Yesterday, Tuesday, January 17, 2012, the Austin American-Statesman published an opinion article entitled "America's unlevel playing field won't get flattened by Romney," written by Paul Krugman. It contained some interesting assertions.
1. "Americans are much more likely than citizens of other nations to believe that they live in a meritocracy."
2. "[T]his self-image is a fantasy."
Mr. Krugman supported this second assertion with an equally interesting assertion.
"America actually stands out as the advanced country in which it matters most who your parents were, the country in which those born on one of society's lower rungs have the least chance of climbing to the top or even to the middle."
While I find these assertions interesting in and of themselves, I find them particularly interesting because they are things I have been saying for some time now. I did not make the assertions up. They are based on hard statistical facts. In America, it is much less likely that you will die at a higher socio-economic level than the one you were born into than it is in most European countries.
Now, to be clear, I am not saying that America is bad. Hardly. As someone long ago once told me, the test is: Are they trying to get out, or are they trying to get in? While not so much as they used to, they are still trying to get into America, not out.
But, we are not the "Land of Opportunity" that we tell ourselves we are. And it is interesting to hear a Nobel-Prize-winning economist agree with me.
Not long ago, I was having dinner with some friends. All three of them were naturalized U.S. citizens. They are Americans now, but they had all been born citizens of other countries.
One of them asserted that America was the "Land of Opportunity." When I disagreed and tried to explain that the facts showed that the assertion simply was not true, that many countries offered more opportunity to their citizens than did America, he refused to be dissuaded. When I asked him how he could continue to believe the "Land of Opportunity" motto in the face of rather stark facts, he replied, "I don't believe the facts."
At that point, the only thing to be said, if anything, is what Senator Moynihan is reputed to have said: "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts." Rational conversation is over.
Later, I was castigated by one of those at the table for disagreeing with the one who asserted that America was the "Land of Opportunity." "He was just trying to compliment your country."
I thought about the implications inherent in the idea that it was my country, not the country of all those seated at the table, but I passed that over. But, what I thought about was: Why did I dispute him when he said something apparently complimentary about America?
One thing I can promise is that it was not because I am anti-American. I do not hate America. On the contrary, I love my country, and I consider myself to be among the most fortunate men on the planet for the single reason that I was born in America.
But, because I love my country, I want her to be as good as we can possibly make her. As good as she is now, I want her to be better, if that can possibly occur.
It cannot occur if we lie to ourselves. This is as true of a nation of people as it is of an individual. If we are convinced, or convince ourselves, that we are perfect, we are never motivated to improve. Thoughtful, accurate self-criticism is not bad. Thoughtful, accurate self-criticism is good.
Consider the difference between looking in the mirror and saying to yourself, "Ah, I'm not that overweight. In fact, a little girth looks good on me. I don't need to be careful about what I eat or whether I exercise," and "Hmmm. I think I'm gaining too much weight. That won't be healthy. I think I'll be a little more careful about what I eat and I'll start getting some more exercise." One is self-delusion which allows us to continue our bad habits uncontrolled, and the other is thoughtful self-criticism which allows us to recognize where we need to improve and start taking steps to be better.
Our nation is exactly like that. When we tell ourselves that we are the "Land of Opportunity," it may sound like a compliment, but actually we are self-deluding and we won't be motivated to actually improve opportunity for Americans.
We need to speak truth to ourselves so that we can be even better than we are. If we truly love America, we will tell the truth about her, and we'll be happy when others do the same.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Henry Ford
"One of the greatest discoveries a man makes, one of his surprise, is to find he can do what he was afraid he couldn't do."
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Henry Ford
"If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person's point of view and see things from that person's angle as well as from your own."
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Thomas Alva Edison
"The brain can be developed just the same as the muscles can be developed, if one will only take the pains to train the mind to think. Why do so many men never amount to anything? Because they don't think."
Monday, January 2, 2012
The Social Contract v. Class Warfare
I believe the social contract for modern day America is "I am my brother's keeper." I may be wrong. Others may disagree. But, I believe that is our social contract in America today.
If I'm right, then each American has an obligation to help care for his or her fellow Americans. They are his or her "brothers" and he or she is their keeper. This obligation is not a choice. It is an obligation which arises from the fact that the social contract exists and from the terms of that contract.
