“Where did Jesus say you can kill people for a purpose?” Antonio Espera, a U.S. sergeant in Iraq
I’m going through a bit of crisis of purpose now, which isn’t exactly new, but is frustrating. I may leave LiveJournal soon. I may leave the internet soon. The world needs changing, and I don’t know how to do it, but I don’t think my strength is blogging.
Here’s what I know:
We have the resources to save the world from drastic climate change.
We have the resources to give everyone a home, education, and health care.
But the rich are not interested in either. Where’s the profit? There was a popular play called Warp which had a bit I loved that went something like this: “But if you destroy the universe, where will you live?” We’re destroying our world. Where will we live?
I understand the shortsightedness of the rich when it comes to housing, education, and health care: to have cheap and dependable servants, workers should be slightly desperate and slightly ignorant. But I don’t understand the indifference of the rich to climate change. Is the fad for super-yachts based on the desire to have their own arks? Don’t they care about their own children? Are they so dedicated to the principles of privilege and rule that they would rather work to make their children princes in hell than equals in heaven?
It’s not too late to save the world. See Bernie Sanders’ Global Warming Is Reversible. We only need to find the will—and embrace the need to share.
First, I think you’re over generalizing. Some rich, like Al Gore, seem to be taking climate change seriously.
Second, and contrary to the above, if the rich don’t appear to be taking climate change seriously (and the implied destruction of thier “house”) you should consider the possibility that they do not see climate change as a serious threat, as opposed to being indifferent to the fate of the planet.
Speaking as an almost rich (I suspect I would qualify, anyway), I take the *possibility* of climate change as real but strongly suspect that its a put up job by those who want to: 1) redistribute wealth; and, 2) curtail the power of the U.S. The evidence in support of it is certainly not without citics, Al Gore notwithstanding.
Maybe they’re just like regular people and only take concrete action when there’s a clear plan in place to reach a specific goal?
When I was making good money (years ago), I was overwhelmed by my choices with regard to donations. I did research, I chose a variety of organizations that all had different goals but tried to accomplish concrete measures, and I gave what I could.
But if it’s that overwhelming for someone who was (at the time) making $85K (before taxes), I can’t even imagine what it’s like when you have millions or billions.
Most people can’t plan a day. Few can manage a dinner party. How do you organize yourself sufficiently to give away money? How do you resist the urge to ignore problems in your life by throwing money at them and actually engage? Engagement is exhausting and, if you’re rich, you have an easy out… do something fun, eat something fun, distract yourself with a fun new toy.
Actually, that’s what most people do - they don’t know how to engage so they drink, smoke, screw around, watch TV, buy material goods, and don’t really feel better (although they’re convinced they WILL feel better if they had enough money for that thing that’s currently out of reach, out of their price-range). It’s just that with the rich, it doesn’t matter what it costs, while the poor have to budget a little for their toys and junk food.
I think you change the world a little bit at a time. Any way you can. If it’s not through blogging, then maybe some other way.
It took William Wilberforce over twenty years to have slavery abolished in the British Empire.
Maybe it’ll take that long. But if it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing.
You’re assuming that they believe we have climate change. They’re happily telling themselves that mini-ice ages have come and gone, and will again. They think it will not happen until after their children are dead — or that their children will have enough money to protect themselves from it.
I’m hoping the opening of the Northwest Passage caught a few people’s attention.
Right now people feel helpless. A million Americans marched in the streets to stop the Iraq invasion, and Bush steamrollered over us all. I think it’s why fantasy is so popular now — not as escapism, but as the only literature that talks about desperate acts, and heroes who rise from dust to do what needs doing because they’re the only ones there. Heroes often are heroes because they run slowest.
I hope it means that people are screwing themselves up to do what needs doing. Take back their government, and try to make a difference here, now, with our own 1/3 of children who go to bed hungry, or the crumbling cities, highways and schools. I never thought the first thing I’d think of as a charity if I won a bunch of money would be to set up a medical trust for Veterans in Texas to get PTSD treatment. But that’s where my mind is drifting these days. Or…get a psych degree and learn EMDR so I can treat a certain number of vets on a “pay what you can afford” basis.
Desperate times call for desperate measures. You probably cannot make a difference in the US as a socialist — old impressions die hard. Will you run for state office as an Independent pushing to renew Federalism, among other things? And take back the Bill of Rights? I can’t run — even if the Lyme didn’t permanently damage me, it would be used against me.
Where shall we put our desperate energy, after we work to feed ourselves and our families?
