Optimism is about emotional states of being including hope, wishful thinking, and at its worse fairy-tale views of the world that its always getting better.

Pessimism is its opposite, which includes hopelessness, despondency, and at its worse fatalism that the world is going to get worse.

Both lead to paralysis since at their most extreme, the world is just fine as it if you are optimist so why worry about it, or its going to hell if you are pessimist and there is nothing that can be done about it.

As soon as one accepts optimism or pessimism as their worldview, they shut themselves off from asking questions. I used to consider myself pessimistic and a cynic but after finally reading those definitions, I realized that this was not me.

My blog is about asking questions, hopefully relevant and rational questions. My goal is to find solutions, not preach optimism or pressimism. I realized that I am a skeptic.

So, perhaps this is the political philosophy that I am waiting for, one based on the principles of skepticism. Interestingly, some people have gone ahead and done just that with a new political party being formed in Australia challenging one of environmentalism’s holy cows, global warming, under the banner of The Climate Sceptics Party. Its a bold move and is sure to cause huge controversy but good skepticism is necessary for all political philosophies, including the Greens and their conviction in global warming.

I am pleased that they have been established. They have provided to the world a small but important step towards embracing skepticism as a way of viewing the political world. Perhaps, with persistence the political manifestation of skepticism can be the cure of the mental diseases of optimism and pessimism, and ultimately help us better understand our human nature.

Based on my experience with Socialism, Green Politics, and Anti-ideology thinking, I have arrived at a conclusion that the problem with politics, political philosophy, and philosophy in general is that humans fail to understand human nature.

Absurd isn’t it? To be human and yet not understand what human nature is…

Yet, that is exactly what I think is the problem. Let me illustrate:

I have argued for quite some time that ideology is a human disease that creates wars and immense human suffering. Yet, ideology is just the dogma of political philosophy, which in turn is just a world view that claims to understand what human nature and life is.

All political and general philosophies are about understanding what our human nature is. General philosophy will be about our relationship with the world, purpose of life, etc. but it is political philosophy that deals with social relationships and the use of power within society including how to manage the economy and the government’s role in the lives of its citizens. Since governments and economies are fundamentally tools that represent parts of our humanity, political philosophies that focus on economics still make fundamental assumptions about human nature.

So, it is all about understanding what our Human Nature is, or as inspired by a past U.S.A. Presidential campaign, “Its Our Human Nature, Stupid”.

Now I am going to argue that the reason why all political philosophies are inherently limited and ultimately very dangerous is because they have limited and inhuman understandings of human nature. You will see that their definition of Human Nature is so distorted with blind, stupid ideology, it is little surprise we have the problems we see in the world today.

The largest political philosophies/ideologies can be generally summarized to believe the following about human nature.

• The Socialists and Communists believe that humans deserve equality of economic outcomes. Nature (human and mother nature) can be improved upon and perfected. It is natural for humans to share and be egalitarian. The weakness of Socialist and Communist thought is that they do not recognize humanity’s inherent inequality and the freedom to allow gifted elites to evolve the species.
• Libertarians and Anarchists believe that humans deserve equality of opportunity and freedom from coercion. Human nature can be improved upon if a person chooses it and people need to be given the opportunity to figure out their own way of happiness. The weakness of Libertarian and Anarchists thought is that they do not recognize that many people require authority in their lives and believe in Utopian societies where consequences do not exist.
• Welfare Liberals believe that humans deserve protection and opportunity to be contented. They do not believe in the free market, but tolerate it because it allows them to fund their government programs.  Human nature is perfectible when society provides everything that is needed. The weakness of Welfare Liberal thought is that they want to provide a perfect world where imperfect outcomes is natural.
• Conservatives believe that humans need to be ruled so that society can function. They believe that society functions best when the elites of society are properly ruling. Human nature is imperfect, but the best (through birth, connections, knowledge, or something else) will rise above the masses to be an example for the rest. The weakness of Conservative thinking is that it creates institutional thinking and thereby weakens society.
• Fascists and Nationalists believe that humans are tools to be used for the needs of the nation. They believe that human nature is only perfect if it serves the nation, otherwise it will degenerate into selfish and aimless behaviors. The weakness of Fascist and Nationalist thought is that it falls prey to xenophobia and racism.
• Populists believe that humans (‘the people’) need to be consulted with matters that affect them. Human nature is presumed for everyone who one of the folk and you continue to possess this human nature so long as you remain part of the group. The weakness of Populist thought is that it falls prey to mob mentality and tends to be reactionary.
• Humanists believe that humans are the pinnacle of evolution. Because humans are able to think, create technology, and communicate with advances symbols, the natural world and the universe is its oyster. The weakness of Humanist thinking is that it tends to be materialistic, expansionist, and insular.
• Greens believe that humans need to live in balance with the natural world. They want human society to be smaller, more peaceful, and egalitarian so that humanity can be happier. The weakness of Green thinking is that it falls prey to employing scare tactics, self-extinction, and scarcity thinking.

Can you see how each of the political philosophies has a rigid understanding of Human Nature? It is one thing, and one thing only, not being allowed to change. Political philosophy and its bulldog, ideology, tell us only they they understand human nature and there are no other interpretations. Sounds just like most religions.

So, what exactly is Human Nature? It is generally described as “the psychological and social qualities that characterize humankind, especially in contrast with other living things.”  While this definition is accurate, it is far too vague and does not list the qualities that makes up human nature.