Likewise, each American has a right to be cared for by his or her fellow Americans. He or she is the "brother" of every other American and they are his or her keeper. This right is not earned. It is a right which arises from the fact that the social contract exists and from the terms of that contract.
So, let us examine this notion with an eye to determining how the application of this obligation and this right relate to the concept of "class warfare."
I'm going to pick some easy numbers to work with. Of course, these numbers are not real. They are intended only to be illustrative.
Suppose there are ten members of our society. Suppose that each of them makes 100 economic units a year. I'm going to call those "Units." Suppose that each of them needs 90 Units to survive. All is well. Everyone has a little more than he or she needs and no one has to take care of anyone else or be cared for by anyone else. No class warfare there.
However, assume that person number 1 - I'm going to call him or her One - only makes 90 Units a year and all the rest still make 100 Units a year. One still has as much as he or she needs and no one has to take care of One. So, all is still well. No class warfare there.
But, change the assumption just a little. Assume that One becomes incapacitated in some way, perhaps even at birth, and makes zero Units a year, but still needs 90 Units a year just to survive. All the rest still make 100 Units a year. The social contract kicks in. All the rest have an obligation to care for One, and One has a right to be cared for. So, each other person contributes 10 Units a year to the care of One, and now One has 90 Units a year, enough to surivive, and so does everyone else.
Is it class warfare because the 9 are required to each contribute equally to the care of One? Clearly, the 9 are in a different economic class than One. After all, each has more than he or she needs and One has nothing. So, is One, in a lower economic class than the other 9, waging class warfare on the other 9, or is One merely using the social contract exactly as it was meant to be used? I think there is no class warfare in this example, merely the social contract in action.
Now, vary the example just a little more. Assume that One makes zero Units a year, Two makes only 90 Units a year, and Ten makes 110 Units a year, but everyone still needs 90 Units a year, just to survive. Now, to be clear, the assumption is that Ten has done nothing wrong in making 110 Units a year when the most anyone else makes is 100, Two only makes 90, and One makes nothing. Perhaps Ten is smarter, or works harder, or is just luckier. But, Ten has done nothing wrong. The 110 Units a year are rightfully his.
In this example, if everyone contributes 10 Units to care for One, then everyone winds up with just what they need to survive, except Two and Ten. Two winds up with only 80 Units and will slowly starve to death, while Ten will have 100 Units, more than he needs to survive. So, Two is in trouble and everyone else is okay. To solve this problem, everyone could contribute one more Unit. Then Two would have 89 Units, almost enough to survive. He'd still starve to death, but not as quickly. Ten would have 99 Units, still more than he needs. But Three through Nine would, like Two, only have 89 Units. So, in this example, everyone but One, the totally destitute, and Ten, the fairly better off, will die. One will just barely make it, while Ten will be fine, but the rest will die.
This doesn't seem to make sense. Worse, it is not in compliance with the social contract. Ten, who has an obligation to care for everyone else in his society, is not meeting his obligation, while Two through Nine have a right to be cared for, but that right is not being honored.
On the other hand, there is a straightforward way to follow the terms of the social contract to a tee in this example. Instead of having everyone, including Two, who has barely enough, contribute to the care of One, who has nothing, Three through Nine could contribute 10 Units and Ten could contribute 20 Units. Then, everyone would have 90 Units, everyone would survive, everyone would be cared for, and the terms of the social contract would be perfectly met.
Is this class warfare? More to the point, when Three through Nine realize that if everyone contributes equally, they are going to all starve while Ten prospers, is it class warfare if one of them even suggests that they should, perhaps, discuss the possibility of Ten, who has more than he needs, contributing a little more so that everyone can survive?
Is it class warfare if those who have barely enough suggest that those who have more than enough ought to contribute more so that all can survive? I don't think so. I think it is merely the carrying out of the social contract.
But, let's make the example a little tougher. Let us assume that One has nothing, Two has exactly 90 Units, Three through Nine have 100 units, and Ten, through entirely fair means, has 200 Units. Clearly, if Three through Nine each contribute 10 units and Ten contributes 20 Units, there will be enough to care for One and make sure he survives. But, then, Three through Nine, who start with more than they need, will barely make it by, while Ten will live in oppulence.