Agreed. But we only have five years to change course on climate change, last I heard. But then, maybe Wilberforce (and his many allies!) could’ve done it in five if he’d had the internet.
Thinking about the rest, but especially admiring this: “get a psych degree and learn EMDR so I can treat a certain number of vets on a “pay what you can afford” basis.” A fine goal!
Sounds like you want to walk away from Omelas. Or well maybe you already have and you want to fix the rest of it.
I have one of my fables knocking around in the back of my head. With this princess who lives in a castle made of bones, that her father built. Only she finds out that he only added onto the castle, and it was really started by the people who are the servants in the castle. And now i have to kind of let it go back into the back of my head to finish cooking
Unfortunately, I think there’s a lack of will on the part of the rich, the middle and the poor. I know the rich can be quite influential, but the middle and the lower income also have votes and a voice and their own brains and can do their bit… they don’t need to be lead by the rich. (Of course, one should define ones terms… I’m newly on here, so I’m not exactly sure what constitutes “the rich.”)
It would help if there were concrete goals and courses of action that people could agree upon when it comes to stopping global warming. What do we need to do and how can we work to achieve it? Personally, I don’t have a clue–aside from thinking that getting the US administration to agree with the Kyoto Accords would be a start. Yes, there are huge corporate interests involved in keeping that from happening, but there are plenty of “little” people who don’t care enough to think of it as an issue. And corporate issues aside, I think Bush and many who aren’t powerful or rich still worry about hurting the economy or whatever their arguments have been…
It’s hard enough to just get people to switch to energy saving light bulbs, for gosh-sakes…!
I’m not sure what the answers are, however. If you can lead, please do! There is a dearth of true leadership everywhere and at all levels. And a dearth of good followers (not the blind ones–those are everywhere). Most people are very self-absorbed and don’t want to think about difficult or long-term issues (five years even being too long!).
Huh! I think we’re just going to ban ordinary incandescents. :-)
I don’t think it’s a question of where the rich will live, but how. It seems to me, that a sense of entitlement & position is even more present with the nouveau riche than those who are comfortable with money. The most glaring consumption comes from shows like MTV Cribs, where entertainment stars feel the need to prove & parade their wealth on television. What’s the use in having money if it’s all quietly invested or donated to boring necessities for people in countries you can’t locate on a map? You can point to the fleet of Hummers in the 12 car garage as evidence of your American dream. The future of the planet, or even your children, is an abstract problem you can probably bribe your way through.
There’s Warren Buffet, who is well known for his philanthropy.
There’s Bill Gates, who gave up Microsoft to become a philanthropist.
There’s even Angelina Jolie, who gives away one-third of her income.
There were a billion trees planted in 2007. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071128/sc_afp/environmentuntreesclimate_071128
Cities all over the U.S. are working to become greener. Toyota is researching making an electric car. Other car companies are already making electric cars.
Let’s not throw up our hands and leave it to the rich people. Granted, pressure should be put on the people who can make the most change. But it seems to me that if a woman can start a movement where a billion trees are planted in one year, we can reverse global warming in five. (Yes, I know this tree-planting movement has been going on much longer than one year.)
I agree that we need to find more political will in this country to reverse global warming. The billion trees were mostly planted in developing countries. But those countries may not have had the political will as much as the social will. And I think the social will in this country is alive. We just need to find a way to ignite it. Just like I believe Al Gore will do more to reverse global warming in the private sector than in politics, I believe, as a population, we’ll be more effective if we just forget the politicians (who generally follow rather than lead anyway) and just do it ourselves. The politicians will follow when they feel the pressure.
I’m open to ideas and have a few of my own. Anyone who wants to share can respond to my reply and we’ll swap e-mails.
Where did Jesus say he was repealing the old Law?
As for climate change, they reason (probably accurately) that in their lifetimes and that of their children there will be dry, comfortable spots for those with enough money to afford them. If you look at, say, insurance company assessments, it is clear the rich believe global warming will occur. Sadly, they probably -can- shield themselves from the worst effects…
What they probably -can’t- protect themselves from is a mob of workers with torches after they’ve gone just-too-far. Of course, the wealthy and the right are in the habit of starting reactionary revolutions that end up a bit… different than they planned.
I’d hate to see you go, but you must do what you think best.
I find your frequent blanket indictments of “the rich” rather pointless, however. If you consider every individual on the planet, I suspect that you, too, are “rich.” It’s all relative. I think it’s far more useful to point to specific behavior rather than to undefined financial categories.