Based on my own insights and a brief peruse of the internet, I think Human Nature possesses at least the following qualities:

• It is complex, and is made up of multiple factors.
• One of the most overt factors was all share is that we are physical beings that depends on our physical environment to survive.
• It is dynamic, possessing the ability to change and evolve.  See blog post ‘Are Most People Good?’. This is direct contrast with those philosophies that see human nature as being inherently good or evil.
• It possesses the ability to self-regulate, initiate action, but also be influenced by its environment. The question of Free Will vs Determinism or Nature vs Nurture is a needless distraction. See blog post ‘A Continuum of Human Nature’. We possess the ability to make choices, but also appear to generally prefer to have choices made for us.
• It is prone to solidifying and measuring things. This is done in an effort to exert control over its environment. We tend to spend lots of energy understanding and organizing our environment using symbols and technology. We create mental constructions and memes that encompass concepts such as Self, Human Nature, and Life. (This blog post is an example of this manifestation)
• It experiences a wide range of sensations, emotions, and thoughts which are intensely felt but rarely understood.
• Is is governed by what appears to be dilemma inducing laws such of Supply vs Demand, Freedom vs Safety, Time vs Money, Happy vs Right, Justice vs Peace, Familiarity vs Contempt, Mastery vs Ease.
• It resorts to past behaviors that worked, even if the problem and solution has changed.
• It possesses expectations and desires that are always changing and rarely satisfied.
• Is is easily led and suggestible where broken windows and littering can lead to increased vice and crime (as taken from the Economist article Can the Can).
• It has immense capacity for inflicting, experiencing, and tolerating suffering.
• It learns by making mistakes before getting it right.

I do not believe this is an exhaustive list of qualities, but is just a starting point. But what is listed provides a stark contrast to the political philosophies I listed above. It is now little wonder to me why I find those political philosophies to be inadequate.

Yet, I once too believed that ideology was the solution. And even when I realized that ideology is the problem, I did not understand the subtlety of the matter. I was wrong when I wrote in my 2005 resignation letter to the Green Party that the personal is more important that policies. While the the essential spirit of the letter still resonates for me, I now understand that the continued understanding of human nature is the solution.

And so, I continue to wait for a political philosophy that fully recognizes the potential and scope of Human Nature, instead of limiting it. I wait for a new political philosophy that tries to understand and support Human Nature. One that is prepared to ask questions, receive answers, and then ask more questions. It needs to be always open to learning.

With such a political philosophy we can finally become free of the dehumanizing yoke of ideology.

In contrast to the Leftist/Communist understanding of Class Conflict, the Creative Class is a term given to what is considered to be an expanding and powerful socioeconomic class which cuts across nations. Its a concept that is heavily promoted by Richard Florida with books and websites.

While his use of ‘class’ is problematic for me, because class implies group-consciousness, I do think that he is identifying a clear socioeconomic transformation of our societies. Whether this leads to a creative class consciousness or not, there is no doubt that we are seeing a large amount of wealth generation coming from intellectual property, new business models, and the arts. Here are some interesting links about the rise of a new creative/entertainment class.

Check them out:

Creative Class

Time Magazine’s article on America’s New Class System

New Stateman’s article on Replacing One Social Class System with Another

Huntington does not believe that nation states are the basic building blocks of human society. He argues that it is Civilizations, which represent a shared human experience influenced by culture, religion, language, and philosophy which are now the most important players on the human stage. Huntington says that at present (1990s to now) there exists at least nine different Civilizations, each possessing different values that puts them in potential and actual conflict with each other. It is not about nations fighting over land or resources, but about the fundamental clash of values between Civilizations.

Huntington’s use of Civilizations does provide a fresh way to look at historical and current events. His paradigm of human development and conflict becomes epic which inspired the imagination of his most ardent supporters who see Huntington as nothing less than a prophet. He is seen as accurately foretelling the current conflict that is taking place between the The West and Islam. The 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers becomes a crystallized moment representing this inter-Civilization conflict.

And conflict is where Huntington focuses his book on, going on to describe how the West needs to be prepared for eventual outright conflict with China and Islam. Economic warfare is not below Huntingon in his advocacy that The West should restrict trade with China and other potential enemies. Because China and Islam make up over two billion people and continue to grow, The West is vastly outnumbered and needs to prepare for the worst. He calls for America to reject multiculturalism (which weakens the American spirit), and align itself fully with Europe so that The West can present a unified front. Huntington is so convinced about our inevitable collision course that he ends the book with a chilling tale of a future World War between The West and China. His message is cynical and possesses a prophetic/apocalyptic flavor.

But zeal is not all that Huntington brings to the table. He brings forward enough meticulous research, statistics, and facts to support his case. Huntington’s scope is grand and his message is powerful, but is it accurate or valid?

I don’t think so. While its fascinating to think of epic conflict between Civilizations, I think he is mislead. The problem is fundamentally a programming one of Garbage In Garbage Out. I believe that Huntington has made fundamentally incorrect assumptions that gives wrong outcomes despite an abundance of facts and data. Just because he proves his answer does not mean that he has asked the right question.

Huntington believes that Civilizations exist and are the basis of all future human strife, yet this his concept of Civilization is contradicted by four fundamental weaknesses.

1) Huntington takes entirely diverse regions such as the West which includes U.S.A., Canada, Australia, and Europe and treats them as a whole. It becomes difficult to accept his assumption that such diverse groups are acting in concert together and against other diverse collectives. He sees World War I & II as little more than  ‘civil-wars’ because they were largely fought in The West. Wars fought during the Cold War in Korea and Vietnam are treated as inconsequential internal Civilization strife, despite immense loss of life and capital expenditures. Such conflicts are just a prelude to the epic Clash of Civilizations that is going to come. To downplay such tragic human events because they do not fit within his proposed model, smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

2) Huntington is ignorant about human nature. Just like how Karl Marx believed that the natural evolution of civilization was towards class conflict and the eventual establishment of a classless society, Huntington too is convinced that Civilization conflict is inevitable. Marx has been proven wrong because he fundamentally misunderstood human nature and Huntington makes the same mistake. He sets out to challenge Fukuyama, yet fails to address the fundamental question of human nature. Fukuyama tied his entire theory back to human nature’s desire for happiness and liberty, yet Huntington completely fails to mention the topic. Human nature is inconsequential when it comes to such epic affairs as Civilization conflict and this assumption betrays a unforgivable ignorance.

3) He is unable to cleanly define what a Civilization is. His collective of nine Civilizations are based on diverse societal characteristics. For a few it is religion (Islam, Orthodox, Hindu, Buddhist), for others it is language (Sino, Latin America, Japanese), and again for others it is geographic (The West, Africa). What exactly is a Civilization if it can be any one of three things? If the Civilizations were such viable entities, how does he explain the constant political and ethnic conflict that take place within each of these Civilizations. If most conflict takes place internally, should that not be the source of focus instead of developing a fascinating concept of ‘Civilizations’ that simply does not exist?