Is it class warfare if Three suggests that they all discuss whether it would make more sense for Three through Nine to contribute only 9 Units each, and ask Ten to contribute 29 instead of 20? Ten would still have way more than he needs to survive, One and Two would have enough to get by, and Three through Nine would at least have a little extra, instead of barely getting by. Ten would still be paying more than Three through Nine, and more than if he paid 20, but he'd still be a lot better off than everyone else. Class warfare? Class warfare even to suggest that the possibility of Ten paying a larger share even be discussed? I don't think so.
Now, would it be class warfare if Three through Nine all forced Ten to pay 90 Units - everything that was needed to care for One, thus leaving Ten with only 120 Units while Three through Nine, who could pay something, paid nothing at all? Yeah, it might be. In that case, one economic class is clearly ganging up on another economic class and maybe that's class warfare.
Somewhere in between suggesting that the society discuss whether someone might pay more than their pro rata share and forcing someone to pay everything that is needed there is a line. On one side of that line it is at least reasonable to have the discussion. On the other side of that line folks are being unreasonable. I can't tell you where that line is, but I can tell you that I don't think merely raising the idea of discussing whether a rich person ought to pay a little more so that the middle class can prosper, just a little, is class warfare. That, on its face, is not unreasonable.
Yet, that is exactly what those who cry "class warfare" everytime someone suggests talking about raising taxes on the rich are claiming. They are accusing someone who merely suggests a reasonable discussion of being unreasonable, of engaging in "class warfare."
I don't know where the right balance is. Reasonable people will disagree on where the right balance is. But, I am convinced that merely suggesting that we discuss whether we have the right balance now and where that right balance may be is not class warfare.
And those who claim it is are not being reasonable.
If I'm right, then each American has an obligation to help care for his or her fellow Americans. They are his or her "brothers" and he or she is their keeper. This obligation is not a choice. It is an obligation which arises from the fact that the social contract exists and from the terms of that contract.
Likewise, each American has a right to be cared for by his or her fellow Americans. He or she is the "brother" of every other American and they are his or her keeper. This right is not earned. It is a right which arises from the fact that the social contract exists and from the terms of that contract.
So, let us examine this notion with an eye to determining how the application of this obligation and this right relate to the concept of "class warfare."
I'm going to pick some easy numbers to work with. Of course, these numbers are not real. They are intended only to be illustrative.
Suppose there are ten members of our society. Suppose that each of them makes 100 economic units a year. I'm going to call those "Units." Suppose that each of them needs 90 Units to survive. All is well. Everyone has a little more than he or she needs and no one has to take care of anyone else or be cared for by anyone else. No class warfare there.
However, assume that person number 1 - I'm going to call him or her One - only makes 90 Units a year and all the rest still make 100 Units a year. One still has as much as he or she needs and no one has to take care of One. So, all is still well. No class warfare there.
But, change the assumption just a little. Assume that One becomes incapacitated in some way, perhaps even at birth, and makes zero Units a year, but still needs 90 Units a year just to survive. All the rest still make 100 Units a year. The social contract kicks in. All the rest have an obligation to care for One, and One has a right to be cared for. So, each other person contributes 10 Units a year to the care of One, and now One has 90 Units a year, enough to surivive, and so does everyone else.
Is it class warfare because the 9 are required to each contribute equally to the care of One? Clearly, the 9 are in a different economic class than One. After all, each has more than he or she needs and One has nothing. So, is One, in a lower economic class than the other 9, waging class warfare on the other 9, or is One merely using the social contract exactly as it was meant to be used? I think there is no class warfare in this example, merely the social contract in action.
Now, vary the example just a little more. Assume that One makes zero Units a year, Two makes only 90 Units a year, and Ten makes 110 Units a year, but everyone still needs 90 Units a year, just to survive. Now, to be clear, the assumption is that Ten has done nothing wrong in making 110 Units a year when the most anyone else makes is 100, Two only makes 90, and One makes nothing. Perhaps Ten is smarter, or works harder, or is just luckier. But, Ten has done nothing wrong. The 110 Units a year are rightfully his.
In this example, if everyone contributes 10 Units to care for One, then everyone winds up with just what they need to survive, except Two and Ten. Two winds up with only 80 Units and will slowly starve to death, while Ten will have 100 Units, more than he needs to survive. So, Two is in trouble and everyone else is okay. To solve this problem, everyone could contribute one more Unit. Then Two would have 89 Units, almost enough to survive. He'd still starve to death, but not as quickly. Ten would have 99 Units, still more than he needs. But Three through Nine would, like Two, only have 89 Units. So, in this example, everyone but One, the totally destitute, and Ten, the fairly better off, will die. One will just barely make it, while Ten will be fine, but the rest will die.