Keep working on that fable!
Well, if they’re wrong about climate change and act, the worst that happens is you live in a world in which no one is desperate, and all the world’s leading scientists say, “Oops.”
Why are you so sure that avoiding climate change is good?
A few decades ago, it was “obvious” that preventing forest fires was good. That idea didn’t work out too well, did it?
In the past 1000 years, the Earth has been both warmer and cooler than it is now. When something wants to adjust, and you force it to hold steady, the pressure builds and you end up with a catastrophic (in the technical, mathematical sense) change.
One of the tragedies of wealth is that people do feel overwhelmed by choice and responsibility–so they tend to choose the irresponsible thing and let poor people continue to suffer. I do have sympathy for the rich. But so long as they have the solution to suffering and hoard it, I have to join those who choose to call them on what they’re doing.
Never blame the victims, and in this, those who aren’t rich are victims. As individuals, the rich are victims, too, but so long as they support a bad system, they have the responsibility for it.
Still thinking about the solution, of course.
But I have put in energy-saving light bulbs!
Too often, the nouveau riche have accepted the values of the system and worked hard and been lucky enough to succeed, so the system itself makes them feel entitled. Look at the ads that say, “You’ve earned it!”
Philanthropists are rich people buying good will. I prefer them to rich people who don’t buy good will, but what they do is give us bread and circuses. I like bread and circuses, but I want more. I love Carnegie’s libraries, for example, but Carnegie loved mansions and servants so much that he didn’t give nearly as many libraries as he could’ve.
Indiscriminate tree planting doesn’t help. What kinds of trees matter. Where they’re planted matters. Saving the world calls for sharing enormous amounts of information and resources, and governments are actually quite good at sharing information and resources when they’re not trying to conquer other nations.
I agree that politicians will follow if we make them. But they’re the people making sure we’re working long hours and going to crummy schools so organizing to make them do anything will be very, very hard.
I hope you don’t. I’ve followed you for some time (at various places) precisely because what you post makes me think and keeps me informed. You may not be changing the world in a dramatic way, but you do make a difference.
I think avoiding human-caused climate change is smart. The earth has been a tropical paradise at the poles and a giant snowball before, too, but life was a lot different - and had time to adjust. The C02 in our atmosphere has never, according to scientific measurements, jumped as quickly as it has since we’ve started burning fossil fuels.
The earth, I think, will probably take care of itself, but weather patterns may shift suddenly and violently, and events like Katrina, typhoons in Bangladesh that kill 3,000, droughts, famines, heat waves, floods, etc. can cause a lot of grief for a lot of people.
If something wants to hold steady - or move slowly - and you force it to adjust reallysuperfast, then that can cause catastrophic change as well.
Like Micah and other Jewish sages, Jesus calls for morality, not ritual. What he meant by “I have not come to abolish them (the laws) but to fulfill them,” is open to endless debate, but what’s clear is that the principles of peace should be interpreted in the strongest possible ways:
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.”
“Judgment” is also interesting; it seems to be a metaphor for conscience.
Good point about the insurance assessments.
My debts are greater than my wealth; I am luckier than some people in the world, but I am, quite literally, worthless.
If it helps, whenever I say, “the rich,” read “the super rich” or “the top 1%” or “the people who own most of the world’s wealth.”
Saying “it’s relative” is a fine way to escape responsibility– Hmm. I may have to write at least one more post!
There’s a huge difference between “avoiding” and “stop contributing to”.
Aw. Thank you!
Philanthropists are rich people buying good will.
Just admiring that.
I just noticed at my last visit to our little local library that it was donated by Carnegie.
Well, if Jesus did -not- say the old laws were rejected (and the fact that the ‘may the innocent man throw the first stone’ was a later forged addition supports my contention that he said no such thing– since someone felt the need to add it to promote the break with the old law that Christians later adopted), then Leviticus is still on the books… and adulterers should still be stoned.
Similarly, the big J didn’t say much about slavery.
We can do better than a 2000-year old cartoon character, or older draconian desert laws, for our morality/ethics/economics. There are now centuries and centuries of evidence that the actual text of the gospel does not lead Christians to be any less worldly than secular doctrines.
Don’t build a house out of sticks when bricks are available– there are a lot of rich Christians out there, and though the plain reading of the text says they’re to be spartan communists doing good works and bowing their heads meek and mild before the yokes and whips of their social betters, this is not what they do.