4) He ignores the fundamental human invention of ideology, and how most conflict occurs because of ideology, not due to conflicting Civilization values. Culturally, the Jewish and Islamic religions have more in common with each other than they would with Indian or Chinese thought, yet there is little overt conflict between Israel and India or China. Why is it that all of the largest wars have been fought based around ideology such as Catholicism vs Protestantism, Christianity vs Islam, and Capitalism vs Communism. None of these conflicts had anything to do with conflicting Civilization values. Huntington does not ask why the three Biblical religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have such a war-torn history. If Huntington’s theory was correct, then the Bible-based religions should be joining to war against the Confuscists in China, the Buddhists in Asia, and the Hindus in India. Ideological conflict better explains why wars exist within and between nations and societies, while Huntington’s theory of Civlization does not.

The Clash of Civilizations is fascinating and riveting reading that possesses conviction, facts, and inspiration, but remains very, very wrong.

Rating:

(2 stars out of 5 – introduces an interesting, but fundamentally flawed concept of Civilization as a geopolitical unit. Meticulous research cannot fix misdirected theory)

The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
Price: CAD 16.79

36 used & new available from CAD 8.57

Yet, there is a second Golden Rule which is just as relevant but quite a bit more cynical. The second Golden Rule is, “The one with the gold, makes the rules.”

On one hand you have a succinct summary of good ethical and moral conduct, on the second you have a summary of how most political, economic, and sociological conduct takes place.

I personally think that both Golden Rules are relevant and are actually compatible. The first one deals with the idealistic and religious realm of human beings, the second deals with the conventional truth of human relations and history. Some people operate exclusively in one realm and ignore the other realm. History has shown that idealism alone does not work, while misused power is destructive.

A balance between both Golden Rules is quite possibly the real Golden Rule to follow…

My in-laws are living examples of people who took full advantage of what Canada offers them. They are immigrants who worked very hard and created wealth through their industry which appears to be lost of many native-born Canadians. Technically they have always been “poor” as far as annual earnings are concerned, yet the life they lead is as far away from poverty as can be. Their example tells me that that poverty is not a state of physical or financial want, but a psychological one. These are people who don’t think of themselves as poor and in terms of how they live, they are not. They have more than enough money because they are content to live within their means.

Yet there is nothing simply psychological about the poverty experienced by Canada’s aboriginal people. I can only conclude that what they have experienced collectively is a poverty due to systemic discrimination, learned helplessness, welfare mentality, isolation, familial dissolution, and a culture of victimization. Looking at their situation, there is no doublt that what they are experiencing is psychological, but the roots behind it are due to social and political forces. In their situation poverty is a political issue, not a personal one.

So I would say that Poverty has two manifestations:

1) Personal Poverty is about the individual psychology behind being poor. It is all about personal expectations and financial competency. It is how a person defines himself/herself when it comes to wealth or lack of same.

2) Systemic Poverty is about how government programs and social pressures (internal and external) impact on people. It is not about how much money you keep, but how a system, government, or collective defines what poverty is and how to fix it. Using the aboriginal people as an example, the Canadian government has consistently undermined that group’s ability to be self-sufficient through its paternalistic, welfare policies.

A individual can experience both kinds of poverty, one of them, or none of them, which would provide us with a broader spectrum and hopefully more insightful way of understanding what poverty is. Perhaps with better understanding, comes the possibility to deal with the problem.

The response of the government has been the same as a wise parent would have with misbehaving children. When highly-paid and highly-educated bank executives act as stupid as they have been, it appears completely rational to  provide oversight and limitations on their behavior. We are told that free market capitalism has been wholly discredited. Governments need to cut the roots of the problem, just like how Jack cut down the beanstalk in the fairytale.

Governments see themselves as having a role to protect citizens from harm including protecting the integrity of the economic system. They have a duty to the businesses and citizens who were hapless victims to the financial crisis just like how Jack had to defeat the evil Giant by by cutting down the beanstalk.

So we see an interesting parallel between the Jack and the Beanstalk fairytale and what took place in the 2008-2009 Financial Crisis. With a bit of play, we could suggest a parallel casting of:

Jack = Government
The Giant = The Large Financial Corporations who created the financial crisis
The Beanstalk = The Free Market
The Golden Goose = Corporate Profits, Employee Taxes, and Tax Revenues

As most people know, the fairy tale ends with Jack owning the Giant’s treasures after the Giant is killed. The fact that the Giant was systematically targeted, stolen from, and then killed calls into question the moral fibre of Jack. And in the same way, I also think that governments stepping in to save the economic system is wrong for the following reasons:

1) Jack Should Have Stayed Home = Government Needs To Mind Its Own Business

If you recall, Jack was the initiator of the entire story as it was he who went looking for mischief. Jack takes a marked non-heroic path by essentially breaking into the Giant’s home, stealing his most prized possessions, and ends up killing the Giant who rightfully pursues him at the end of the story. Jack intervened into the Giant’s life for his own benefit.

In the same way, the government is doing the same thing now. It is directly supporting certain businesses, yet letting others die. Because of its immense size, governments should not get involved with deciding which companies live or die. The free market works because it is dynamic and responsive. If a company makes too many mistakes, they go out of business. Yet the government is creating moral hazards in the marketplace by rewarding business mistakes with corporate welfare. This ends up tainting the benefits of the free market system.

Jack should have stayed home and not climbed the Beanstalk just like Governments should not get involved with rescuing companies.

2) Jack Depends on the Golden Goose = Government Depends on Taxes

Jack takes the Golden Goose from the Giant for himself. He has now acquired a means to secure his financial future because this magical creature lays precious golden eggs. Hooray for the hero but too bad for the Giant.

In the same way, Governments are dependent on the profits and wealth generated by the private sector. Governments need to pay for all of the employees, politicians, and public services, so they need a Golden Goose of their own. And in our world it is called Taxation. And it is not just the taxes that paid by public sector employees that counts here, since only true wealth generation and industry comes from the private sector as I had blogged before.

Jack claims the Golden Goose for himself just like how Government dependence on private wealth generation (including international trade) has it claiming ownership over the the marketplace.