This doesn't seem to make sense. Worse, it is not in compliance with the social contract. Ten, who has an obligation to care for everyone else in his society, is not meeting his obligation, while Two through Nine have a right to be cared for, but that right is not being honored.
On the other hand, there is a straightforward way to follow the terms of the social contract to a tee in this example. Instead of having everyone, including Two, who has barely enough, contribute to the care of One, who has nothing, Three through Nine could contribute 10 Units and Ten could contribute 20 Units. Then, everyone would have 90 Units, everyone would survive, everyone would be cared for, and the terms of the social contract would be perfectly met.
Is this class warfare? More to the point, when Three through Nine realize that if everyone contributes equally, they are going to all starve while Ten prospers, is it class warfare if one of them even suggests that they should, perhaps, discuss the possibility of Ten, who has more than he needs, contributing a little more so that everyone can survive?
Is it class warfare if those who have barely enough suggest that those who have more than enough ought to contribute more so that all can survive? I don't think so. I think it is merely the carrying out of the social contract.
But, let's make the example a little tougher. Let us assume that One has nothing, Two has exactly 90 Units, Three through Nine have 100 units, and Ten, through entirely fair means, has 200 Units. Clearly, if Three through Nine each contribute 10 units and Ten contributes 20 Units, there will be enough to care for One and make sure he survives. But, then, Three through Nine, who start with more than they need, will barely make it by, while Ten will live in oppulence.
Is it class warfare if Three suggests that they all discuss whether it would make more sense for Three through Nine to contribute only 9 Units each, and ask Ten to contribute 29 instead of 20? Ten would still have way more than he needs to survive, One and Two would have enough to get by, and Three through Nine would at least have a little extra, instead of barely getting by. Ten would still be paying more than Three through Nine, and more than if he paid 20, but he'd still be a lot better off than everyone else. Class warfare? Class warfare even to suggest that the possibility of Ten paying a larger share even be discussed? I don't think so.
Now, would it be class warfare if Three through Nine all forced Ten to pay 90 Units - everything that was needed to care for One, thus leaving Ten with only 120 Units while Three through Nine, who could pay something, paid nothing at all? Yeah, it might be. In that case, one economic class is clearly ganging up on another economic class and maybe that's class warfare.
Somewhere in between suggesting that the society discuss whether someone might pay more than their pro rata share and forcing someone to pay everything that is needed there is a line. On one side of that line it is at least reasonable to have the discussion. On the other side of that line folks are being unreasonable. I can't tell you where that line is, but I can tell you that I don't think merely raising the idea of discussing whether a rich person ought to pay a little more so that the middle class can prosper, just a little, is class warfare. That, on its face, is not unreasonable.
Yet, that is exactly what those who cry "class warfare" everytime someone suggests talking about raising taxes on the rich are claiming. They are accusing someone who merely suggests a reasonable discussion of being unreasonable, of engaging in "class warfare."
I don't know where the right balance is. Reasonable people will disagree on where the right balance is. But, I am convinced that merely suggesting that we discuss whether we have the right balance now and where that right balance may be is not class warfare.
And those who claim it is are not being reasonable.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Elizabeth Warren's Speech, Part 4
I'm sorry it has taken so long for me to complete this commentary. It has been a busy time of year, both personally and professionally. Please forgive me. For your assistance in understanding this Part 4, I am referring to a series of commentaries, Parts 1-3, which were published in A Moment's Pause in September 2011.
When I first read my nephew's response to the video of Ms. Warren's speech I was puzzled. I could not understand why he reacted with such vehemence to something which seemed to me to be so sensible and, frankly, not very controversial. I couldn't understand it.
My first thought was to go through his response line by line, correcting the factual errors. But, as I thought about it, I realized that it would take a long time to write a response correcting them all, and even after I did, that wasn't really the point. It was obvious that, even if his facts were correct, he'd still have the same opinion, and hold it just as strongly. The factual errors were irrelevant to his opinion.
My next thought was to write a response which would refute the logic of his opinion. I considered how to do that, but, without intending to be insulting or demeaning, it seemed pointless to try to refute something which on its face seemed so illogical. Sometimes the hardest argument to refute is the one which is logically farthest off the mark. The smaller the logical errors, the easier it is to dicuss them logically. The larger the logical errors, the more it becomes like nailing jello to the wall trying to refute them.