If you haven’t read Homage to Catalonia, you really ought to– and it is available free online. My following post is from chapter 1.which is here
This was in late December 1936, less than seven months ago as I write, and
yet it is a period that has already receded into enormous distance. Later events
have obliterated it much more completely than they have obliterated 1935, or
1905, for that matter. I had come to Spain with some notion of writing newspaper
articles, but I had joined the militia almost immediately, because at that time
and in that atmosphere it seemed the only conceivable thing to do. The
Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was
still in full swing. To anyone who had been there since the beginning it
probably seemed even in December or January that the revolutionary period was
ending; but when one came straight from England the aspect of Barcelona was
something startling and overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever been
in a town where the working class was in the saddle. Practically every building
of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with
the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the
hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties; almost
every church had been gutted and its images burnt. Churches here and there were
being systematically demolished by gangs of workmen. Every shop and cafe had an
inscription saying that it had been collectivized; even the bootblacks had been
collectivized and their boxes painted red and black. Waiters and shop-walkers
looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial
forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. Nobody said ‘Senior’ or ‘Don’ or
even ‘Usted’; everyone called everyone else ‘Comrade’ and ‘Thou’, and said
‘Salud!’ instead of ‘Buenos dias’. Tipping was forbidden by law; almost my first
experience was receiving a lecture from a hotel manager for trying to tip a
lift-boy. There were no private motor-cars, they had all been commandeered, and
all the trams and taxis and much of the other transport were painted red and
black. The revolutionary posters were everywhere, flaming from the walls in
clean reds and blues that made the few remaining advertisements look like daubs
of mud. Down the Ramblas, the wide central artery of the town where crowds of
people streamed constantly to and fro, the loudspeakers were bellowing
revolutionary songs all day and far into the night. And it was the aspect of the
crowds that was the queerest thing of all. In outward appearance it was a town
in which the wealthy classes had practically ceased to exist. Except for a small
number of women and foreigners there were no ‘well-dressed’ people at all.
Practically everyone wore rough working-class clothes, or blue overalls, or some
variant of the militia uniform. All this was queer and moving. There was much in
it that I did not understand, in some ways I did not even like it, but I
recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for…
In the context of someone considering running for office, which I should have recalled was something you’d done before, please disregard my comments vis a vis bringing up religion… I’m not totally blind to political necessity.
You might read a little about Carnegie. Evil man. And, seriously, if I remember correctly (and I may not!) he could’ve given twice as many libraries if he had wanted to. He definitely could’ve given more than he did if he hadn’t wanted to live in luxury so very much.
They were called robber barons for a reason.
Being a later addition doesn’t mean it was forged: it might’ve been authentic oral tradition. I note this simply because I’m pedantic–I’ve come to agree with the Christians who say that if you become too obsessed with the historical Jesus, you may lose sight of the purpose of the teachings and stories. Whatever it’s source, the story about throwing the first stone is a truly great story.
Also, not saying there’s a single purpose to the Bible. I like the purpose that folks like the Quakers find. Those who use Christianity to prop up princes, not so much.
The big J said you treat everyone as family: you don’t enslave your family. Paul had to come along later and assure the Romans, “Hey, slavery is cool!”
As for “stoning adulterers,” remember “Vengeance is mine, saith the lord.” That means it’s not for people.
And what’s wrong with cartoon characters? Pogo said many true things!
I do need to read more Orwell.
Oh, I was never a pragmatic politician, or much of a politician at all. The original version of my platform is still here. I continue to suffer from the belief that you should just tell the truth and let the people decide.
Unless they act by actually trying some of those geoengineering schemes. There are smart ways to deal with an obvious problem and incredibly stupid ways. I have a feeling we’ll end up picking the incredibly stupid ways and we’ll do them in a slapdash fashion besides.
Hopefully, I’m wrong.
Very, very true. And, alas, the stupidest ways to address the problem are potentially the most profitable for corporations, so you’re right to be afraid.
There are lots of not-rich people who support things like economic freedom, too.
We don’t understand what contributes to climate change (other than “everything does, but we don’t know in which direction”). For instance, airplanes contribute to cooling (measured after 9/11/2001 when there were a lot fewer flying). Apparently their exhaust reflects sunlight. So should we fight global warming by further subsidizing airplane flights?
In previous eras, we don’t know how fast CO2 increased; the measurements aren’t that precise.
Hurricanes, droughts, famines, typhoons, heat waves, major floods, etc. etc. have been happening since before there were people.
