Did the Money Go? Part the Second

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

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

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

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

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

 

Where Did the Money Go? Part the First

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


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

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

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


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

Proposal for a True Universal Currency

How we currently calculate the value of an item is purely economical, in the pedestrian sense. Some version of: “I’ll pay a little more than the total price of components, production, transportation, and sale of the item”. Let us look at a small example to understand the process better. In creating clothing, the demand for various other components was also born; in order to make one thing, we need various tools, ingredients, or processes. The basis for clothes is thread, which can come from sources like cotton, wool, or newer artificial fibers. Any of these require land, water, and effort in order to cultivate, harvest, and produce. While animal or artificial fibers require somewhat different ingredients, they are similar enough for our discussion. Land must be cleared for farming and/or factories, requiring energy for labor and machinery to make a plot usable. The crop must be cultivated, and most often water is involved, requiring further energy output for reservoirs and distribution networks. Finally, once ready for harvest, energy must be used to gather it for processing: reaping crops, shearing sheep, or manufacturing plastics. Additionally, fibers can be stored for the future as well as transported to where the fibers will be transformed into usable thread and then clothing. If we are to create enough thread to clothe a population, there is tremendous infrastructure and construction necessitated. While shoppers see the price of a shirt, the production of that one article is repeated tens of thousands of times requiring a tremendous apparatus that extends beyond just the shirt company. To arrive at a final price, many contemporary examples would also include government subsidies, tax breaks, undercutting competitors, advertising, and on ad nauseam. Additionally, we are not accounting for the loss of habitable land given over to industry, the toll on workers (physical or otherwise), or the environmental impacts of various practices. There are many costs which only get calculated later if enough people raise enough of a fuss. Once established, technologies become more political and decisions have more to do with what industry will allow to be considered than the actual components. In short, what gets considered a “cost” is subjective and often poorly understood. This illustrates some of the underlying problems with the current system. It would be better to have a simpler, universally applicable, and objective way to arrive at the value or cost of any item. As you might expect, there may be such a thing, but we must first explore some basic science in order to make the connection.

First, notice that the word “energy” appears a number of times in our example above; whether electrical, physical, mechanical, or chemical, the work done can be expressed as units of energy. While we may be accustomed to using this term in various ways, for our discussion here we need to think of it as it is used in physics. This means two things: energy exists along an electromagnetic spectrum and only some of it is useful. Energy exists on a scale from radiation at the high end to heat at the low end. It moves "down" easily, i.e. standing in the sunshine warms you up. However, to convert heat back into electricity it takes more energy than we get from that change to heat. We can generate electricity using the falling water at a dam to turn an electromagnet, converting potential mechanical energy into electrical energy, but we would not be able to draw the same amount of water back up into the reservoir using the electricity we gained. This is because there is always some amount of loss in converting any form of energy into another. Once energy translates from light into heat, it is no longer available to perform tasks; once the water is boiled, that heat cannot be used as electricity again. Next, everyone recognizes that it is easier to destroy than create; it takes time and effort to make the sand castle, but it will quickly fall apart on its own. That is entropy: the tendency towards loss of order and need for energy to maintain order. Further, entropy is a universal process. While the news mentions "peak oil", "post-oil economics", etc., which are different ways of expressing our limited supply of petroleum, the same is true of all energy sources. You may remember learning in school that our Sun has a lifespan, and will burn up at some point in the future. More broadly still, there is a finite amount of usable energy in the entire universe and when that is expended further change will be impossible, expressed as the "heat death of the universe". Recognizing this might encourage some to “conserve energy”, but the purpose of this post is just to point out the limitations of our current financial reckoning and suggest improvements.

With this understanding, of both the limitations of current economic accounting and entropy as a basis for the true representation of costs, we can construct a system which would express all activities as consumption of our total energy “budget”. Thus entropy would become a basic unit of currency and evaluation at once. For true cost-benefit analysis, we could do no better.

The Land of Propaganda

There is a strange idea that the U.S. has no mythology, that somehow it exists as a country free from such delusions or influences. This is a typical way of describing the idea of mythology: they are fairy tales from other cultures or the hokum of old religions. These stories are derided as "childish" or "quaintly silly" as if the U.S. were immune to such "nonsense".