3) Jack Does Not Know How to Care For the Golden Goose = Government Will Harm Itself By Intervening In The Marketplace

The Fairy Tale leaves us with the assumption that Jack lives happily ever after. He has the Golden Goose, the Magic Harp, etc. Yet what if the Golden Goose required a particular diet to help lay those golden eggs? How can we be sure Jack will know how to care for the Goose? The Giant who had been able to care for the Goose is now dead and cannot teach Jack how to care for the Goose.

In the same way, we see the Government intervening in the marketplace by punishing or saving certain Giants, they end up compromsing the results. Instead of allowing the market to decide who wins or loses, they are intervening in an attempt to change the outcome. This ends up doing more harm than good as evidenced by governments propping up capitalist/state-funded monstrosities such as General Motors.

Jack is not capable of caring for the special needs of the Golden Goose just as Governments are not capable of controlling the marketplace.

4) Killing the Giant Requires Killing the Beanstalk = Neutering or Propping Companies will eventually Poison the Marketplace

According to the story, Jack kills the Giant by cutting down the Beanstalk. He has to basically destroy the Beanstalk in order to topple the Giant to his death.

In the same way, we see the government intervening in the markeplace to stop the capitalists from making more mistakes. But by too strongly intervening into the economy they end up harming it. Governments fail to understand that business entities will be born, rise in power, and will one day end, but others will be there to replace them.

It is the way the natural world works and it is the way the marketplace works.

The problem is not that the Giant died, but that it was killed by Jack. The Giant, like the capitalists, is not evil, but is very dumb at times. They will over extend themselves and when they fall down, will leave quite a mess. But they will be replaced by another who will need to learn from its own mistakes in order to survive. Its an imperfect process that is a reflection of humanity’s own imperfection. It continues to astound me that as an imperfect species we hope to create a perfect system.

5) Jack Created the Mischief = Government Created the Roots of the Financial Crisis

Jack trades his cow for the magic beans and we know how the rest of the story unfolds, which is all set in motion by Jack’s mischief-making. Instead of minding his own business and doing what was asked of him, Jack gambled away the cow for something shiny.

In the same way, the governments contributed to the financial crisis by doing more than was asked of them. By creating an artificially low inflation/low-interest economy (they are the controllers of the interest rates) they encouraged a large number of investors to park their money in the more speculative investments. You can see how this all take place  in the brilliant video here.

Governments have now ran up huge budget deficits to save the economy because they were just as responsible for its collapse as the greedy and speculative investors. Like Jack, the Governments are not the hero of the story, but the cause of it.

I would end off by saying that Jack and the Beanstalk would have an entirely different meaning as a fairy tale if we saw it written from the Giant’s perspective and was called: Jack the Thief and Giant Killer. In the same way, holding people responsible for our financial crisis must not be isolated to greedy capitalists, but also to arrogant politicians that seek perfect outcomes.

The rational response to the global financial crisis needs to be the same as a wise parent would have with children.

If the highly-paid, highly-educated executives of the banks are as stupid as they have been, then yes we need to legislate them. Ideologically, we shoud move towards more freedom and independence, but it is a virtue that needs to be earned. Like a kid who learns to be an adult.

Governments have a role to protect people from other's stupidity and short-sightedness. Protection of the integrity of the economic system. Let people make their own mistakes, but mistakes that have the effect of ruining the lives of others who have no control over the circumstances is wrong and unethical.

A person gambles his family's life savings away. His wife and children and himself are left destitute. It is tragic and horrible. Who is responsible? The individual, but also the spouse. She had control over her choice. She also had as much right to know what he was doing with their money. If she does not take that responsibilty because that is her mistake to trust the wrong person. It is all about learning to trust the right people.

The fundamental assumption is that people are greedy and need to have legislated protection to protect them from themselves. This assumption has borne out to be true. This is a black eye in those who believe in a free market like myself. How do I resolve the two?

Its really about maturity. Its about milestones. Would a bank rationally give a startup millions of dollars if the business was entering a saturated market or had no experience? No. They might give a lot less. It is about graduated freedom.

The free market is the ideal system to adopt, but it needs to be graduated to. As a firm demonstrate maturity and responsibility, it should be given more and more freedoms. Like a child. 

Its one thing to assume that all adults are competent to make their own decisions, but it is another stretch if we assume that educated, trained, and experienced banking professionals know how to run their business yet end up harming the rest of the economy because of it. It is unethical for the rest of the population to suffer the stupidity of a few fools.

I would argue that the lending power of banks be controlled, but gradually and reasonably expanded as they demonstrate greater competence with it. When a bank goes over its lending restrictions, then there needs to be a citizen focused group that is picked by government that fines the bank for same.

Government should not be delivering services or oversight. They just need to fund it. Ultimately if government picks the wrong people to provide the oversight, then they would suffer the consequence. 

Yes, the free market the way to go. It is the most natural system that makes sense, but freedom is something that is earned, not blindly given. It is time we demonstrated this in our economy.

Here they are:

“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

“The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.”

“How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”

Each one of these gave me a chuckle, but what floored me was that they were all quotes from Ronald Reagan. I remember severely disliking the man because of my socialist leanings that I held at the time. How times have changed and so have I.

I can now see why Mr. Reagan was as vilified as he was by the Left. This is from a man who represented the state and called its limitations accurately. How refreshing.

But is all generosity the same? Is giving to a charity that buys books for disadvantaged children as beneficial as giving to a charity that prevents children from becoming disadvantaged? What about charities that protect our environment or those that promote particular religious perspectives?

The problems of modern society is overwhelming and the charitable response is just as confusing. While I commend people to give to a cause they believe in, I also think that some things are not as high a priority as others. A blogger named “Gates” posted a bold and insightful blog that helped me develop a rationale method on prioritizing which charities I should give to.

For example, I will be excluding charitable organizations from most of my future donations based on the following criteria:

1) Charities that have high administration and fund-raising expenses. What’s the point giving to a charity if a large portion of your donation is not even reaching the people the charity is intending to service? Unfortunately, there is no clearing house for information on Management Expense Ratios for Canadian charities, but there is one called the Charity Navigator which does a good job of providing reviews on U.S. based charities. A brief review of some Canadian charties indicates that MERs run between 5%-8%.