I’ll echo ’s sentiment — reading your journal has exposed me to new information and different ideas. It’s also challenged me to think about class & capitalism more, and even when I’ve disagreed with you it’s pushed me to think harder about my own beliefs and principles and look at them critically.
I totally respect whatever choices you make about where to focus your energy, and the internet is a very crowded and noisy place when you’re looking to effect change. But I hope that even if you decide to spend less of your time here, you’ll still post occasionally to let us know what you’re up to and where your commitment and passion is taking you.
And there were slaves who supported slavery.
You’re ignoring a lot of the evidence about planes and climate change. Google is your friend.
So were they victims of the “never blame” sort?
Rather, I’m not ignoring inconvenient evidence.
I have a general rule, that when somebody (I’m not referring to you here) lies in order to get me to believe something, that means that he’s of the opinion that if he told the truth, I wouldn’t believe it. The same holds with statements that aren’t quite lies, but are intentionally misleading.
Way too much of the human-caused climate change stuff is of that sort.
If I’m following our conversation correctly, yes: Their ignorance was not their fault.
Are you saying anyone is lying about the human contribution to climate change?
And I’ll note that for someone who values truth, you’re cheating a bit when you say “human-caused climate change.” I haven’t noticed anyone deep in the research saying climate change is caused by humans. They’re saying humans are exacerbating the problem.
Why wasn’t it? When is ignorance the fault of the ignorant person and when not?
Suppose there were slaves who weren’t ignorant, but knew precisely how hard life would be for them if free, so they wanted to remain slaves. Would you blame them?
Would you blame an employee who doesn’t want to take the risk of going into business for himself?
I continue to suffer from the belief that you should just tell the truth and let the people decide.
Probably a good plan for MN, given all I’ve heard for and against.
You’re spinning wheels on questions of power. You may not be able to understand the difference between being raised a slave and being raised a slaver. You’re not alone in that.
If you know of real slaves who fit that description, offer them now.
I’m guessing your third question comes from beliefs that I do not share. It seems as irrelevant to me as a question about predestination.
“anyone is lying”? Sure, lots of people are. Some intentionally.
When a report is listed with hundreds of co-authors, some of whom did not approve of the report as published (but were originally part of the committee writing it), I’m inclined to discount it.
Sure, humans affect climate, as does everything else. Until a model can correctly predict the previous few centuries, I see no reason to believe it can correctly predict the next few.
(having now read your platform, those are all excellent proposals.)
You never answered my question about how you define “power”.
I don’t know any real slaves.
The third question was similar to the slave’s viewpoint: it shows a person choosing to minimize risk at the cost of expected value.
Some rich, like Al Gore, seem to be taking climate change seriously.
Bwah hah hah hah hah. . . .
If you think for a minute that Al Gore has more than a vague interest in environmental issues other than as a political spring board, I have a bridge to sell you. Just for laughs, check out this link
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
Thanks!
“Where did Jesus say you can kill people for a purpose?” Antonio Espera, a U.S. sergeant in Iraq
Did you happen to catch The Unit this week? On of the soldiers on the show had the same moral dilemma, and I credit the writers for not taking the safe way out. Good stuff.
I’m going through a bit of crisis of purpose now, which isn’t exactly new, but is frustrating. I may leave LiveJournal soon. I may leave the internet soon. The world needs changing, and I don’t know how to do it, but I don’t think my strength is blogging.
I don’t like driving down to Tucson, but I will. I enjoy watching your mind work, the interweb is a continent method for me to do so. Although you do have that bread place near your house. . .
I understand the shortsightedness of the rich when it comes to housing, education, and health care: to have cheap and dependable servants, workers should be slightly desperate and slightly ignorant. But I don’t understand the indifference of the rich to climate change.
Indifference, ignorance, there are a lot of factors. I think “the rich” as some have already noted, is far too broad a term. The capitalists are short sited, the rich are indifferent, and everyone else is ignorant, both of the stakes of the game and the power they hold.
I’ve defined “power” many times. Your wish to keep the concept vague is understandable, given your belief system. It’s not mine. Both of our viewpoints are “logical” in that they are built solidly on fundamental assumptions, but your assumption, that some people should be rich and some people should be poor, is not mine.
Discussing hypothetical situations is only useful when they’re grounded in reality. I’m no longer interested in arguing whether the Hulk is stronger than Superman. (Because I know Superman is stronger. *g*)
The third question is only relevant to a devout capitalist who believes hard work and daring are always rewarded–a common belief of people who were born to privilege.
Okay, Emma and I may have to start watching another TV show. Someone else was saying good things about The Unit.
