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.

Corporations are people?

Two recent events got me thinking about the corporations-are-people ruling that have made it clear, just how sad that decision was. It is an excellent of example of simply not thinking a thought through to the end. The first event was a sign held up at a recent Occupy Wall Street protest in New York, which read, "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one." The second was a statement Marianne Williamson made in her talk to the Occupy Wall Streeters in Berkeley, that "Corporations can't be people, they don't have souls." While each of these statements certainly have their merits, it would be too easy for my atheist friends to discount Ms Williamson's statement, so I thought it would be worthwhile to revisit the issue in a more mundane way. After all, the only word that springs to my mind when I hear the corporations-are-people phrase is "absurd." Here's why.

We can argue about whether people, that is, human beings have souls. That's fine. However, regardless of how one thinks about that, I would suggest we all agree that you can't be just part of a person, or part-person. That is the essence of what we call "discrimination". You can lose a limb or just have your appendix taken out, and you are still a person. You can have a birth defect or suffer a debilitating injury, and you are still a person. The whole part-of-a-person argument was actually put to rest when the 14th Amendment finally overcame that ridiculous idea that blacks were only 3/5 people. (In other words, this isn't the first time we've had to face absurdity head on.)

The consequence of this thought is that corporations can't, then, just have some rights and not others. If you are a person, you enjoy all the rights that other persons have, not just the freedom of speech in certain instances, like elections. This is what our first protester was getting at. Now, I'm no advocate of the death penalty, but I have nothing in principle against jail, so why can't corporations be sent to jail? It's simple enough: corporations can't act on their own, but their boards of directors, first and foremost, and their owners (read: shareholders) can, and do. If the corporation does something illegal, then, as was the case leading up to the recent financial crisis, then we know who should stand trial and if convicted go to jail. These two groups represent the head and heart of the corporation. You shouldn't have to go looking for some individual within the organization who should be punished for wrongdoing, the corporation did the wrong-doing, and that is who needs to answer for their actions. That's what it would mean for corporations to be people.

These days we like to pick and choose, to pick what's best for us and just ignore the rest. If "the markets" are comprised of "investors", as the name implies, they have a vested interest in the actions of the corporation. As many like to point out, they are the corporation. And their interest cannot be only to derive benefits and not have to face the consequences of unpleasant or even illegal decisions. Yes, I know, when you think about the sheer numbers of people that would have to be incarcerated the mind begins to boggle, so to save ourselves from this ridiculous fate, we need to let the people in the judicial old-folks home in DC know that they haven't thought their thought through to the end.