2) Charities that have goals that are unrealistic, which puts them at the risk to becoming little more than institutions that do little good. A group like Make Poverty History possesses a laudable but unattainable goal to fix global poverty. How are they going to do what the United Nations and national governments are not already doing? I am fine with interest groups promoting their perspective, but they should not be allowed to be charities. Poverty is a political issue and not about charity.

The goals must be attainable since in my way of thinking most charities should be in the business to put itself out of business. It should only exist to meet an attainable goal and once done so, then be dissolved.

3) Organizations that partially duplicate what the taxpayer is already funding. There are a multitude of member-based disease societies such as the MS Society, MD Society, etc. whose members receive most of their medical and physical care by our taxpayer funded health system. Same thing with Literacy and Poverty organizations whose targeted populations are mostly supported through the education and welfare systems funded by taxes. Our tax dollars are already a form of charity, the biggest problem being the huge MER that comes with government run programs, but that’s content for another post.

4) Charities that promote ‘civil society’ like Historical and Art societies. I would happily support an Arts Council or a Museum if I knew that the other concerns I have about our society was addressed. As long as there are people living in deplorable circumstances (the old bread vs circuses debate), my donations to these types of charities will be minimal or nil.

So who does this leave to give to? Well, this is my short list:

• Organizations that help reduce abject poverty (such as UNESCO)
• Organizations that are provide societal harm-reduction (such MADD or John Howard Society)
• Organizations that help animals and natural ecosystems (Top Environmental Organizations)
• Organizations that help people to help themselves (such as Kiva or FINCA or United Way)

If the purpose of generosity is to help fellow persons, then the giver needs to think how best to help others. While any form of generosity is good, the benefit is less if those dollars are given blindly. Hopefully, this post will prompt you think about where to place your generosity and dollars to maximum affect, since it is not possible to both be everywhere and be effective.

The problem is that self-determination is a concept that does not possess singular qualities, but is multifaceted and complex. Each facet has a subtle difference that requires some degree of mental focus and contemplation to look at. It is this lack of focus and contemplation that dooms us to be caught up in issues that are not ours to own and also ignore issues that we should deal with.

I have spent some time thinking about this and I happy to share how I see these facets existing on the theoretical Slope of Self-Determination:

1) People Have the Right to Make Bad Choices

We start out at the top of the the slope. The assumption here is that everyone is competent until proven otherwise. It is both reasonable and practical to assume that people are competent to make their own choices, whether they are good or bad. People are given the freedom to succeed or fail.

A person may choose to smoke despite its health risks or to gamble despite not having money for their other obligation. Those who make good choices will find life to be challenging but possessing a sense of progress, while those who make bad choices will find themselves victimized by the eventual boomerang of their action’s consequences.

The lesson to learn here is that a free and just society would allow people to make their own choices AND suffer the resulting consequences of those actions.

2) Making Bad Choices Does Not Make One Bad

When a person makes good choices, there is little ethical or social debate. It is only when a person goes against the conventional mores of society that problems follow. Yet, regardless of the choice being made, there tends to be a societal prejudice to confuse the action with the inherent quality of the individual.

For example: a person spends all of their money on gambling and does  not have enough money to pay their rent or to pay for clothing for their children would generally be seen as somebody who is making bad choices. This individual obviously has some serious issues, but the poor choices do not translate into saying the individual is tainted or bad.

The person might have an addiction problem, an impulse problem, or perhaps a mental illness. They might also have wrong ideas about gambling. The problem of gambling is actually a symptom to a more subtle problem. To blame the individual for their poor choices ends up doing more harm than good since it alienates them from being given the opportunity to potentially change for the better.

The lesson to be learned here is to separate the action from the person.

3) Offering Assistance Does Not Impose on Self-Determination

Carrying on with the previous example, our person who is struggling with a gambling problem, may be seen as making conscious choices to gamble. Some argue that they are doing to themselves and there is no point offering to help them.  While it is true that nobody is being coerced to gamble, there is a sad truth that sometimes people do not utilize the proper skills to deal with what life throws at them.

Some people think that since the troubled person has not yet successfully dealt with their gambling problem that they are not interested in offers of assistance. Its a variation of blaming the victim. Its as if that to offer a potential solution would impose on the gambler’s self-determination.

This is a twisted misconception. A person always has a right to refuse assistance, but they must first be given the opportunity to refuse it. This means that the care or treatment needs to be offered first.

I have met some well-intentioned, but mislead people who think that respecting one’s Self-Determination means expecting clients are take the initiative to ask for help. Yet there could be a range of reasons why people do not ask for help. Respecting Self-Determination means respecting the person’s right to refuse and not assuming they do not want help because they have not asked for it.

The lesson here is that to truly respect self-determination is to give the individual the opportunity to say no.

4) Refusing Care Is A Right, But Not A Sentence

This is closely tied to the above point, but possesses a subtle difference, as it focuses on the caregiver’s perspective.

A person refusing assistance is not the same thing as not asking for care in the future. Self-determination means being allowed to say no to a present choice, but not being condemned by that choice for the rest of their life. There are times when people are sometimes too tired, too confused, or too proud to ask for help but a choice can always be reversed.

I had a client who refused a treatment for his diabetes, he thought that he was going to manage this on his own. He never did a good job with managing it, and when he developed complications, it became incumbent on the health care team to ask him if he wanted help. He still did not accept the offer, but the point is that he just made another choice to say no.

And there may possibly come a time when he will accept the offer for assistance since it is completely reasonable to assume that people do change their minds and may actually want the help.

The lesson here is to always keep the door open to the person to change their mind about accepting help.

5) Evidence of Chronic Poor Self-Determination Should Not Be Ignored

It is assumed that people will eventually learn from their mistakes. Their bad choices if allowed to boomerang to them will hopefully show them the error of their ways. But what happens when some people never learn? What happens if they continue to make the same bad choices and are hopelessly in trouble?

I have had clients who could not learn from their mistakes and they tended to have one of the following problems:  a birth defect, dementia, mental illness, uncontrolled addictions, or very rigid world view. Given such conditions, I think that it is wrong to ignore these limitations and allow the person to continue to make the same mistake.