And we should have coffee again sometime!
I love Snopes.
Though to be fair to Gore, if he was out buying a set for photo ops, he would probably get a pretty impressive place. Still, I would respect him more if he donated the family mansion to a climate research group and moved into a moderate-sized rammed earth house.
Thanks, I have to just leave it alone in the back of my head and eventually something like this shows up.
http://kungfool.transpect.net/webpages/archive_CK/200409_3.html#04
I wrote it, and a friend made it into this little comic. The stuff after “THE END” is just him being silly.
Oh, the good thing (and the dangerous thing) about being a writer is “keep working on that” can just mean “don’t forget about that.”
Nice little comic!
Saying “it’s relative” can be a way to escape responsibility; so can almost anything, really, if that’s what one wants to do. I happen to think that thinking about one’s position on the ladder is a good thing. By the standard of all individuals in the world, you could be called rich because you have (I admit, I am making some assumptions here) enough food to maintain yourself; clean water; sufficient clothes not only to protect you from the elements but keep yourself clean (that is, some to wear while you wash others) and to present yourself “properly” in a variety of social situations; a roof over your head; your own transportation; an educational background that allows you to do work other than the lowest paid in your society; a computer and access to the Internet…
Do I think it’s a problem–an ethical problem, and also a practical problem–that a smaller and smaller proportion of humans are controlling more and more of the world’s power, including material assets? Yes, I do.
But I don’t think that indicting by categories, by labels, serves any purpose. Describe the behavior that poses the problem, and let the chips fall where they may.
The thing that I see missing in your indictments of the rich is an acknowledgment that each of them is still only one person, living their own individual lives in their own unique circumstances. Realistically, what can one person do? What “solution to suffering” does one person have? Sure, with Bill Gates’s assets, you can do a lot (and he does). But your “top 1%” in a world of 6.6 billion amounts to 66 million people you are indicting. According to Merrill Lynch, the world has 9.5 million people who are millionaires or above. That leaves 55 million people in your top 1% who each have assets of $1 million or less. By the time you get to the bottom of the list, I suspect that it’s far less.
What do you know about the choices those 55 million people make every day? What do you know about how much of their money (and time, and energy) they contribute to alleviate suffering? In the end, each of them is just one person, and I suspect that the vast majority of them are doing the responsible thing: the best they can.
Completely agree that thinking about your place in the pyramid is good.
But as I’ve noted before, if you only have a dollar a day, you can live in many countries, but you’ll die in the US.
If you don’t create categories and labels, you can’t deal with large problems. Racists are a category and a label. So are Nazis. So are serial killers. You have to identify a problem in order to deal with it.
Hoarding wealth while others suffer from poverty is a thing done by every rich person. What’s “relative” there is how much wealth they hoard.
First you have to look honestly at what you need. Bill Gates could do so much more than he does because his concept of what he needs for himself and his children is enormous.
Currently, what you call “the best they can” is failing the world. We must do better.
if you only have a dollar a day, you can live in many countries, but you’ll die in the US.
That’s why I’m talking about what people have in terms of living their lives, rather than about dollars.
We differ, and probably will continue to do so, on the value of categories and labeling. I do not consider categorizing or labeling to be “identify[ing] the problem.” This is somewhat a soapbox with me; for example, I say on my info page that I may delete from my LJany comment that
“does name-calling of real people, i.e., characterizes people rather than their behavior or actions.”
I see no value–I mean it, none–in applying labels to people without, at the very least, everyone who is party to the conversation agreeing on the definition, and if you can get that, you might as well use labels like “plergb” and “Murgatroyd” (for a couple of examples from the long past).
“Racist” tells me nothing; I want to know what the behavior is. Does the person believe that races have a hierarchy of superiority, but he never uses that belief to deprive anyone of equal opportunity? Or does the person believe that all races are equal, but because of one very bad experience with a person of a certain ethnicity, she takes every opportunity to hurt anyone of that ethnicity?
“Hoarding wealth” could be defined as keeping anything of value that one does not personally need to stay alive through today. From there on, it’s all just drawing lines.
The rich are reluctant to admit they’re rich; they tend to say they’re “doing all right” or “getting by.” That doesn’t mean they’re not rich.
And while you quibble about the relativity of “rich” and “poor”, the poor suffer while the rich get richer. Tell a starving child that hunger is relative. Tell a homeless woman that sleeping on the street is relative. Tell a man dying of Aids that health care is relative. Your “relative” is a great luxury.