Of course, that is untrue; there are more fables and tall tales here than are even called such. Beyond the legends that immigrants brought with them and after the rich history of the native peoples, even outside the fables of Paul Bunyan, Johnny Appleseed, or the Wild West, and leaving aside the embellished tales of George "I cannot tell a lie" Washington and Abraham "born in the log cabin he built with his own two hands" Lincoln, there are stories which have influenced generations. The stories I refer to are those of perseverance, success, plenty, and superiority. The mythology of the U.S. as a "meritocracy", where deserving people "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", and go "from rags to riches". The fables of "keeping up with the Joneses", having a "white picket fence" around a "Norman Rockwell home", and copying the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" (or "MTV's 'Cribs'"). These myths claim that anyone can "climb the ladder" and "make it big", and, further, that hard work is what it takes. The other side is the belief that someone has to have an exceptional idea or talent in order to "strike it rich". These contradictory beliefs are another symptom of the myth: there is no internal consistency between the various parts of the fairy tale. The lies are especially difficult to recognize because of what we do see. People with no discernible talent or skill who are CEO's and politicians. When one looks at them, it makes no sense and seems to support the idea that anyone can become rich and influential. There are ready examples of entrepreneurs, athletes, and entertainers who manage to climb the economic ladder. These are the exceptions, or exceptional individuals, who come from nothing and succeed through pure talent. Thus, the propagation of the myth of "the land of opportunity". There are many reputable sources you can find that expose the falsity of this opportunity myth, you do not need to take my word for it. Instead, let me point out that the heart of the myth is not about the existence of opportunity. Rather it is about "who is worthy of opportunity".

The point here is that we are told a story: that anyone can do it, either through talent or perseverance. Rather than treating it as just a story, it is sold as the real deal. Because it makes claims of truth about how things work and why they are that way, and persists despite obvious evidence to the contrary, it is a mythology. Just as gods were created and used to explain earthquakes and famine, this mythology tells us why we suffer while others benefit. What makes it a bad story is not just that it is false, but that it is harmful. These fairy tales are ingrained stories that keep us from feeling the disappointment of our reality and engaging to make helpful (and long-overdue) changes. Finally, then, this is what makes them propaganda: focusing attention on illusory goals in order to distract from the reality surrounding us. We cannot see our way to changing something if the belief is that things "just are" this way. It does not make sense to talk about taking wetness out of water when we "know" that it is property of water to be wet. Similarly, we could not conceive of changing from hierarchy and false economic promises until we are aware that they are just a set of stories. It is when a habit is outside of awareness that it can be most dangerous. It is the unacknowledged parts that make up the assumptions and background of every thought which exert unchecked influence. This is because there is no way to guard against what is not even considered a threat, or really, what is not even acknowledged to exist. It is in this place of ignorance that these stories exist and thrive. By recognizing that they are stories, we can begin to change them and our circumstances.

 

Edit October 2022: for better examination of this topic see Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire by Kurt Andersen.