When a person makes the same mistakes and after many years (or months if the decisions are particularly disastrous) the person then requires intervention by family and/or the health professionals. Ultimately, the person may be declared incompetent and will have their affairs taken over by somebody else.

Human beings are biologically built to learn so it is reasonable to expect people to learn from their mistakes so they can function at their optimum. Thus, I would argue that a person who is not able to learn needs to be protected and their range of choices would need to be more limited than somebody who is able to learn.

The lesson here is to be prepared to step in to help a client when the poor decisions have reached a state that is unreasonable.

6) An Incompetent Person still retains their Right to Dignity and Some Self-Determination

Now just because a person is incompetent, does not mean that they are non-persons. They continue to have feelings, opinions, and still retain aspects of their decision making.

A person with advanced dementia will still remember how they have been made to feel. They might not remember the content of the conversation, but they definitely will feel all of the non-verbal communication directed at them. Just because a person cannot make appropriate decisions, does not mean they need to be devalued.

I had a client with advanced dementia who was given the option to choose what kind of clothing he would like to wear from two different choices. He would not be allowed to self-determine to not wear clothing or to wear soiled clothing, since either choice is unreasonable, but he would be asked to become involved with this limited decision making.

The lesson her is that giving people with limited capacity the dignity to make some decisions is the sign of a compassionate society.

7) A Person Who Harms Others or Themselves Needs Protection Must Have Their Actions Curtailed

A person who chronically abuses chemicals to the point they cannot function normally needs protection. Most states have laws that dictates that society needs to both protect the vulnerable and to be protected from those who do not respect human life.

Chemical restraints should be the preferred method to protect the larger community from individuals who have slipped to the very bottom of the slope. A community’s need for safety should  trump the needs of any individual who is so incapable to make proper decisions. There should be no negotiation in regards to this.

The bottom of the slope is the most extreme and difficult aspect of self-determination. It is where people end up at when they are both the most vulnerable and the most difficult to deal with. The difficulty with our society is that it refuses to acknowledge the importance of community in the decisions to release dangerous offenders back to re-offend again or when it comes to protecting the incompetent. Our heads are collectively in the sand.

I had a client who had dementia, was financially abused by members of his family, and could not manage his medical needs. Upon entering the hospital, he was returned home to the same situation despite my expressed concerns. The doctors had assessed that he was choosing to make this decision to return to his home. They ignored all of the signs that he was vulnerable. Yes, he wanted to return home, but this was because he did not understand that he was vulnerable or that he was being stolen from. The system failed him and he inevitably ended up in hospital again after being booted from his home due to the family not paying the rent.

The lesson here is that if there is no protection of society and the vulnerable, then government and its institutions become drags on the happiness of its citizens. It is this weight that drags society down to the base of the self-determination slope. A society that does not protect itself is doomed to dysfunction, corruption, and forever impairing the happiness of its members.

People who believe in the Free Enterprise generally possess the following characteristics:

• Humility – They don’t believe that the marketplace can be controlled.  It is far too complicated to be controlled and fully understood, but it works because individually the marketplace works for most people.
• Modesty – They don’t pretend to have the all of the answers or claim to know how to fix the marketplace. They trust the collective wisdom and decision making of  the participants to do what they need to do.
• Patience – They understand that businesses with make mistakes, that there will be market crashes, and that the long term view is important.
• Positive – They believe that everyone has the capacity to make it their way in the world to the best extent possible. They believe that people find happiness in the market and if they are not happy, they will have the opportunity to change things. Fundamental to this is an assumption that people have the capacity to learn from their mistakes and make their own decisions.
• Introspective – They believe that the high standard of living reached is a indicator of the system’s success. Seeing people thrive when given freedom reinforces their convictions.
• Realistic – They don’t believe that life is about finding perfection, but about reaching the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It is utilitarian perspective.

In contrast, the Anti-Free Enterprisers (socialists, government interventionists, etc) possess the characteristics of:

• Arrogance – They claim to know the answer to finding happiness for everyone. They believe that a complicated system like the Free Market can can be reduced to a simple formula which can then be controlled. They will have answers and complex theories why the Free Market system does not work, even when they have never ran a single business in their entire life.
• Intellectualism – They believe in ideas over experience and that everything can be explained and thus controlled. They are looking for perfect understanding and perfect control. Some are prone to ideological purity.
• Pessimism – They believe that the free enterprise is full of exploitation and dog-eat-dog competition. They believe that perfection is possible and that full-efficiency is attainable. Because the world is so far away from perfection, they tend to be predisposed towards grumpiness and negativity.
• Paternalism – They believe that people need to be protected from the Free Market. They see victimization as a ritual occurrence and must be vigorously countered. They are constantly fighting causes for the weak and disenfranchised, be they the economic poor, the ethnic minorities, and mother nature.

Its a pretty lopsided list against the Anti-Free Enterprisers. While they are speaking from a place of concern and protectiveness (admirable intentions) they make a  fundamental error of judgment: That people can and do evolve to be stronger and self-reliant when challenged to do so.

Alternatively, the people who believe in Free Enterprise have a sensible and intuitive approach, which is based on informed observation and philosophy.

What is interesting is this list has provided for me a litmus test for the type of leaders I think we need to cultivate. I have maintained in other posts (Green Party and Ideology vs Philosophy) that people and their individual qualities are more important than the political ideology they follow. This comparison list allows for these qualities to be tested for, regardless of political party.

The questions could help remind our politicians and citizens that government has an important but limited role to play in the Free Enterprise system. That knowing one’s limits is a sign of humility, and humility is always a virtue.

The store manager decides that the store losing $15 on the plant so that both he and the complaining customer can be  satisfied is a rationale way to operate. The complaining customer gets what they want and the manager keeps his reputation clean and bonus intact. Obviously it is the fear of losing his financial bonus that is driving his behavior.

So, we now have two people benefiting at the shared expense of all others. The victims, the thousands of others customers who subsidize this action through the higher prices they pay, are unaware that the customer is getting a plant they don’t deserve. It is not fair, but I would argue that it likely happens far more than we would care to entertain.