If Bill Gates gave away every dollar of his $56 billion, he could give each person on earth about $9. But suppose he gave it all to the 1.1 billion people the World Bank said lived in “extreme poverty” in 2001 (the last date I find stats for); he could give each one about $50–enough to lift them from “extreme poverty” to “moderate poverty” for less than two months, after which they would be right back where they started.
As I’ve said before, we can’t wipe the slate clean. We have to start from where we are, and changing things in the long term, on a large scale, requires large chunks of money spent on focused projects. That’s the kind of change that only a Gates–or a government–can finance.
You seem to have gotten hung up on my use of the word “relative,” to the point where you bring it up here rather than address the points I made in the comment you’re answering. Is there something I said in the immediately previous comment that you disagree with?
Did you mean “they” must do better, not that “we” must do better? I ask because if you did, the cynic in me can’t help but think its easy and a moral cop out to take the track that the world’s problems would be cured by spending other people’s money.
Now if you truly meant “we”, then you’re acknowledging that even those who are not rich can do things to make the world a better place without resorting to taking the rich’s money. If so, the “non-rich” should get to it. Once the individual rich (among whom I hope to be, someday) see how those efforts are going, then they can decide whether they want to sign over their individual fortunes in support of the cause.
Let’s say he keeps a million for himself. How many hospitals could he build? How many schools?
And why should we assume that Gates’ priorities are what’s best for the world? The rich love wealth because it lets them indulge their whims. Is the world better because a rich man built a “creation science” museum near John Scalzi’s home? (Yes, it did give the rest of us something to mock, but I suspect every single person we know could think of better things to do with that money to help people.)
The system works for the rich because we let it work. We can change it. You may want to preserve it so you can have servants. I won’t be helping you.
I was trying to point out that expecting everyone in a discussion to agree to a definition is sweet, but it goes nowhere. Relativists like to spin their wheels and those of anyone who will linger with them, usually because they benefit from inaction.
The difficulty in getting agreement on a definition is just one of the reasons I find use of categories and labels unhelpful. Don’t tell me that “the rich” are “hoarding their wealth”; tell me what specific actions people are taking and how you think that should be changed. Or just give a rule/principle/policy you think should be followed, and I can figure out for myself (if I see any need to do so) who conforms to it. “No one should retain more wealth than would support their immediate family in their current style for six months,” for example. Or “No one should spend more on food than [insert some nutrition-based standard].” Something like that.
If you simply leave it to people to “do the right thing,” I see no reasonable grounds for you to complain that their idea of the right thing doesn’t conform to yours.
Oh, you want *specifics*!
*g*
Okay, I’ll define some terms in the next post or two, most likely.
Appreciated! I’m not exactly over my doubts, but I don’t think I’ll be leaving LJ or the internet immediately.
I believe you.
It always seems to point out, to me, the futility of amassing riches when you see what people do with it. Basic needs: food, shelter, clothing, love. How much of the first three do you really need, and how much of the fourth one can you really buy?
article of interest
The short-short version is, the rich understand which side their bread is buttered on and they’re coming around on climate change– of course, those with the most entrenched interests (Exxon, etc) will be last to come ’round.
This’d fit well into Noam Chomsky’s thesis on the Vietnam War– that once the business class saw that it wasn’t good for business, that was when the war -could- end… since they basically run the show.
And why should we assume that Gates’ priorities are what’s best for the world?
Why should we assume that yours are? Why should we assume that what’s best for the world is for you to decide how Gates’s money should be used?
The rich love wealth because it lets them indulge their whims.
I suspect that the vast majority of people on earth–99.9999% or so–would like to have enough wealth to cover their necessities and also indulge a whim or two. There are a few saints, yes, who choose otherwise, who give up every penny over what is needed to keep themselves alive, but few. Once people have a roof over their heads, enough to eat, and maybe transportation to work, what do they start dreaming of? Their whims: a big TV, cable, a nicer car, a trip somewhere, more clothes. Having your own books (rather than relying on the library), CDs of your favorite music and something to play them on, DVDs of favorite movies, a collection of this or that–all whims.
Having enough money to indulge one’s whims in changing the world, though–that’s powerful stuff. What would you do if someone suddenly gave you, say, $100 million? Would you decide for yourself what you should do with it, what whims you should indulge? Or would you let some random blogger decide what should be done with it?
I’m not offering mine as an alternative to Gates’. I think the people, collectively, are wiser than individuals. That’s why I love true democracy.
