money

Truth is Like Poetry 10

Problem: Poverty           

There have always been the poor and most likely there will always be impoverished people.  Poverty has been an excuse, a plague, a problem, and a scapegoat throughout history.  In other words, the problem of poverty seems to be a natural consequence of civilization.  The solution for this general poverty would be the allocation of funds, goods, and services to people across the planet, but this takes money, planning, and a political desire.  These are in actuality the problems of poverty.

Income disparities are often the consequences of politics and greed, corporate greed in particular.  Corporate greed alone probably accounts for a great percentage of global poverty, which is to say that most poverty is human-born.  Even if corporations (which hold the vast majority of the wealth on the planet, not including governments*) were to find the motivation to try to solve general poverty, planning such an endeavor would prove unlikely given the history of governments across the planet.  Furthermore, most governments are at least in part controlled by large sums of corporate monies.

Lastly, the political desire to eradicate global poverty would be necessary.  This alone is enough to make this endeavor impossible.  Human beings are tribal and primarily understand their immediate surroundings.  An endeavor to end world poverty is beyond the scope of human empathy not to mention political will.  There might be a way to conjure political will to eradicate poverty, but it would most likely be limited at best.

Solution: John Rawls “invisible curtain”

            John Rawls, an ethical philosopher, wrote The Theory of Justice which introduced a philosophical theory of justice based upon two principles which are important.  They are:

First Principle: Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all;

Second Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions:

  1. They are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity;
  2. They are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle) (JF, 42–43).

These two principles play a part when citizens (individuals within a given society) are put behind what he calls the “invisible curtain”.  In short, all theories of justice in that given society are to be made by everyone within that society.  However, no individual actually knows their particular place in that society.  In this way, everyone has ‘skin in the game’ so to speak.

With Rawls’ hypothetical ‘curtain’ in place, the likelihood of anyone allowing for extreme poverty would at least be lowered.

Truth is Like Poetry 5

Problem: Government

A good government (one that increases the amount of happiness for most people) must balance the desires of individuals with the desires of the society in which the individual lives; think of government as a seesaw with individuals on one side and society on the other.  The seesaw will always swing one or the other way.  This is its natural state.  It is when the natural state of the governmental seesaw is changed artificially by individuals or society that problems become inherent. 

Government is a philosophical idea, and at the same time it is defined by human limitations and so a second problem is that the essence, the ultimate goal of government becomes biased, or corrupt unnaturally by human limitations.  One might say that one of the jobs of government is to regulate stupidity, to lessen human limitations.  It has failed in this.

Lastly, governments are defined by laws and so it would seem to follow that any law ought to protect the “natural state” of the rights-relationship, the natural state of the seesaw, between individuals and society.  It is the concept of rights, after all, that we are discussing when we discuss the concept of government.  However, laws are linguistic and so there is the problem of interpretation, often used to create the bias and corruption mentioned above.

*see problems 4 & 5

Solution: Enforceable Law/social changes/re-establishment of separation of powers/money

First, rights are defined by law.  They are not “God-given”.  Nor can they be assumed simply because we are human beings.  That being said, any law must be written and enforced as to allow for the most rights for both individuals and society; both must compromise.  In essence, laws are amendments, and as such are changeable (amendable) but the ultimate goal, the most rights for both individuals and society, must always be the end-result.  Once in place, any and all laws must be enforceable and applicable to all individuals, the whole of society.

Secondly, law is interpretable.  Language is a tool of interpretation, and government is defined by the language that it uses.  This is where the issues start most of the time.  It is important to remember that interpretation itself is not a problem.  However, the issue is interpretation that is unnecessary, rhetorical, biased or corrupt towards an end other than the natural state, or that amendable laws are arbitrary.  This is typically caused by one or another section/part/power of the government gaining an upper hand through legal and sometimes illegal methods by re-interpreting law to their favor in lieu of the ultimate goal. To combat this inevitable problem, a true separation of powers is necessary.  This will need to be done legally and be enforceable.

Lastly and in short, unlimited lobbying and money must be taken out of governmental decision making.  The ability of the rich to control the government must be ended.

All of this may sound like a mess, but it is the nature of government.  At the base of this mess must be a platform.  What that platform is must be clear, but can change if enough individuals within a society deem it necessary (a legal majority).  Enforce laws and change society, if needed, in order that laws may be enforceable and amendable if necessary.

Truth is Like Poetry 5

Problem: Laissez-faire Capitalism

The problem of the idea of money is (actually) most likely as old as humanity.  Money, in all its forms, is simply a method of barter.  Bartering systems have varied over time, ranging from rocks and livestock and other things throughout history.  However, capitalism goes beyond the concept of bartering.  Capitalism is the concept of profitizing.  Nowadays, especially in the USA, capitalism has taken on a religious tinge which gives it some of the same qualities and problems as religious belief.  So, the idea/concept of using money as a system of barter is not the issue, the ideological fetishes regarding profit is. 

Profit-at-all-costs is the end result of laissez-faire capitalism.  This, in short, is the problem.  This has cost the American society dearly morally, socially, and politically and culturally.  One aspect of this problem is the so-called ‘Protestant work ethic”, which leads to meritocratic worth above all else and creates a moral worth to economic standing.  Secondly, capitalism has led to an oligarchical and plutocratic governing system that is unhealthy and even dangerous.

Lastly, laissez-faire capitalism corrupts the concept of civilization; it undermines a core value system that allows peaceful societies to exist by rendering unfair the barter system itself.  Profit-at-all-costs  undermines trust in the economic system of a country.  It is important to remember that greed is not a basic good, something capitalists throughout time have seemed to forgotten.