That set me to thinking more about his response. I finally realized that the key reason his response seemed so illogical and so extreme to me was found in this phrase: "And I don't remember signing a 'social contract' either."
We fundamentally disagreed on the nature of the social contract, but, even more concerning, we apparently fundamentally disagreed on whether there was a social contract!
Merriam-Webster defines "social contract" as "an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each." [Emphasis added.]
I have studied the concept of a "social contract" since grade school social studies. I read about it in connection with the philosophical ideas that supported the formation of the United States. I studied it in college and in some detail in law school.
I never, ever, heard anyone express the idea that a member of a society was not bound by that society's social contract unless they had signed it. Never have I heard the idea that the social contract could be signed. Never have I heard it expressed that a member of a society had any choice about agreeing to or disagreeing with that society's social contract.
The social contract simply exists. Every member of a society is bound by it. There are consequences for an individual if they do not abide by their society's social contract.
Frankly, it is frightening to think that otherwise reasonable, well-educated members of my society think they are not bound by the social contract. There lies anarchy.
Of course, even assuming that reasonable minds can agree that every member of a society is bound by that society's social contract, whether they want to be or not, there is still the question of what that social contract is. It is different for different societies, and has often been different for the same society at different times.
For example, I cannot know, but I have read that in ancient Japan any member of the Samurai class could kill any member of another class at any time, for any reason or no reason, without consequence.
Whether this is true or not, clearly, that is not the social contract of modern day U.S. society. It is something else, but what is it?
Very seldom does anyone discuss the terms of their society's social contract. It is merely assumed that, as a result of being reared within a society, the terms of the social contract are known. But, that may be an incorrect assumption, especially in today's world. Maybe we don't all just "know" the terms of our social contract. And, if we don't - if we are all operating under a different understanding of the terms of our social contract - then we must expect frequent, perhaps constant, conflict with other members of our society. And, if there are a sizable number of us within a society who think they have no obligation to abide by the social contract, regardless of what it may be, because they've never "signed" it, we are doomed to at least some of the anarchy which that forbodes.
As I thought about this, I realized that it was very difficult for me to articulate what I thought were the terms of my society's social contract. When I finally mentally stumbled on the phrase which I felt encapsulated the terms of my society's social contract, I was shocked to realize that, whatever my nephew's beliefs about whether he was obligated to follow those terms, he and I almost certainly did not agree on what those terms were.
You see, the phrase which I believe encapsulates the social contract of modern American society is: "I am my brother's keeper."
Remember from where this phrase derives. It comes from the Bible. Cain had killed his brother Abel, and when God asked Cain where his brother was, Cain responded that he did not know, and asked God, "Am I my brother's keeper?"
I have always believed that the question was spiritually rhetorical. Yes, Cain was his brother's keeper, because we are all our brothers' keepers. In God's eyes, we are all responsible for the welfare of our brothers. And, spiritually, the term "brother" is not limited to a familial relationship. All people are our spiritual brothers. In Christian theology, we are all responsible for the welfare of every other human being on the planet, no exceptions.
Imagine how stunned I was when I realized that, probably, my nephew did not believe those were the terms of our social contract. Probably, he believes that the terms of the social contract are "every man for himself." I speculate that this is true because I know something of my nephew's political beliefs, and I cannot account for those beliefs if he believes that he has a societal obligation for the welfare of every other individual in the society. I can only account for those beliefs if he believes he has no societal obligation for the welfare of his fellow countrymen.
I am pretty sure he believes that his favored political policies would result in the improvement of the society and its members generally, though some would, in his belief necessarily, be left behind. I don't think he consciously wants to hurt anyone else. But, I do not believe he feels he personally has any societally imposed obligation to help other members of his society if he doesn't want to.
He and I disagree. Strongly. Profoundly. Fundamentally. And, if I'm right, dangerously.
When I first read my nephew's response to the video of Ms. Warren's speech I was puzzled. I could not understand why he reacted with such vehemence to something which seemed to me to be so sensible and, frankly, not very controversial. I couldn't understand it.
My first thought was to go through his response line by line, correcting the factual errors. But, as I thought about it, I realized that it would take a long time to write a response correcting them all, and even after I did, that wasn't really the point. It was obvious that, even if his facts were correct, he'd still have the same opinion, and hold it just as strongly. The factual errors were irrelevant to his opinion.