If someone game me $100 million, I would buy a small home and give away the rest.
I think the people, collectively, are wiser than individuals.
Ah. I see now why we will never agree. I think the people, collectively, form lynch mobs, burn crosses on the lawns of people-not-like-them, and elect politicians like George Bush (of course, they probably didn’t; substitute Ronald Reagan if you like).
If someone game me $100 million, I would buy a small home and give away the rest.
Would you decide for yourself how to give it away, or turn it over to some representation of “the people” to decide?
Ah! And I think small, fanatic groups form mobs. I like democracy a whole lot.
And you do remember that in 2000, W didn’t get the most votes? The system that elected W was designed and maintained by the rich, not by the people.
“Would you decide for yourself how to give it away, or turn it over to some representation of “the people” to decide?”
I would probably divide it among several groups, so many different minds could work on it.
Remember the Snopes site is run by people who are rather conservative, and big Bush supporters (or were, don’t know if still are) so these facts may be correct, but they could also have missing facts that belong beside them (I haven’t caught a lie, but they can leave out things that balance what they’re talking about. Only noticed in two listings so far.)
I would have voted for him.
I have noticed bias there, but so far, it’s been honest bias, so I can’t complain.
Yes, I remember the election of 2000; that’s why I said, “of course, they probably didn’t.” “The people” certainly elected Reagan, though: “the people” loved him.
I don’t think mobs are formed by small, fanatic groups; I think they are formed by a strong personality, or perhaps two or three of them, and a bunch of followers–not followers of the idea or the action, sometimes, or necessarily even of the personality who is leading, but just followers of someone who tells them what to do. And I think that “followers of someone who tells them what to do” describes the vast majority of the human race.
I would probably divide it among several groups, so many different minds could work on it.
And who would decide which groups you gave it to?
Oh, the people can be fooled. If I thought dictators could be counted on to do the right thing, I would happily support dictators. Their track record isn’t so good.
“And who would decide which groups you gave it to?”
In the absence of one good group, I would have to choose as best I could. That doesn’t mean that’s the best way to do things. In an ideal world, I would simply give my money to the government–but until we have a government that concerns itself more with the people than the rich, that seems pointless.
So what it comes down to is that in this less-than-ideal world, given $100 million, you would decide, yourself, what to do with it to best carry out your personal vision.
What it comes down to is I would not keep more than I needed to give Emma and me a small home.
I apologize. I’m new to LJ and forgot to log on (as opposed to being “Anonymous”).
I don’t have servants. Last I checked, I still have to mow my own grass and take out my own garbage.
And I am confused. First, do you agree or disagree that the non-rich can improve the world without accessing the rich’s wealth? If you agree, it appears to me that the non-rich are somewhat culpable for whatever problems you believe the world suffers from.
Second, what do you mean by “The system works for the rich because we let it work”? Does that mean you are retreating from what I thought was your previously stated opinion that contributions from the rich should be voluntary? Or are you now espousing the view that the rich’s wealth should be confiscated, regardless of their personal views on the desirability of retaining their individual wealth?
Don’t get me wrong. I sympathize, to a limited extent, with what appears to be at least a portion of your objectives. Equalizing opportunity is a desirable goal. I spent a portion of this evening attempting to convince a signature gatherer for Arizonans who want to roll back property taxes that their efforts would primarily hurt fire, police and schools, and that their focus would be more productively spent on reducing the income and/or sales tax.
However, attempting to dictate equality as an end result is more than naive, it appears to me to be essentially an economic and political suicide pact. Count me out.
Total sympathy about LJ’s quirks!
In this country, hoping to be rich usually means hoping to have a big house and servants to care for it.
I don’t believe in blaming victims. We have an economic system that teaches people its ways. The people who benefit from it are responsible for it. The “non-rich” can refuse to support the system, but the cost for doing that is enormous, especially if they have dependents.
I do wish the rich would contribute voluntarily. But if they won’t, I believe we should vote to set limits on wealth. I don’t believe in putting too much weight on the views of the rich: slaveowners thought they should be free to own slaves, but I believe we were right to limit that particular freedom.
The point is not to dictate end equality. But you cannot have equal opportunity without actually providing equal opportunity.
Lots and lots, if you replace love with mistresses and children. Or fewer but richer children, who’ll produce many rich grandchildren, and so on. Some families fade out, but there’s a lot of large old money families that are, well, old. That’s what money buys, persistent genetic success.
The Natural History of the Rich by Richard Conniff (a natural history writer) is a good if depressing book.