Solution:  Government Regulation

FDR introduced “The New Deal” early last century when capitalism-run-amok tanked the American economy, and it is a good start as a solution today.  Furthermore, anti-trust laws are already in place to rectify the problem of capitalism, but have simply been relegated to legal trash heaps by the Republicans in particular and indirectly by Democrats.  They are The Sherman Antitrust Act, The Clayton Act, and The Federal Trade Commission Act. 

The Sherman Antitrust Act deals with unfair and deceptive contracts and trading (think Wall Street) while The Federal Trade Commission Act deals with deceptive ‘acts and practices’ such as the housing bust in and the reasons the government (we the people) had to bail out the banks.  The Clayton Act was put into place to cover issues not covered by the previous two.  There is also the McCain-Feingold Act which, in part, was put in place to battle Citizens United (a heinous piece of pathetic legislation that undermines all vestiges of fair-trade practices).

Secondly, government is not a business and cannot be run as such.  It is a platform upon which societies are built, and like all such platforms, it is conceptual, not financial.  The question, as is the case with most socio-political questions, is what kind of society do we as individuals want to live in, and government is an answer to that question.  Laissez-faire capitalists, Libertarians and Republicans mostly, have answered this question loud and clear as to the kind of society that they desire, and the consequences of their decision has not boded well for civil, fair, peaceful societies.

The Lowest Common Denominator

 lowest common

Often and unfortunately our conversations concerning what we do land upon the lowest perch of human achievement: that of measuring all accomplishments by their economic consequences. This is what I refer to as the lowest common denominator. I cannot accept that the ultimate consideration of our acts is monetarily important at all. When discussing new movements in farming for example, as we are seeing in this country (the US) today, I cannot imagine that the people involved in the agricultural movement are involved only for economic gains and monetary profits.

I do not consider the profit received from my garden, and from buying locally produced meats to be measured monetarily. Rather, the rewards that I get from knowing where my food comes from and how it was treated overrides any economic cost. I would argue that those of us who take pride in learning new skillsets and in understanding concepts that society tends to take for granted are not motivated by possible profits, but by personal gains in knowledge, in peace of mind, in the understanding that what we do can have a virtuous aspect that cannot be bought and sold.

I would suggest that the food-movement not consider itself by the judgment of others that can only understand or are only interested in monetary motivations. It is difficult not to do so, especially when being considered from a public point of view. The phrases “there is no money in it” with regard to small-farming enterprises is easily dismissed with closer inspections of the facts. The argument that small-farms are in fact more profitable than large, agri-businesses if the subsidies to such businesses are taken out of the equation are beside the point. More important to the point is that most small-farm enterprises are not motivated by money alone. The point is that in not relying upon agricultural subsidies, small farms are more autonomous, offer a more honest product, and are not held accountable by faceless stockholders but by local consumers that many know by name.

While it is true that to live in this society, money is a necessary component; it is not true that money is the most important component. This viewpoint has led us to the deplorable situations that we find ourselves in today both in and outside of agriculture. The small-farming movement that seems ubiquitous in the country today reminds both those who are brave enough to venture out and those who are thoughtful enough to support such operations that money is the least important of all aspects of our lives. It is by the standards of bravery, of thoughtful action, of honesty and honest work that we ought to judge ourselves and expect others to judge us by.

While we cannot often fight the filth of large agribusiness we can battle the ignorance that allows such business to flourish. However, I would argue that we cannot do so by judging ourselves and what we do by the lowest common denominator. There is so much more that we are motivated by other than money. It is important for us involved in this movement to remember this fact and remind others that money is not always worth the trouble.

The Limitation of Money

money

When faced with decisions that have ultimate implications for your happiness, it is necessary to consider that happiness from as many different perspectives as possible, not just the economic perspective. Otherwise we become defined by the narrow and limiting perspective of money, not the actual limitations that we have. Perhaps, we must consider, it is more useful to make less money. As un-American as this may seem, our happiness as individuals and as a nation seems to be at stake, but not for the reasons that we might believe.

The more dependent upon money we become, the more impoverished we become. I am realizing that the ability to fend for myself, to provide for myself, and to be motivated not by the usefulness of my ability to make money but by the usefulness of my abilities is providing the richness of life that I need, the perspective that I need to be happy. It is indeed true that money cannot buy happiness. In fact, often times it purchases discontent.

For example, my wife said something to me that has stuck. She grew up on an eight-generation farm in Europe. She remembers having no money, but always having enough to do and enough to eat. The fear of poverty is still with her, but through our discussions she has come to realize that the poverty that her family endured was not because of the farm, but because of the motivation to make money. To farm, to homestead is to give up on our dependency upon money. However, in giving up on our dependency upon money, we do not become impoverished, but enriched.

As backward as this may seem to many, it is true. I am learning to live without money is unrealistic but only because I am realizing the limitations of my abilities. Money does not provide independence, but only dependence upon those with the abilities that I lack. It is not living without money that is unrealistic; it is living without knowing your own limitations.

A homestead provides ample opportunity for experiencing limitations, limitations that money cannot conquer. In cities across this nation I do not believe that it is the lack of money that is problematic, but only the lacking realization that we are limited. We cannot “do” what we want to “do” if we do not know how to “do” it. We can “think” what we want to “think” if we do not know how to “think”. In fact, I believe that money as a sole motivator lessens the ability to realize our own limitations and in doing so gives us a false sense of security; I have certainly experienced that in my own life.

I have also experienced the frustration of my own ignorance and short-comings with regard to my own limitations. In rebuilding a 1939 Farmall F-20 I learned that it will not start simply because it is supposed to start. It is the same with money actually. Simply because money is supposed to be able to buy you happiness does not mean that it actually will.