You become what you hate

This is a special time of year in many regards. We're between holidays that are not so important anymore and perhaps the biggest American holiday and the universally Christian holiday of Christmas which is right around the corner. It is fitting, I think, that these all occur when they do, here at the end of the solar year, after the harvest, and in preparation for the retreat before the winter. This is a time of turning inward -- or it should be -- a time of reflection upon who we are, what we believe, and what we are doing.

There's an old mystic's adage that is particularly appropriate given all that I've been posting about lately: "You become what you hate."

Yes, speaking of hate at this time of year seems a bit incongruous, but only at first glance. The world seems to be full of hate these days. It's directed toward all kinds of "others": immigrants, political opponents, particular lifestyles, adherents of other religions ... you name it, there is a good number of people ready, willing, and able to stand up and decry just how evil all those others are, even if loudly decrying, and hating generally, are values we (and more often our religion) proclaim not to have.

Hate -- and it is actual hate in most cases -- is a dangerous emotion, not only because it is inherently destructive, but because of its insidious power to change us in such a fundamental, essential way. Someone who hates invests a lot of time and energy (and given the short spans of our lives, rare and precious resources) in that hate. The object of one's hate plays an essential and central role in our thought, speech, and actions. We are offended by the slightest of details which we come to see as ever more proof of the rightness of our hate. We end up knowing more about what we hate than we know about ourselves.

In the wake of WW2, it was the Communists who reaped our ire. Those God-hating, atheist oppressors and suppressors of freedom. But who is it these days turning on whistleblowers, passing legislation to rescind basic rights and persecuting dissenters? Oh, we still claim to love God and can't reaffirm enough our religious values, but ignore every precept which that rebellious Nazarene carpenter put so much trust in. We hate Muslims, those bellicose terrorists who want to turn the clocks back to the Middle Ages. But who is it that places religious values above so-called democratic ones and who worship a constitution that is centuries old itself? In place of the KGB which we held high as the prime example of suppression of freedom, we have the NSA and CIA who can't pry broadly and deeply enough into our own lives. In the place of humane values of community and cooperation, we have raised the values of competition and money to religious ideals.

It's not surprising, at least not to me, that we have come this far. And, it is even less surprising that most people I know would argue that I couldn't possibly be speaking to them. But I am. The change from one to the other is slow and subtle, but it's apparent nonetheless. The mystics were right then, and they're still right today: you become what you hate.

And just who am I?

Too much is too little ... too little is never enough ... less is more ... how much is enough? We live in confusing times. We're somehow caught between overexposure and invisibility. Not everybody needs to know everything, but where does one draw the line? Where can you draw the line? Facebook. Linked-in. But I need the loan. And then there's the telephone company, the insurance company, my healthcare provider, my doctor, when does my employer get involved? Yep, there we are -- all of us -- right there, between a rock and hard place.

Nobody's perfect. Nothing we make is perfect. No system is perfect. What's the difference between Jane Doe in Kansas and Jane Doe in New York? Well, obviously where they live. My Ms Doe in Kansas moved to New York City and shortly thereafter one Ms Doe moved to Kansas from New Mexico, to avoid the police, it turns out. And, as fate would have it, Ms Original-New-York Doe gets arrested because of a mix-up in the search algorithm. By the time she gets it sorted, her reputation is in the trash and she's unemployed. The true culprit is eventually brought to justice (Americans like happy ends), but the collateral damage is great and due to the publicity, Ms Original-Kansas Doe really can't go home anymore. Sure, none of us has anything to hide, but that may not matter.

What's the point? The same one I make time and time again: we need to be aware and we need to care. It's not just enough that we look out for ol' #1 and not worry about the rest. What can happen to Jane Doe can happen to me or you or anyone else. Mistakes are not only possible, they are made all the time. We need to be aware of who knows what about us and who we share our information with and what those individuals can and may do with that information once they have it. We need to be aware of what we let others know and when and how. We need to care about having rules in place to protect ourselves and others and we need to take care that those whom we entrust with providing us protection are doing their jobs.

Of course, if you live in a world of mistrust and suspicion, in a world where the greedy are free to take advantage of the needy, a world in which competition is fierce and winning makes all the difference, in a world of enforced conformity and toeing-the-line, well, you may have a bit of tough going over the mid-term. The horse may be gone and you may discover that your barn doesn't even have a door. What's worse, you may not even know you had a horse, or a barn for that matter. Sometimes it seems like others know more about you than you know about yourself. But that raises the question as to what do you really know about yourself to begin with?

Do you really know yourself or do you just know what you want to know about yourself? It's not a trick question ... it's a deadly serious one. And today, it's a more important one than it has ever been before.