The Future is Waiting, Part Three: Fulfills its Promise

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

The Future is Waiting, Part One: in the Throes of History

     With all the ‘debate’ (read: protests, vitriol, insurrection, conspiracy theories, disinformation, etc.) recently concerning equality, equity, representation, power, and democracy, I feel compelled to offer an alternative view that I hope is constructive. In writing this, my hope is to encourage a more productive discussion about the systems we live in. As a person who dislikes to argue trivialities, as someone who cares more for what or how something is than what it is called, I look to understand the fundamental aspects of humanity. The current issue we face, as a people and as a world, is the need for a fundamental shift away from a mode of thinking which is ancient—possibly prehistoric—in origin. While we absolutely enjoy a standard of living far in excess of anything possible before, with medicine, sanitation, literacy, and survival all measurably improved, I submit that life is fundamentally unchanged from those ancient times. In order to demonstrate my thesis I will require your forbearance, as I must start with a broad overview of history. These are all drawn from general knowledge available to most contemporary citizens, and designed to give us a common understanding from which to arrive at the conclusions of this essay. At this time I wish to acknowledge a couple truths, in the spirit of empowerment and consensus. I recognize that I am not the only, first, or even best person to write this; it is simply that I have my own way of understanding and expressing these ideas. Also, that my ability to speak to these matters is made possible by, as well as greatly enhanced by, numerous oppressed groups and individuals who have gone before me. Similarly, that I enjoy privilege accorded me that is not given to others, based on the very systems on which I offer criticism. Herewith, we enter the body of the text.
     For much of prehistory—that is the period before we have written records and rely upon speculation based on surviving artifacts—we suppose humans lived as tribal beings. These would be small bands, either nomadic or settled, with little need for governance; generally, we imagine tribal councils or a ‘chief’. Additionally, people often suppose a spiritual leader as a connection to the supernatural. In these tribes, social pressures would protect individuals within the group from each other within the established order. However, in the main, people assume that these tribes were hierarchical in that they had leaders. Once people began to band together, congregate, or converge into groups greater than 150, there became a need for more structured organization. Rather than risk living among strangers who might be killers and marauders, people would likely establish and accept laws—and then bureaucracy—in order to maintain their safety and stability. Sometime around 5000 years ago, Egypt began counting dynasties; we also have written laws from Mesopotamia dating around 4000 years ago. What we know of earliest recorded history is that there were already systems in place that ordered—and, likely, stratified—society. Some of the earliest pieces of writing we have discovered are tabulations of stock, indicating a mercantile system. From that period, we begin to see the characteristic and familiar structures of “civilized” societies. In every human civilization, there were the mass of people (those common to see, or “commoners”) going about their lives. Once agriculture became widespread, specialization followed; this meant people focused on particular trades: farmers, builders, millers, smiths, tanners, and on and on. All these commoners (be they Roman, Aztec, Persian, Celtic, Mongol, etc.) desired security and liberty. The ability to farm, build, mill, and trade without interference from bandits or bureaucrats; to be with family and continue the traditions of their ancestors. These common folk of societies, who were not thinking about conquering or ruling, concerned themselves with how to care for family and enjoy the time they had. Typically, commoners would be subject to a ruler. You will likely recognize the titles pharaoh, caliph, emperor, emir, shah, khan, shogun, or king; when we think of history, these have often been the focus—these individuals who “shaped the world”. We recognize these are non-democratic types of government; the notion that one individual would have total control over an entire nation may even seem “barbaric” to those in a modern, “democratic” nation. However, this system of monarchy was accepted (indeed, expected as the norm) in a wide number of cultures around the world throughout history. Not to exclude those still in existence, of course, however they be organized or labeled. It was oft-purported that these rulers had actually been ‘touched by god’ somehow, and were exceptional. This might nowadays be labeled a theocracy, where the ruler is supposed to be connected to their deity. The laws and structure of such a society would be based on the religion of that god, and thus automatic justification for any action of the government. This demonstrates most clearly how rulers were seen to be—in a fundamental way—different and separate from ‘regular people’. In other cases, the person in charge was ruler because they had the largest army or in some way established rule through military might. This may have been an ancient Roman general or Mongol leader, an African lord or Medieval duke. While it scarcely needs saying, I would be remiss in not including the colonizing forces of European countries here as well. For example, the United States started out as a colony of Britain, justified by both ‘divine right’ and military superiority over the native peoples.
     What, then, was life like that makes these civilizations non-democratic? First, rules came from the top, as mentioned above; also, that rulers were not beholden to the citizenry. Once the monarch made the decisions, those policies were sent out to regional and then local officers. In medieval Europe, the monarch could have barons, dukes, lords, and princes on down to locals such as burghers or sheriffs, these would be the “nobility” or “aristocracy”. The enforcement of royal edicts depended on each local magistrate (and the enforcers they would retain). Wealth and property would be concentrated in and collected by nobles, often with the understanding that ultimately it was owned by “the monarchy”. Conversely, all local decisions were backed up by the threat of force from higher-ranking nobles. If a mayor abused their position there was little recourse available to the citizenry. Officials would likely only be removed if they displeased their superiors, i.e. by embezzling monies those superior nobles wanted for themselves. Information and education were similarly restricted to the wealthy; at times, the only literate persons were those educated and beholden to the established religious order. Mistrust of outsiders or differences was common; therefore, most folks would have stuck to what and who they knew. This relates to the ability and desire to relocate, as most people would remain