Sadly, the same thing happens in the public sector where managers and politicians are driven by fear to use tax revenues to appease the few at the expense of the many. It is fear that drives overt behaviors such protecting one’s constituency seat to the subtle behaviors of avoiding unpleasant emotions during a day’s work. The true victims of all of these situations are the millions of clueless and faceless taxpayers, who pay for the system to operate, but are unaware that the fear of social heights is what drives up costs, increases our taxes, and leads to bad outcomes.

Yet, this is a gross misunderstanding made by both anti-capitalists and pro-capitalists. Capitalism is not about valuing competition over cooperation. It is about having freedom to decide how to engage in the marketplace, either employing competition or cooperation or typically some fluid combination of both.

Capitalism is the only  system where voluntary economic cooperation can exist. Collectivist societies will place extensive social pressures on its members to “play nice”. This will determine what you are allowed to produce, who you are allowed to buy from, and who you are allowed to sell to. In a collectivist society you might not be allowed to sell your product to a particular region because they are not part of your social or ethnic group. The essence of being collectivist and having a common identity also means that there will be some kind of exclusion, since most collectivism is based on ethnic, familial, or religious identification.

Along comes capitalism which turns the old equation on its head because  each person is now allowed to choose for him/herself the extent that cooperation and/or competition is practiced. It does not place a value of one over the other. But because most humans are social creatures, capitalism is based on far more cooperation and trust than competition.

One example is a story that a friend told me. He works for a major courier company and told me how the largest courier companies  have cooperative agreements with each other to divide up geographic territories to save costs and create efficiencies. While some may say that this is an example of collusion, I would argue that it is an example of cooperation. These companies have decided that competition is not in everyone’s collective best interest.

A personal favorite example is where software firms have successfully established themselves by giving away their product for free. They are not even competing on the basis of price, but instead by providing a relationship through the use of their product. It is because capitalism allows people the freedom to choose how to conduct themselves, the Open-Source concept is alive and well.

Another example of this cooperation and trust taking place is that the basis of marketplace transaction is contract law. Companies will compete with each other but they do so by pursuing the most lucrative contracts, with investors, customers,and suppliers. The essence of any contract is about trust, partnership, and cooperation. The company who successfully cultivates the most successful relationships becomes the market leader. Unlike warfare where opponents actually battle directly with each other, capitalism diffuses this direct conflict by having the would-be competitors to play to their own strengths.

This happens because full-frontal, outright competition (like price wars) is exhausting and harms profitability. Instead, companies will participate in “monopolistic competition” where they each tries to carve out an economic niche (just like a species does in an ecological one) to survive and ultimately grow. Companies spend billions of dollars to figure out ways to distinguish themselves so they can find ways to not directly compete with others.

In this way, Capitalism emulates  the flexibility of an ecological system, tolerating diversity, allowing both competition and cooperation to co-exist and at times be partners in a fluid dance.  Capitalism may get all of its press from hyped-up gladiatorial competition, but this distorted image ignores the immense cooperation that has allowed it to exist and thrive.

Understandably, the media, public, and opposition parties were outraged and demanded heads. It was a disgusting display of neglect and failure. Despite evidence that Brian had initially approached the triage desk to alert the employees of his need, for close to three days, nobody bothered to treat Mr. Sinclair which led to his death.

The government and health officials claimed systemic failure. They did not want to accuse any individuals of misconduct or failure. In one way, this can be seen as admirable as some employers employ scapegoating as a way of deflecting attention from themselves. But when is a “systems failure” simply a cop-out?

I would argue that claiming “systemic failure” is just like scapegoating but instead of blaming an individual, a faceless system is blamed, and instead of being punished, it is to be fixed. It is more palatable to do since it is emotionally draining to discipline staff. Not to mention, there are powerful public sector unions who will fight tooth and nail to defend its members, even if justifiably punished.

This was restated to me at a client complaint workshop, where the current organizational thinking is “everyone wants to do a good job, but problems result because of system errors”. That may partially true, but who holds the people who setup the system accountable? And what happens when an employee is just plain bad news?

The current scapegoating philosophy would say it is a “systems error”. Nobody takes any personal responsibility or blame except to “fix the system”. They ignore the fact that the system is not a real thing, but is a collection of individuals who are expected to possess the powers of perception, judgment, and discernment.

Now we have a system being held accountable and we remain all the poorer for it.

It’s a cruel joke. I worked for hundreds of hours on my publication, Polls, Parties, and Power: Distortion and Wasted Votes in Canada’s Election 1980-2000. I was convinced that people would see “the facts” and naturally gravitate to adopt Proportional Representation. Now, I have come to admit that voting reform does not matter. What I thought was important, is important no more.

But that does not mean I am discounting my efforts. I am proud of my publication and my early efforts in the voting reform movement. I learned so much from doing it and would like to share the culmination of my efforts with you.

Check it out…

Polls, Parties, and Power: Waste and Distortion
in Canada’s Elections 1980-2000

Published 2002
312 Pages ~ Format: PDF ~ Size: 4.86MB
Download it by right-clicking and selecting ‘Save As’.

An interesting (and personally changing) result in the May 12 Referendum held in BC. The proposal to switch the existing system (First-Past-the-Post) to the single transferable vote electoral system (BC-STV) proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform was defeated.

The results were 38.82% in favor of switching, which was far away from 60% they needed. They did not even come close to reaching the second referendum requirement, capturing only 7 of the 51 required ridings.

In the spirit of full disclosure, there is a part of me that is disappointed with the outcome. I was involved in the Voting Reform movement back in its beginnings in 1995. I believed that by changing the way our leaders are elected, that we would change the outcome, which would lead to better government.

That idealism has been steadily eroded over the years to the point I am now distrusting of political parties, ideological purity, and democracy. I remain interested in politics, but more from the perspective of leadership and how that leadership is developed.

This will be a huge blow to Fair Vote Canada, as the result demonstrates the complete lack of political and democratic imagination possessed by BC voters. I would have to conclude that British Columbians (and Canadians) don’t really care about how our politicians are elected.

And maybe they are right. Maybe the voting system does not matter since they believe that stupid politicians will continue to be elected under the new voting system. Perhaps STV or any PR system will provide a more transparant outcome, but will not provide the leadership and integrity that we need. It comes back to the idea of Garbage In Garbage Out – crappy politicians will simply translate into a more accurate but still crappy government with Proportional Representation and STV.