Wandering and wondering

Some people think I'm a pretty smart cookie. There are others, however, who think I'm pretty much of a jerk, idiot, know-it-all, and loud-mouth. I can't help but think that the latter group is being more emotional than rational, but, hey, as my friend Julius Caesar used to say, de gustibus non disputandum. You can't please all the people all of the time, so you have to settle for maybe pleasing anyone at any time. I'm not always successful, but I'm still trying.

What gets me -- and it's been getting me for I can't tell you how long -- is how little progress we are making as a species. I'm actually very impressed by the intelligence of some people, by their brightness, their insight, their understanding, the scope and depth of their knowledge ... well, you know what I mean. Of course, I only have to turn on the news any evening to be reminded how foul, ignorant, simple-minded, self-centered, cruel, and inhumane we, as a species again, can be as well.

Oh, sure, we've accomplished a lot, I suppose. We've come a long way since the control of fire and the wheel, and most of our so-called advances have been in technical areas. We can create all kinds of new materials and applications, and scientifically, we know a lot more than we once did. We've penetrated into the secrets of matter and we can cure diseases and provide healthcare in ways that our forebears couldn't even imagine. But, in spite of all of this, I can't see that we've really come all that far in two primary areas: interpersonal relationships and war.

That's an odd couple, to be sure, but let's face it. Just about every technical and scientific advancement we have ever made, we have made because it made killing more efficient. No, I'm serious, give it some serious thought. Even great thinkers like Leonardo da Vinci -- whose art is at times downright inspiring -- spent a lot of time thinking up war machines as well. A contradiction, or simply a fact of human nature? Personally, I think it is the former. As for interpersonal relationships, there is no species on earth that can hate like humans. And, it's frightening to think of how often we do it. The slightest bit of difference can set it off, too. It doesn't have to be a different culture, a different religion ... no a different skin color can still do it for lots of folks, and when you get right down to it, simply rooting for another sports team can do the trick for others.

What's important to keep in mind, though, is that we know -- all of us know -- that it doesn't have to be this way. There is nothing that compels us to hate. There is nothing that compels us to wage war. (And for those of you who get all irate about self-defense, ask yourself how often this was really justified since WW2.) No, the more I think about it, the more it seems clear to me that we, as a species, are simply not living up to our potential. We're not being all that we can be. But, I can't figure out why.

It simply boggles the mind at how little human progress we have made.

Upping the ante

For anyone who has been or is paying attention, it should be patently obvious by now that we live in neither a just nor a moral nor humane society. This is, as I never tire of saying, certainly not an American problem. It is a worldwide problem, and it is being aggravated by those who should know better: the so-called 1st World. That they are only #1 in their own minds is clear to anyone who takes the time to seriously look at what they say and do.

It's not easy. Nothing is easy these days. We're face every day with challenges, problems, issues, concerns, family, friends, our bosses ... Lord, knows what else, and I am the first to admit that the desire to simply be left alone, to not have to think about it all, to just have a break, to catch one's breath is, well, almost overwhelming in and of itself. The other side of the coin, though, is that if we don't do anything about anything, it all just gets all that much worse.

Still, I know there are some of you who take the days lighter and less stressful. You don't have to work anymore, you've got at least the boss of your back, the kids are grown and on their own, you've got a grandchild or two (and we all know that at the end of the day, we can simply give them back to their rightful owners), you can afford to take a more relaxed view of the world ... or can you, really?

You see, for as much as we would like to think that we've got our own ship safely into harbor, that we've done our part and now someone else is responsible, that we've earned the right to simply be left alone ... well, I hate to disappoint you, but there's no such thing. As long as you're a denizen of this misguided planet of ours, you're on duty. Anything and everything happens is just as much a concern to you as it is to everyone else. There is -- in a word -- no getting off the hook. Too bad, so sad.

You see, as long as you're alive, you carry part of the responsibility for what the world is like, how things are running ... in your own little corner, of course, but also in the larger scale of things. What you do, and how you act, in small, has a direct influence on how things are in general. If you are mean, stingy, harsh, or harmful in your own little world, well, at a minimum, the world has a nasty spot that simply won't get better on its own. What surprises me, however, is how many people I know think that what they do, how they feel, and what they say has absolutely no impact on the world at large. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you harbor bad thoughts toward your neighbor, or if you don't get involved when your neighbor is getting a raw deal; if you think everyone else is at fault, or if you don't want to admit that you might be contributing to the fault; if you look down on others and refuse to help where you can, or if you think it's none of your concern how anyone else is doing, well, you're just part of the problem, no more and certainly no less.