near their birthplace generation upon generation. For information on the larger world, locals would need to depend on news (or gossip) from travelers or merchants who visited other places. Often, there would also be rigid enforcement of roles; if not de jure caste, then title or trade were handed down from parent to child—similarly keeping people trapped at particular levels of society. Additionally, commoners would be subject to conscription into militia or other forced labor. This could be as punishment for infractions or due to the local magistrate’s desire for greater holdings (property). Fealty (a legal obligation to a lord) or loyalty to town, country, church, or cause could be invoked to bestir commoners to the rulers’ ends. Truly despotic rule meant citizens could not criticize publicly or privately, as doing so would result in fatal, and often public, retaliation. Likewise, meetings would be prohibited or subject to approval and restriction, so as to curtail expression of dissent or discontent in the more oppressive regimes. Finally, slavery has existed since time immemorial. Certainly never as organized and institutionalized as the Atlantic slave trade of the mid- to late-1000s. However, the forced use of another’s work for one’s own benefit has been used to the ends of those in power throughout history. Since we have established the limitations of the citizenry, what did freedom (the lives of the aristocracy) look like? In contrast to the harsh lives of commoners, the “nobles” were able to travel, learn, own, choose, participate in government, were treated with respect or deference, and lived in abundance; food, shelter, clothing, social acceptance and standing, self-improvement, and ability to care for others. If we use a psychological hierarchy of needs, it was only the “upper class” who had access to all the components. This illustrates quite clearly the difference and divide between the “have’s” and “have-not’s”, which is not only obviously non-democratic, but also unjust and immoral to modern sensibilities. These are the conditions which lead to the ‘revolutions’ of the 18th century, and our modern ideas about democracy. In a sense, it was a change purported to allow more of humanity to experience what previously had been reserved to the ‘nobility’.
     During the 1700’s (in a period now called the “[Age of] Enlightenment”) a number of political philosophers were writing and talking about government and what legitimacy it had, based on “natural laws” and a presumed “state of nature”. These discourses were, in turn, based on much earlier theories from more ancient civilizations’ philosophers. Written works like Leviathan, Common Sense, and The Social Contract are the results of these Enlightenment thinkers. In the Declaration of Independence, the justification for cutting ties with the British monarchy is almost wholly based on the king’s breaking of this “social contract” between ruler and ruled. It is important, therefore, to familiarize ourselves with these reasonings in order to understand how we have reached the state of today’s societies and governance thereof, which is presumed to be democratic. The essential part is that notion of “contract between ruler and ruled”: that there exists an implicit and/or explicit agreement that the ruler will protect the ruled and, in return, the ruled provide support and obedience to rule. This is considered necessary because the supposed alternative is an “anarchic state” where “each one is against every other” (this is the “state of nature” previously mentioned). The reasoning essentially becomes, “rule by a government is evil, but necessary when weighed against the alternative of bloody, murderous barbarism”. This disingenuous and self-serving argument rings hollow given adequate perspective and understanding of context. However, it is not important in this section to explore criticism of the construct, as we only need understand that this “social contract” has been used as the “justification” for government over the past 250 years. Contained in the theory is a kernel of new thinking: that rulers owe something to the ruled. Still not democracy (since they were not proposing citizens’ involvement in governance), just the notion that the monarch was not all-powerful and inerrant. This thinking then lead to the democratic revolutions in the Americas and Europe, as countries began overthrowing the established monarchies. These changes supposedly resulted in democracy. As if doing away with a figurehead was sufficient to eliminate non-democratic systems and thinking. Given that hundreds of years and numerous laws were required to bring persons of color and women into this “democratic system”, we can begin to see the shift was neither automatic nor immediate. This betrays the underlying truth to the history we’ve been exploring, and we will return to that topic in our last section. At this juncture, I also wish to clarify a fundamental aspect of all this discussion of democracy, which is the relationship between our subject and capitalism (said relationship deserving a separate discussion). While there is much linking of democracy and capitalism, it is a spurious and dangerous equivalence. Democracy is a system of governing a body of participants whereas capitalism is a set of economic precepts by which people conduct trade. In a democratic government the goal is the betterment of life for all citizens rather than just a few, and this is accomplished through a willingness of those same citizens to agree on laws and be governed by them. The economic model of capitalism, in contrast, is predicated upon competition between private holdings with the goal of extracting capital from customers in order to expand those holdings. Because of this fundamental difference, they are analogous to the water and electrical systems in your home: they are both important, but serve distinctly and incompatibly different purposes. Additionally, they cannot be linked and continue to function as intended. After all, you would not plug a cord into the toilet or run a water pipe into the junction box. At best, things just do not work; at worst, you burn down the house. In saying this, I wish to allow us to continue this essay without being further distracted by the conflation of democracy with capitalism.
     To complete this first section, I wish for readers to recognize that we are reviewing most societies over the course of thousands of years; it is, admittedly, difficult to picture much beyond the past hundred years. Additionally, the numbers of persons involved stagger the imagination. For context, the estimated total number of humans who have ever lived is 108 billion. With a current population estimate of 7.5 billion, that leaves over 100,000,000,000 persons having lived through the millennia under the historical conditions that we are considering. While the names and outward particulars may have differed, we are viewing these systems in order to understand their underpinnings—the structure that supports the structure we see. If there are any, the few exceptions serve to prove non-democracy as the general rule. Finally, it is not my conjecture that this is the natural or only form that societies can take.

