Who is the Best Dog Walker?

You are.

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

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

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

What is this "Labor Movement"?

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

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

The Freedom to be Fleeced

Some people argue that boundless freedom is best, that liberty can only be a good thing and should therefore be applied without restriction. This seductive idea seems to hold promise in promoting equality and equity, drawing power away from structures and returning it to individuals, and encouraging self-sufficiency. Let us quickly see if these claims could hold true. Simply put, if we assume everyone operates on a level playing field, as total liberty would suggest, then every transaction must inherently be fair. For that to be true, all parties would have equal power and privilege in the exchange so no one is unduly pressured as well as having total knowledge of the market and items in question. This is similar to the field of economics "homo economicus" (the fictional 'rational actor' constructed to make economic models work), in that it also makes assumptions divorced from current reality and the irrationality of humans. It is precisely because people have urgent needs, limited knowledge, and less power that they are disadvantaged in commerce. I am not a fully informed buyer, and so get ripped off by a disreputable seller. I, as an inexperienced seller, get low-balled by a dishonest buyer. Whichever way the exploitation goes, it makes the entire process of commerce less safe for everyone-whether they were involved or not. These transactions end up influencing retributive behavior or driving inexperienced actors out of the market. Freedom on its own is insufficient to produce fair markets. Rather than the results of liberty, ideal conditions turn out to be the precursors or necessary foundations for a free and fair market. This is where the title of the post comes in: if there is no regulation, capitalism tends towards exploitation and unfair practices. Therefore we cannot implement total laxity and deregulation of markets without seriously hurting people. Further, absolute freedom will tend towards the same undesirable outcome in other aspects of life.

In considering personal liberty we may like the idea that individuals choose freely what to say and whether to attend school. These choices seem to be under the sole purview of the individual, but they have an impact greater than just that person and therefore concern the community at large. This is because the argument of liberty has an obverse that seems often to be downplayed: responsibility. While I may have a right to speak them, my words have an impact on those around me. Just as I am liable for my actions, I also have an obligation to the consequences of my words. This is because others have equal rights, such as not being attacked or slandered. Similarly, when I elect to keep my child home to educate them, I seem to be choosing only for myself or my child, but these choices also have an impact on society. When a person does not have the same basic information as everyone else, not only are they personally handicapped, but they interfere with the functioning of community, business, and government because of that lack. This is the basic argument for compulsory public education, and the responsibility of every participant in an open society: the capability to interact with all the other peoples in that society. Beyond that, the selfish motive of not wanting to be taken advantage of because of ones' ignorance should impel us to embrace the best education available. An absolutist response to this might be, "you just want to take away all rights and impose what you think is right on everyone else!", and that would be a hysterical, hyperbolic straw man argument. As with other aspects of life, there needs to be balance to how much liberty each person has and what duty is owed to the community. Finding that balance is part of the project of forming a more perfect union.

Everyday people

There is a great difficulty in being a typical person, one of the crowd, or un-exceptional. The struggle is for validity, for self-esteem, and the basic belief in one's own worth. There is rightly much talk about representation in media, and how important it is for people to see those like themselves in popular formats. While this is especially important for marginalized and targeted groups, there is value in the great majority seeing themselves as well. Similarly, as much of the news is devoted to celebrity and wealth, there needs to be a move towards placing those exceptional individuals into a larger context. To begin with, any typical news story must be outside ordinary, everyday life; it is only when the dam fails or another tragedy that it receives attention. The news does not report the hundreds of people helping each other through tough times, the thousands who take time to volunteer, and the millions of interactions that go off without a hitch everyday. These unremarked events are so commonplace that they become invisible, yet they form the basis for society and civilization functioning at all. The mundane is what actually keep things going; the same is true of people: it is the mass of average, everyday persons who are more responsible for things going smoothly. Overall, the focus on outliers leads to a skewed outlook on the world as it makes those outliers seem more important. To have a more accurate view, we can recognize that most of the people (both currently and historically) are basically very alike in lifestyle. They do not hold fancy titles, earn elite recognition, or accomplish once-in-a-generation feats. The very word "exceptional" contains the clue that those celebrated are exceptions to the general rule. However, there is no concomitant recognition that there is no loss of worth or diminishment in humanity in being common (or, in the current vernacular, "basic"). This insidious reinforcement of the message that only the uncommon matter is ever-present and oppressive. While many assume the question is how to be noticed and become exceptional, that is approaching the problem from the wrong end. The answer has never been to change into some version of these unusual celebrities, but rather to be our self and have that be worth celebration. The issue is the expectation that those celebrities are the only ones deserving of our attention. Once we take away our attention (and money), the so-called "powerful" begin to lose that power, as it is based on the collected support of the mass of common folk. Rather than buying the latest in an endless line of "hot" celebrity schlock and fads, we would be better off supporting worthy causes we believe in and spending our time with people we care about. By taking our focus away from the trivial (celebrity) and placing it on the important (everyday people), we can begin that celebration of the truly meaningful: ourselves.

Being the Center of Your Own Attention

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

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

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