Think about it: if you are kinder, gentler, less likely to get riled; if you are more concerned, thoughtful, and willing to give (even if it is only to those you know or who are close to you in some way); if you are more aware, more reflective, more critical of whatever is being shoved at you out of the TV, well, you stand a chance of simply becoming a better person and of making the world just a slight bit better. It doesn't cost anything, and the rewards just might be more abundant than you ever imagined.

What can it hurt? Give it a try.

Re-thinking is necessary

We grow old, we become lax, we get lazy. We get sick, we get tired, we become sick and tired of fighting. I know. I feel it, I see it every day. Nobody said it was going to be easy, but everyone of my generation knows that we were led to believe that it wouldn't have to be this way. Our parents wanted us to be better off than them, but that hasn't happened. My father, rest his soul, was able to live on his retirement. I won't be able to live on mine. My children will most likely not have one to worry about ever having one. Neither did my great-grandparents. Sometimes I wonder in which direction we're really headed.

It's funny, but I know lots of folks who think that soldiers died for their well-being and their freedom. Maybe those in the Second World War, but since then, every war that's been fought has been questionable at best, criminal at worst. No, those who died for all you have were those unionizers, suffragettes and civil-rights workers who arrested, beaten, maimed, and killed so that rights that were promised to all became real. It's their blood that washed you clean.

When my great-grandparents were born, unbridled capitalism was raping the environment, pillaging the poor, and plundering government. Just like now. But there were strong, courageous, dedicated men and women who simply fought back. In spite of the odds, they formed unions, got women the vote and survived two attempts at European mass suicide. But for what? Those for whom they fought never appreciated what they had been given, and now it's as good as gone. If the young people want it, they're going to have to get it themselves, I suppose.

There are two primary reasons for and reactions to this. On the one hand, we've got those who have all they need, and they're not giving it up; that is, the selfish reason. On the other hand, we've got those who don't have enough, but are too old, sick or tired to do anything about anything; the sick reason. Neither of them are good reasons for anything.

It's simply wrong to leave the young people on their own. That's the first item that needs to be changed. In other words, every one of us who simply accepts things "as they are", have become complicit in the destruction of their future. No, most of us won't be able to save ourselves, but we could possibly save some of those who come after. If you're not at the top of the heap, whatever it is you think you have to leave to those behind you is a mere drop of water on a hot stone. In case you hadn't noticed -- and there's good reason to believe that few people have -- the haves are coming after whatever it is that the have-nots have left. It's only a matter of time till they get it, and we're not talking about a long time either.

Being old, being lax, being lazy, being sick and tired, feeling overwhelmed or helpless ... these are mere states of mind. Merely changing these is a step in the right direction. It's not all that hard, really: just think a bit more of someone other than yourself. That's a sound first step, and it's a much bigger than step than you think. You just have to do it.

Haves and have-nots IV

The difference between the property discussed by Locke (physical) and the property I discussed last time (intellectual) has not escaped me. It is nevertheless important to consider them in the same vein. You will recall that the Romans redefined "freedom" in terms of "property" and we've been following this line of reasoning ever since. Locke's contribution to the discussion was that what we work should be considered ours, but when this line of thought is pursed back to its roots, it becomes questionable at best (and it is why Proudhon so convincingly argued that property is ultimately theft, but that's another story). What I would like to have you think about is what it is that is actually "ours".

We know that physical property has its problems, but what about intellectual property? Why do we think that this is solely and completely our own? There are a couple of ways of approaching the issue. One -- a favorite today -- is financial (that is, money-based). Someone writes a song, it becomes popular and a naive teenager downloads it without permission. It would seem to me, and my experience with adolescents bears this out, that a simple "that's wrong, don't do it anymore" can be more effective than suing the parents for tens of thousands of dollars that they cannot ever pay. Or, what about so-called scientific publications? These are almost exclusively produced through public funding (i.e., grants). Why do the rights to these then reside with the authors or the publishers that arrange for their distribution? This seems highly questionable since the public has in essence paid for the results, so why does the public have to pay to obtain them? (If you think this is made up, search for "Aaron Schwartz" and ask yourself why he was facing 37 years in prison.) The reasoning that allows this absurdity to arise, of course, is Locke's. That's why the two kinds of property, at bottom, are really not all that different after all.

There was a time, and there was an attitude that most things were there for the common good. Granted, the nobility and aristocracy of all times tried to convince us otherwise, but with the dawning of a more democratic understanding of reality, it became clear that some old ideas needed to be thought through again. Maybe those who have gathered more than others now think that this entitles them to more as well. This would be erroneous. In a society, there may be richer and poorer citizens, but that should have nothing to do with their rights as citizens. If it does, something is fundamentally wrong. And if something is fundamentally wrong, it needs to be set right.