 

Edit October 2022: for excellent examination of historical information, see The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman times to the French Revolution, by Francis Fukuyama

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.

Why There Is No "Right to Privacy"

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Insidious

This is a follow up of What is a Lie? (13 April, 2015). I mentioned briefly that jokes are lies, meaning they are not reflective of reality. A horse did not walk into a bar, and muffins do not talk. The intent to deceive is tempered with the intent to entertain. However, even jokes can be malicious and harmful. In ways greater, such as bullying, or lesser, as with 'fuzzy logic'. For example,

A man rolls through a stop sign.

A cop, seeing this, pulls the man over.

When asked, the man says, “I paused!”

The cop begins smacking the man on the head.

 The cop asks the man, “Do you want me to stop, or pause?”

As a child, this joke held a number of messages: personal safety, police violence, consequences, others' pain can be funny, hurting others as male 'explanation', surveillance by authority, and the importance of word choice.

The issue I want to focus on here is that the joke that leads to illogic. The man's actions did not warrant physical violence, nor is being beaten an analog for not fully stopping at a traffic sign. To compare potential harm with actual harm is wrong. It would be akin to saying I am justified in locking up a person who accidentally swept up another's checkbook in a pile of papers. There could have been malicious intent, but actually, there was none; furthermore, the harm is only a bit of worry before the confusion is sorted out.

Why is this worth mentioning and exploring? Many of the consequences to faulty logic are real-life and contemporary. Scams require victims to be oblivious to logic or susceptible to making erroneous conclusions. Malicious individuals rely on victims to not make logical choices and connections. This is not cause-and-effect and I am not claiming that laughing at silly jokes will lead to losing all your money to a con artist. I am supporting awareness of the ways we are fooled, and to be conscious of those patterns or instances in order to choose when to be on guard.

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

Follow up: Controlling the Workers

In a previous post (Capitalism as Favoritism,15Mar09), I mentioned the concept of business owners wanting "a workforce they can control." I am sure I could have been more clear, and since I want everyone to understand what I mean, that's what I intend to do here. Some may cringe at the mention of "Marxism (historical materialism)" or "Socialism", but I am interested here in analysing a problem of Capitalism and certainly relevant concepts and definitions can be found in both the former "-isms".

The idea is that those who own land and/or businesses (bourgeois: those who own the means of production) want to control those who do the work and/or buy the products (proletariat: workers/consumers). Not that bourgeois want to make the decisions for others, just keep workers less prone to demand better than they are getting. There are a number of ways to go about this, e.g. distraction, political correctness, creating division, etc. The idea being to collect as much power, prestige, and/or wealth as possible, using others to achieve this end.

This hasn't changed much in at least three thousand years. I would go all the way back in time through the Westward Expansion, Industrial Revolution, Colonization and Imperialism, Middle Ages, Renaissance and feudalism, Enlightenment, Dark Ages, the Fall and Rise of the Roman Empire, even to Egypt and Mesopotamia. I am not as familiar with "Eastern" cultures in India, China, or elsewhere, but I imagine many of the same conditions and drives exist in humans worldwide. This is not to say that a majority of citizens subscribe to the notion of ownership and control throughout history and in every culture, just that there are usually greedy, selfish individuals whose desires drive them to overpower others in their pursuits.

In the end, both the desire to gain and maintain power and control as well as the path to getting it has not changed much. This involves gathering a bunch of others together in support of your goals, generally by appealing to their self-preservation. This could mean threats, promises of reward, or just a notion of simplicity. What I mean by this last bit is that not everyone wants to be a big-shot; for many,  it's enough to be told what to do and let someone else worry about long-term issues.