My next thought was to write a response which would refute the logic of his opinion. I considered how to do that, but, without intending to be insulting or demeaning, it seemed pointless to try to refute something which on its face seemed so illogical. Sometimes the hardest argument to refute is the one which is logically farthest off the mark. The smaller the logical errors, the easier it is to dicuss them logically. The larger the logical errors, the more it becomes like nailing jello to the wall trying to refute them.
That set me to thinking more about his response. I finally realized that the key reason his response seemed so illogical and so extreme to me was found in this phrase: "And I don't remember signing a 'social contract' either."
We fundamentally disagreed on the nature of the social contract, but, even more concerning, we apparently fundamentally disagreed on whether there was a social contract!
Merriam-Webster defines "social contract" as "an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each." [Emphasis added.]
I have studied the concept of a "social contract" since grade school social studies. I read about it in connection with the philosophical ideas that supported the formation of the United States. I studied it in college and in some detail in law school.
I never, ever, heard anyone express the idea that a member of a society was not bound by that society's social contract unless they had signed it. Never have I heard the idea that the social contract could be signed. Never have I heard it expressed that a member of a society had any choice about agreeing to or disagreeing with that society's social contract.
The social contract simply exists. Every member of a society is bound by it. There are consequences for an individual if they do not abide by their society's social contract.
Frankly, it is frightening to think that otherwise reasonable, well-educated members of my society think they are not bound by the social contract. There lies anarchy.
Of course, even assuming that reasonable minds can agree that every member of a society is bound by that society's social contract, whether they want to be or not, there is still the question of what that social contract is. It is different for different societies, and has often been different for the same society at different times.
For example, I cannot know, but I have read that in ancient Japan any member of the Samurai class could kill any member of another class at any time, for any reason or no reason, without consequence.
Whether this is true or not, clearly, that is not the social contract of modern day U.S. society. It is something else, but what is it?
Very seldom does anyone discuss the terms of their society's social contract. It is merely assumed that, as a result of being reared within a society, the terms of the social contract are known. But, that may be an incorrect assumption, especially in today's world. Maybe we don't all just "know" the terms of our social contract. And, if we don't - if we are all operating under a different understanding of the terms of our social contract - then we must expect frequent, perhaps constant, conflict with other members of our society. And, if there are a sizable number of us within a society who think they have no obligation to abide by the social contract, regardless of what it may be, because they've never "signed" it, we are doomed to at least some of the anarchy which that forbodes.
As I thought about this, I realized that it was very difficult for me to articulate what I thought were the terms of my society's social contract. When I finally mentally stumbled on the phrase which I felt encapsulated the terms of my society's social contract, I was shocked to realize that, whatever my nephew's beliefs about whether he was obligated to follow those terms, he and I almost certainly did not agree on what those terms were.
You see, the phrase which I believe encapsulates the social contract of modern American society is: "I am my brother's keeper."
Remember from where this phrase derives. It comes from the Bible. Cain had killed his brother Abel, and when God asked Cain where his brother was, Cain responded that he did not know, and asked God, "Am I my brother's keeper?"
I have always believed that the question was spiritually rhetorical. Yes, Cain was his brother's keeper, because we are all our brothers' keepers. In God's eyes, we are all responsible for the welfare of our brothers. And, spiritually, the term "brother" is not limited to a familial relationship. All people are our spiritual brothers. In Christian theology, we are all responsible for the welfare of every other human being on the planet, no exceptions.
Imagine how stunned I was when I realized that, probably, my nephew did not believe those were the terms of our social contract. Probably, he believes that the terms of the social contract are "every man for himself." I speculate that this is true because I know something of my nephew's political beliefs, and I cannot account for those beliefs if he believes that he has a societal obligation for the welfare of every other individual in the society. I can only account for those beliefs if he believes he has no societal obligation for the welfare of his fellow countrymen.
I am pretty sure he believes that his favored political policies would result in the improvement of the society and its members generally, though some would, in his belief necessarily, be left behind. I don't think he consciously wants to hurt anyone else. But, I do not believe he feels he personally has any societally imposed obligation to help other members of his society if he doesn't want to.
He and I disagree. Strongly. Profoundly. Fundamentally. And, if I'm right, dangerously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)