At the latest when we traded our society for a mere economy, we tacitly changed the way we view people. My guess it was unwittingly, but now that we are aware of what we have done, we need to think this all through again. Property is questionable, property rights even more so. What remains are human rights, and they need to be re-established to their proper position in our thinking. Human rights take precedence over property rights.

And, that's the first step. No more, no less. Once we get the order right, many things will change all by themselves, and we'll be at least headed in a more just, more humane direction. The first step isn't a revolution, it is a mere change of mind. Change your mind.

Haves and have-nots III

First of all, the disclaimer: though I find property rights questionable in general, I am not naive enough to think that we're going to eliminate them in one fell swoop. I'm not sure this would be either good nor productive in the long run. What we need to do, however, is wean ourselves off of them. But, we've got to start soon and we've got to get serious about it.

There was a time -- in my lifetime, in fact -- when you could register a copyright for your artistic and scientific productions. It lasted less than 20 years and it could be renewed, for a slightly shorter term, just once. After that, the work entered the public domain, it became the common property of all. Patents, which apparently have greater economic potential were also protected for a brief period of time (currently 20 years) so that the owner has the opportunity to reap the benefits of his or her thoughts, or so the theory goes. Now, copyrights, depending on country can last for up to 100 years after then death of the copyright holder. This makes no sense anymore.

Even under the less restrictive version of copyright, legal contention is about to cause severe damage. There are miles and miles of celluloid film in the "archives" in Hollywood, none of which can be digitized because there is no way to clarify who holds the copyrights on parts of those productions. Yes, they were produced with less regard for those property rights we all hold so sacred, and now they lie in legal limbo awaiting their own demise. The film itself is degrading and will soon turn to dust. Some classic, excellent cinema will be lost forever soon, because the alleged rights to property of some individuals prohibit their preservation. It would take a mere stroke of the pen to save it, but we've escalated property rights to such a height even doing a good deed, such as preserving a piece of artistic history, would have ramifications that would shake the foundations of our economy.

The greatest good for the greatest number was the utilitarian mantra, and as weak an ethical argument as it is, it is still more productive and more beneficial than the sacredness of property. We have made property rights much more valuable than any other rights that we have (or thought we had). Those unalienable rights that the Declaration of Independence so proudly declared -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- are apparently only inalienable if no property is involved.

This is the consequence of the Citizens United decision, it is what allows banking criminals to go unpunished while those in need are scorned and further oppressed, it is what lies at the root of the utterly ridiculous discussion about tax rates, it's what encourages the offshoring of profits, it what justifies environmental destruction in the name of dirty energy, it permits the persecution of children for naive ignorance, it is what ultimately destroys our entire society so that certain select individuals can have more.

It leads to the utter absurdity that what we have is much more important than who we are.

It is shameful, to be sure, and I'm ashamed that we are not more ashamed.

Haves and have-nots II

Freedom, rights, and property ... how easy it is to get them all mixed up.

Yes, you guessed correctly: I'm not exactly in agreement with the good Mr. Locke, and I'll tell you why.

First, let's get clear on what Locke was up to, and I will admit that I have singled him out because he had such a strong influence on America's so-called Founding Fathers, and their legacy is haunting not only Americans, but the rest of the world today. Locke decided that if you made something in nature productive (or useful) you then had a right to call it yours. For example, say I find a long, sturdy stick in the woods. I take it home, work on it, shape, sand and shellack it, and I then have an impressive staff that could be used as a walking aid on long treks or as a weapon of defense. According to Locke, it is mine and I can use it or sell it as I wish. Intuitively this seems very reasonable (which it should, as it's coming out of the Age of Reason). By a similar token, there's a patch of land, only lightly wooded, so I clear it, plow it, plant it and then harvest the crops I have sown. Is the field mine? Am I entitled to the products (in this case, the crops) it yields? This is more difficult scenario than the one with the stick, isn't it? Whose patch of land was it to begin with. That depends. If it were today, it could certainly belong to someone else, and you would be required to determine who that is then come to an agreement with that person about using it. Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that we're on the North American continent, say, somewhere around Pittsburgh, 250 years ago. What about now?