Communication Breakdown is Inevitable

I said previously (in my post Apart-ment of 21Dec04): It doesn't matter what I'm here to say anyway, because you might not understand it, what matters is what you are going to get out of reading it.  This is the constant limitation of communication and an issue which we come up against every day: the division between what is said and what is understood.  Our own thoughts are often a mystery, as when we find ourselves laughing hysterically at grave news, so it is difficult enough to be clear with ourselves.  Add to this the notion of communicating these garbled and convoluted notions to another who has the same problems.  The other person has to be able to listen through their own limitations and interference.  They need to be able to get out of their own preconceptions, judgements, and emotions to reassemble the ideas they are hearing.  Say we're making plans for a trip, "We'll get up early, clean up, and go for a short hike."  What do "early", "clean", and "short" mean in this context?  Certainly different things if we're camping out than when at home.  Yet somehow we end up taking for granted that others know what we're saying.  One of the most annoying things to me is the phrase "you know", mainly because it completely counterproductive.  If someone uses "you know" in recounting an experience there is very little chance I will, at any point, actually know what they are talking about.  As a verbal tic it is rivaled only by the word "like", when this is used outside of comparisons.  As I don't mean to turn this into a rant, I will not belabour the point.  Suffice to say, since I wish to be understood I use as many adjectives, nouns, and complete sentences as possible when talking.  I still remember the example I heard as a young child in class, which was to think of a chair and describe it.  Just the simple concept of "chair" evoked so many different types!  Amplify that to include the myriad nuanced peculiarities in our everyday discussions.  Unless we're painfully explicit when discussing these things, we can't be understood.  I think this is why it is so remarkable and memorable when we feel listened to and heard.  We know how difficult it is and we value it when someone else gives it to us.

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".

Consent of the Governed

I brought up this topic in my post "Capitalism as Favoritism" of 15Mar09.  The idea here being that laws only have as much effect and last only as long as they are adhered to by those being governed.  This is not to say that laws cannot or will not be enforced by the sword or gun because it is certain that they oftentimes have been.  We have seen throughout history where an oligarchical group keeps power by terrorizing the farmers, workers, whatever majority there is.  However, even in the face of brutal repression by those using overt force there is a choice.  It is this choice, the consent, that we are concerned with. These citizens stand up, most often individually at first, and demand change.  Call it revolt, revolution, or reform-however it is characterized it signals the end of draconian rule by an elite class.  I wish that were the end of the story, but it is not so.  It is at this point that the governed consent to a law, series of laws, or entire government which become the new standard. Recognize that even now, after so many of these uprisings, there is still oppression and unfair rule by the elite.  How, if there have been so many examples of these circumstances being imposed and overcome, is this still the case?  How could it be that after overthrowing each dictatorship another springs up in its place?  My supposition is that no real change has taken place and that the reform is simply a "changing of the guard", if you will.  When the majority finally resist their government and succeed in changing the situation, they simply end up with a new elite class who hold the same interests: holding onto their power and status. My feeling is that the majority of people do not want to have the responsibility of wielding power or of adjudication.  I think most people enjoy living a simple life of work, family, and leisure and that it is actually abnormal to desire domination and strife.  I further suggest that it is this aspect which creates the systemic problem of a "ruling elite". Because it is only those few individuals who want to control and contend while others just want to get along and enjoy life.  It automatically creates a divide between those ambitious few and the rest. I think it can be addressed and changed, but in most cases up to now it is ignored so the problem persists.

Getting back to the point, I suggest simply that it is up to the majority to decide things, not the elite. When enough of the citizenry stop following a law or rule, it ceases to have any power.  Furthermore, without the majority following it means that the minority has no power.  "Leaders" are actually quite unimportant, as life and even government goes on without them; it is the masses of citizens which are vital to nations and to everyday operations.

Deep in the Heart of Dumb-ass

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

Owned!

Capitalism is predicated on the idea of ownership; that something, indeed everything, can be owned. Ownership indicates the ability to control. This means that if you own something, you determine what is done with it. This applies to a tool, an animal (even another human animal), territory, and-in recent times-an idea or words. Without this control things are subject to discussion, we have to agree with others about what happens, and be able to trust others. This is seemingly intolerable to many people, possibly from fear one may not get everything one wants. Leaving aside how great an insecurity with the world this concept reveals, let's examine what it means for us in a more concrete manner.

First we have to accept that we are able to own/control things outside of our individual selves. We then set about making sure that everyone knows we control these things, that no one else controls them, and that we can get control of other things in exchange for those we already control. This is the essence of capitalism, the bare-bones explanation. With all that activity, it seems like we ought to have something to show for it; that at the end of titling, registering, trademarking, copyrighting, and suing over rights to something, we must have a sense of accomplishment and fulfillment. Look at those who do own, then those who own more, and then see how relaxed and fulfilled the majority of these people are. Ownership, in truth, leads to anxiety and insecurity; it means the constant worry about what is owned being taken from us. In the words of Chuck Palahniuk, "The things you own end up owning you."

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.