There are those who would argue that, yes, first come, first served and the one who makes the most productive use of that land is entitled to it. Well, what about the Native Americans who used that land as part of their hunting grounds and where they gathered other things to use and eat? According to Locke, since the use of the land for agriculture produces a greater value, it's the farmer's. He arrives at this conclusion by simple economic reasoning: the wheat produced can be used to bake more bread to feed more people than the "mere" use of that land for hunting and gathering. And it is here that any thinking individual will see there's something of a problem. He uses a utilitarian argument (the greatest good for the greatest number of people) but that is rather culturally determined. The loss of that land, of course depending on the size, reduces the quality of life for the hunter-gather culture. Utilitarianism is used to culturally define what is "more" or "better". It's not a convincing argument. The pragmatists among you will say, well it didn't belong to anyone, so what's the problem?

My question is why is something not obviously owned by a specific individual not owned by anyone? Why don't we consider it owned by everyone? That is more or less how the Native Americans were viewing it: whoever was passing through could use it for their purposes. The notion of "ownership" doesn't make a lot of sense, yet it is the notion of "ownership" that drives almost all of our thinking about everything these days. Property rights are a very big deal. They were (and are) at the heart of the financial and economic crisis from which we have not yet recovered. Property rights are something we need to think about seriously and deeply.

Mr. Locke was, among other things, an administrator of one of the American colonies. It is not hard to surmise that he may have had a person, vested interest in viewing property as he did. It was certainly to his advantage, and he used his arguments to morally justify what was happening with the Native Americans. We have every right ... in fact, I believe we have the obligation, to re-look at this position today, not because we're smarter now than we were then, but because it was questionable then, and it is still questionable now.

The next time I'll go into why this is so.

Haves and have-nots I

Recently, I've been listening to a lecture course on Justice by Harvard professor Michael Sandel. For a Harvard professor, he's not all that bad. At least he doesn't come across as a know-it-all, and there is none of the smug eliteness that we often find in people in his position. No, he appears level-headed and patient, and he gives you the sincere impression that he's more interested in what you are thinking and why than in what it is you think you know. That's why he gets points in my book.

He's also an interesting enough lecturer and I admire how he makes it possible at all for a discussion of any kind to arise in a lecture that is being attended by over a 1,000 students (face-to-face). He takes you through a recent history of ethical and moral thinking, and invites you to explore just why some thinkers have thought the way they have and what that could or might mean for us today. Let's face it: we're faced with many of the same problems that faced Socrates, Aristotle, Meister Eckhart, Thomas Aquinas, Locke, Kant, Nietzsche, Rawls, and many others. The more things change, the more some things remain the same.

In one of the lectures, he spends a bit of time with Locke. Now, I'm not the world's biggest Enlightenment fan, though I see a lot of positive things that can be derived from this break with tradition. What caught my attention, however, was his attitude toward property. What does property have to do with ethics? Well, actually, a lot, and not the least since the line between what's just and what's legal has become increasing blurred (cf. my last post). You see, it was about the time of Locke that we moderns picked up again on a really fairly ancient idea, namely that property rights are important. In ancient Rome, by about 50 BC, the master of a household, the dominus (related obviously to our word "dominate") had complete power over his property, which included not just his lands and money, but his wife, children, and, of course, slaves. In fact, his power was absolute in the sense that he could do what he wanted with the things and he could even execute the people, if he so desired, without fear of legal repercussions. This was a form of "having" that probably makes some people drool, even today. It is difficult, however, in our modern minds to justify this, especially where the people are involved, but the artificial relationship it creates towards the things has hung around for quite a while.

In the second century AD, then, the Romans actually redefined what the word "freedom" (Lat. libertas) meant, making it in essence indistinguishable from the rights of dominium (that is, the rights of the master over his property) (cf. Graeber, 2011, pp 198ff). And I mention this because it was fellows like Locke who dug deep into our past to find ways to break the authority of the Church which had been dominating the ethics business for centuries. It became a matter of reason, not faith, that things should be one way and not another. Even that other great Enlightenment thinker, Kant, based his entire philosophy of morals on the notion of "freedom" (though he defined it as the ability, no the duty, to obey only those maxims which one gave to oneself; he assumed every human being was in the end, by virtue of his being in existence, free). It doesn't take a genius to recognize that there is a very thin line in our modern minds between the notion of "rights" and what is in fact "right" (or ethical).

But what does all this mean for Locke and for us today? More next time.

References
Graeber, D. (2011) Debt: the first 5,000 years, Melville House Publishing.

Are you willing to see it?

OK, short break, back to the regularly scheduled program ...

I know, I know ... I'm chapping more than one hide out there. Sorry about that ... well, actually, no, I'm not sorry at all. You got to get over yourselves. My point is, really, that when you think a thought back to its source (which is what our little thought experiment last time was about) you realize that at some point, it all become just a little bizarre, a little absurd, a little arbitrary.

To put it bluntly, at some point, we just decide to make stuff up and say, "well, that's how it is". That, dear friends, is strange. But that, dear friends, is how we make most of reality and most of our lives work.

To be perfectly honest, at the moment, I'm not interested at all in any rationalizations or alleged justifications for why things are the way they are. Whether our example had to do with Native Americans, the bushmen of the Kalahari, some Siberian tribe, or the Celts or the Cro-Magnons or the Neanderthals, well, it just doesn't matter. There was a time when no one thought about "ownership" or "property" and just because someone else came along with those kind of concepts doesn't really mean anything at all. There is no natural law that identifies, defines, or describes "property", for example. The notion is simply one that we made up at some point and that we all now just take for granted.

What amuses me most about all of this is that those amongst you who get your dander up about fiction, about made-up stories, are the ones who are feeling most chapped right now. Why? Because all that single-minded, grounded, factual, objective, this-is-how-it-is stuff turns out to be just as made up as anything else. The only thing "natural" about any of this, if you will, is the fact that we humans have a tendency to make stuff up and believe that what we made up are facts. They're not.

I would be the last person to maintain that there isn't a lot at stake here, but that's not the issue. My point, in case you may not be getting it, is that if we made this up, then we are perfectly within our "rights", actually are in tune with our true natures, if we decide to make something up to replace it. The world is the way it is because we have either made it the way it is, or because we have allowed others to make it the way it is. It's really a very simple idea. There is nothing Gd-given about it, there are no natural laws that describe it. Just about all of what is involved in how we organize and structure our social lives is a result of how we decided to organize and structure it. It is as it is, but it could just as easily have been somehow else. None of it is cast in stone.

This is, truth be told, a difficult notion. This is something that a whole lot of people have trouble wrapping their heads around. Nevertheless, I would like to suggest that it is possible. I'm not asking anyone to give up their cherished beliefs. I'm not asking anyone to deny their upbringing or what they hold to be good and true, or even sacred. What I am doing, however, is suggesting that it just might be worth your while -- in the long run, and that means for those who come after you, be they children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren or people you will never, ever know -- to think a thought or two to the end (or the beginning, depending on how you view it).

You'll be a better person for it. And, the world will be a better place because of it.

Do you want to see it?

This is fun, so indulge me, please, for another thought or two about property. I told you I loved words: they're plentiful, bountiful, exotic, surprising, sometimes sweet, sometimes sour to the palette, but they can, when treated properly, also be an inexhaustible source of (mental) nourishment.

Here's another quote I read recently that really caught my eye. It is from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a 19th century, French social critic:

Property is theft!

Isn't that wild? I particularly love the exclamation point, even though I'm more than hesitant to use them myself. Talk about to-the-point, in-your-face, get-your-attention. So what are we to make of that? Well, before you just tune out and turn away, we should play a game ... one of my favorites, in fact ... one that I like to call "Think It Through". In other words, instead of just rejecting an assertion out of hand, let's think it through just to see how far we can get. Here's my try:

I (almost) own a house (see my posting from two days ago) which is sitting on a corner lot on a given street. I "bought" the house, but the property was "thrown in". Who owned it? Well, the people who sold it to me. And where did they get it? From the people before them. But at some point, wasn't it the city that "owned" it and said houses could be built there? Where did they get it? (And now I'm going to take bigger steps back in time:) From the State, which got it from the colony that it was before the State, because the King said it was his. But where did he get it? Well, he beat up another country that said it was theirs (why we don't know ... but war isn't theft, is it?), but we can ask where they got it. They of course, "came into possession of it because some guy in a boat or after a long walk stuck a flag in it and said "This is mine (actually, the king's because I'm acting in his name), but wasn't someone there before? I think you get the picture.

What this little exercise shows us, though, is that at some point, someone who never saw it before decided that since he didn't know who it might in fact belong to simply "claimed" it, it was now his (or his boss', depending on how you look at it). In other words, even though it really wasn't his, he took it and said it was. Isn't that theft? I mean, if you were asked to say in 25 words or less what "theft" is, you'd probably come up with something very similar.

Maybe M. Proudhon was onto something. Maybe ...

Can you see it?

Yes, what to do, what to do? Have you thought about it? I have. As I'm a real lover of words -- I'll confess -- I think I need to mull this "property" thing over a bit. Let's see where it takes us.

George Carlin would just call it "stuff", but we know that property is more than just stuff. Property, for a good many people ... maybe even most ... is what defines who they think they are. Be honest, just why do you drive that particular model vehicle parked in front of that particular house? Don't they tell just about everyone "who you are"? It's sad, I know, but that's how we think these days. Now, let me ask you this: do you own either? If you are leasing or still have payments on the car, and if you rent or have a mortgage on the house, regardless of what you think, you must answer with "no". Until that final payment is made and title is transferred to you, all you payment-makers are just the caretakers, regardless of how we have decided to phrase it. Not having title and saying you own something is about as meaningful as asking someone "How are you?" You don't want to know, it's just an odd way to say hello.

Our problem is, we do identify with our stuff and with our potential stuff, and we too often think that what we have says something about who we are. Well, it does in a way, but not in the way most of us would like to think. If you have a nice car and house, that's great, but neither of them make you a "better person", regardless of how you understand the phrase, than anyone else on the planet. What we have, at bottom, says nothing about who we really are. Who we are is determined by how we act, how we are perceived by others, it is how we act that lets others know who and what we really are. Actions always speak louder than words. Always.

Could it be that this is what good, old Uncle John was getting at? As long as any of us think that any of our possessions (or potential possessions) puts us at advantage over others who don't have what we do, we cause injustice to arise. When we think, because of our possessions (or potential possessions), that we have "more at stake" than others who don't have what we do, we put injustice into practice. When we believe, because of our possessions (or potential possessions), that we have have been endowed with more rights than others who don't have what we do, then we are simply part of the reason why the world's in the sad shape it is in.

Things can never be more important than people.

Surprised?

It's been a long journey, when considered in terms of blog-miles, that's for sure. What we can see, however, is that there is still common ground for believer and non-believers, for the politically and the socially inclined. If we're willing to accept that the others may -- even in their own way -- be right, we still have a chance. It is not cultures that are important, not nationalities, and certainly not religions. No, what is important is only what binds us as humans: similar desires.

What I like about this approach is that there are no absolutes, but the willy-nilly relativity that drives all of us crazy is not there either. In other words, it is possible to find common ground for discourse, discussion, and debate ... if we want to. That's the key element in the whole equation, though: whether we want to.

I haven't been everywhere, by any stretch of the imagination, but, I'm pretty sure I've been more places than many people who may be reading this. I'm not bragging, I'm simply reporting -- and all of you who have traveled extensively and who have seen a bit more of life than your own slice of reality will certainly agree: deep down, at base, fundamentally we humans share much more than separates us. No matter where I've gone and whom I've talked with, some common themes kept and keep appearing: food, shelter and clothing; something meaningful to do; a certain degree of safety and security; the ability to celebrate the happy moments of life; the comfort and support of others when things go bad; something better for the children than we had; a simple, fruitful, relatively happy, safe, and healthy life. What is so hard to understand about that?

Yes, there are fanatics of all sizes, shapes and colors; they speak all different kinds of languages and they all share the same delusion: that whatever they think it better/more important/more right than what others think. These people are a minority. A loud, vociferous, boisterous, and often aggressive minority, but a minority nevertheless. We need to spend more time thinking about all the things that we have in common instead of focusing on what is different about the others. We need to find more opportunities to engage others who are different from ourselves, if for no other reason than to experience that the reality-pie can be sliced any number of ways. We need to want for others what we want for ourselves. And, we should be ready to admit -- to ourselves and others -- that we don't have the exclusive right to wisdom or morality. We humans are all in this together, and the sooner we realize that, the better off all of us will be.

There's more?

I would hate for anyone to think that I thought up the framework behind our little thought experiment of the past couple of posts. Nothing could be further from the truth. No, these stages of moral reasoning that have been described are the results of the work of Lawrence Kohlberg and his associates at Harvard University. Kohlberg developed this framework, this taxonomy, in the 1970s. It's still applicable today, if for no other reason than it give us all an independent and understandable (that is, neutral) framework to discuss what too often become hotly debated, religious issues. What we should realize by now is that there is morality beyond religion. Yes, religionists and atheists need a way to agree.

Of course, there is one more stage to Kohlberg's model. We ended with unjust laws the last time, but the question that that idea raises is what do you do when the laws don't work at all. His sixth, and final, stage in the taxonomy, then, addresses the idea of moral principles; that is, clearly formulated statements of behavior that are capable of addressing any and every morally relevant situation. What would such a principle look like? Fortunately, we all already know.

You will recall that the notion of reciprocity; that is, of give-and-take, of an acceptable back-and-forth between the parties involved; lies at the root of his whole framework. That means there should be universal principles of reciprocity that any and everyone should be able to agree to, once they recognize their value. The ultimate expression of reciprocity is known to most of us as "the Golden Rule" (Do unto others as you would have others do unto you). What is interesting about this "rule" is that it is the only statement, the only tenant, the only doctrine, the only belief (if you will), that is common to every single religion in the world. The Christians, the Moslems, the Jews, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Ba'hai, the Zoastrians, the you-name-them have some form of this statement as one of their core beliefs. It is the "Golden Rule", oddly enough, that unites all religions, it is their common core of belief.

I know, I know, the non-believers, the atheists and agnostics among you are all saying, "that's fine and good ... for them ... but what about us?" I'm glad you asked. One of the most influential philosophers of the Western world, Immanuel Kant, formulated a similar principle in his Critique of Practical Reason, where he writes that we should "act according to those principles which we desire should be raised to universal principles". In other words, act/behave however you would like that anyone anywhere at anytime should be allowed to act/behave ... or, if you can do it, anybody should be allowed to do it.

Who would have thought? It fits ... all the way around.

Is that it?

While just about all that was presented last time found, I'm pretty sure, little opposition, things are going to get interesting now. I think most of us agree: if it's legal, it's right. But the question we need to pose, then, is: are their unjust laws? This may be a bit more difficult to decide.

What the banks did leading up to the financial crisis of 2009 was legal. Was it right? Was it good? Was it moral? What the banks are doing now: is it right? Is it good? Is it moral ... it's legal, but ... ? What about the laws denying African-Americans the right to vote and to be subjected to segregation? They were laws. It was legal, but was it right? Was it moral? Or, to go abroad: in 1938 the Nazis passed a law that Jews weren't human. It was legal, to be sure, but was it right? Was it moral? In other words, can there be such a thing as unjust laws?

I think we can agree that there is. We've encountered them repeatedly in our history ... not just American but the history of humanity. I chose today especially to raise the issue because the American Revolution that so many love so well ... the all-holy Constitution, the Declaration of Independence ... were all based on the premise that there are unjust laws. No taxation without representation. (But the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism against a global corporation, the East India Company, which was using the king for its own purposes ... how ironic is that in light of the recent Tea-Party rantings and the drivel being spewed about in the current presidential campaigns?)

And, now, if we think the thought a bit farther, could it be that laws can be made that are, as the Americans like to phrase it, "constitutional", but at the same time be immoral, that is, unjust? Most definitely, and it is happening repeatedly. Examples? Why, of course: the Patriot Acts, the National Defense Act (my personal favorites, which is why I mention them so often). This puts a lot of things on whole new footing, does it not? What we find is that justice, morality, and all that goes with it, depend on more than just feelings or laws. We are called upon to actually think about what we believe and what we hold to be good and true and right. What one person or just one group thinks to be that may not be what another group thinks, so we need to be able to discuss and debate and consensually determine what such moral standards are. And if we can't talk to each other anymore? What then?

If you ask me, things are not looking all that good for the home team.

Exaggerated?

Of course I have my own ideas of how things should be. And, yes, I have my own visions of what could be in the future. But -- and I think anyone who has been following the latest thread with a modicum of attention will agree -- I'm doing my best not to fix the blame, and I'm not trying to convince anyone that what they think is wrong. All I'm asking -- and this happens rarely enough -- is that you give some serious thought to what you do think. Why? Because it may be more important than ever.

Don't get me wrong, though I sound like it at times, I'm not really a doom-and-gloomer. I may not be the most optimistic soul out there, but I'm realist enough to know that what comes will come and we'll have to deal with whatever that is when it appears. I do believe, however, that we still have a chance, albeit a slight one, to do something about the future, even if the system itself can no longer be fixed. I'm sticking by my guns on that one (at least until someone convinces me otherwise). The point is, if you haven't engaged your brain before opening your mouth, you're just pumping out hot air, no more.

If all we have to deal with is hot air, we've got no chance at all. I'm concerned because when we distill the entire situation down to its essence, it's no longer about who's right and who's wrong. In fact, it's not about right and wrong at all. It's about good and bad: what's good for everyone, not just a few; what's bad for everyone, not just a growing majority. We're not dealing anymore with economics or politics or even sociology. No, we're dealing with morals: the most basic, fundamental understanding of what is good and what is bad. It's a matter of morality. And for that reason, our ability to reason and discuss is more important than ever. Morality can never be edicted, it can only be agreed.

But even here, in the most (in my mind, at least) important aspect of human existence, we have lost our ability to reason, discuss and debate. We've turned -- or are at least in the process of turning -- our morality discourse into another struggle for power. What the fewest people realize is that this is one of the most dangerous turn of events there can be. If we get this one wrong, we just could be doomed ... at least as most of us think we understand the term. There's simply a lot at stake.