What caught my interest was its statement on its notes page that “all things should be examined according to their impact on life, and popularity by itself is not enough endorsement.” Wow! That struck home and made so much sense.

Democracy is not about rationally evaluating what matters or counts most, but about simply giving power to people who are not necessarily capable of measuring or judging competently. Instead voters resort to treating democracy as popularity contests.

The site is extensive and I personally find the reference to a mythical character of Prometheus to be very cool. It speaks about Individualism but appears to understand that there is no such thing as a self-made person for we are dependent on the sacrifices of others. Its anti-collectivist stance appears to be a bit too rigid – if individuals have freedom, then surely they have the freedom to join (and leave) a collective.

Its something I will peruse over the next year and write a more extensive summary.

Check it out…

Promethea.org

Bernie Madoff defrauded his investors of $65 billion dollars with a massive ponzi scheme. Madoff was smart by  never offering suspicious high returns to everyone, but did guarantee a steady and modest return regardless of the state of the stock market. This latter point should be suspicious to any intelligent investor.

Yet that is exactly what our public and private defined benefit plans are doing. They guarantee a return or benefit rate. Yet how can they do this? Just like Madoff did, by using new money brought in from new investors (or pension contributors) to help meet the payout obligations. As long as new citizens grow up and are forced to contribute to the pension plans, the plan remains viable.

But, perhaps we would all be better served by a defined-contribution plan, where the return is based on how well one’s money is managed, instead of compelling citizens to make pension contributions to maintain unsustainable payouts.

As a society we have witnessed a longstanding feud between two camps – one set of people believes that genes and nature determines our destiny while their opponents insist that socialization and nurture is our sole determinant.

Like the title suggests and as Ridley states almost immediately, it is both nature and nurture that affects human development. The two sides may have valid contributions to understanding human development, but neither side gets it completely right because of sectarian/institutional thinking.

The problem is that we are all victim of a media that thrives on reporting the controversial and extremist positions of the Naturists and Nurturist camps. That debate has been an ivory tower battle that has spilled over into Pop-psychology books that teach parents how to parent, how to find a partner, etc. This book proves the level of inanity that academics can resort to.

Ridley demonstrate how neither side got it right and how humans are both genes and social mores wrapped together in a finely mixed and ever-evolving concoction. Nature Via Nurture’s purpose is to bury both sides and provide a fresh perspective on the issue. The question remains does he succeed? Partly.

This book is not so much about striking new ground, but about getting rid of tired, expired ideas. And Ridely being an enthusiastic writer, is able to delver knock-out punches against the extremists of both camps. His powerful grasp of vocabulary and making the complex as simple and entertaining as possible, helps convince you of the validity of his position.

But what does this fundamentally teach us about ourselves? Not a whole lot. Most people know intuitively that human development is a combination of both nature and nurture. They might not communicate this in as sophisticated a fashion as most scientists but they know that there are times when family support is critical and times when no matter what support is offered, a family member will do what they do because they are driven by a deeper, biological drive.

Being an anti-ideologue who also finds socialism particularly misguided, I found this book hammering a nail in the coffin of socialist thinking. Ridley uses the example of a group of young boys who are all given the same access to food and exercise, thereby ensuring that nurture is equally distributed. Yet what we find is that one boy happens to grows extra tall and becomes so well coordinated he becomes a star basketball player while another boy given access to the same nurturing plays basketball poorly due to a combination of genetic disposition and personal aptitude.

It is genetics that demonstrates how well the nurturing translates into successful functioning of the organism. It is in everybody’s nature to respond different to the environment’s nurturing, proving just how out of touch with basic biology Socialist thinking is. Socialism ends up confusing input with outcomes and forgets that giving everybody the same amount of support will just highlight the natural abilities of some over others. Socialists would be wiser to advocate for more equitable access to opportunities for everyone instead of fixating on equal outcomes. Ironically, in doing so, they would cease being socialists and instead become liberals.

Ridley’s enthusiasm makes this book an enjoyable read, but it does not make it an essential read. At times Ridley’s quips feels a little bit too much like inside jokes, but it is easily forgiven in light of his passion. The tone is light though it does take a stretch of cognitive understanding to appreciate some of his examples, particularly the technical-genetic based ones.

This book is an example of the parts being greater than the whole. Where he gets it right in spots, he gets it really right, but the overall effort is not as inspiring. I came away with a healthy appreciation for some of his findings, but overall was disappointed he did not provide a cohesive alternative to the two extremes of Naturism and Nurturism.
Rating:

(3 stars out of 5 – possesses some unique identity and modestly experiments with the genre formula)

Nature Via Nurture
Price: —

1 used & new available from CAD 10.42

Sure sounds like socialism. It is a socialist ideal to have people have all their needs met with minimal effort on their own part. Only within socialism are people allowed to make poor choices and still get away with it, because after-all the larger community will take care of you.

Yet what we are witnessing is not socialism in its pure form. What we are seeing is a kind of socialism known as State Capitalism. This is where governments in the US, UK, and other places prop up their banks and financial institutions. This ends up saving and rewarding many of the same people who created the credit crisis. Yet, just like in the video, the state stood aside and allowed this to happen and even contributed to it by keeping interest rates too low. The state has to step in because it helped create the crisis in an indirect fashion.

We may have the structure of free enterprise, but the attitude behind all of this is completely socialist. Its all about getting something for minimal effort. The various governments want to see the business world succeed since this contributes to increased wealth and taxes. The problem is that many states lost sight of their purpose and became too cozy with business success.

Yet governments are quick to find a scapegoat and it appears that Libertarians are being targeted as the cause behind the problem. Stephen Harper said as much in a recent speech which has raised the ire of some libertarians.  Harper was quoted in the Canadian Press as saying “The libertarian says, ‘Let individuals exercise full freedom and take full responsibility for their actions.’ The problem with this notion is that people who act irresponsibly in the name of freedom are almost never willing to take responsibility for their actions.”

Is Libertarianism discredited by the Credit Crisis? Perhaps. I have grown to believe in free markets, but must admit that the Crisis has challenged some of my convictions. It has demonstrated that unfettered freedom to the greedy and short-sighted brings ruin to all of us.

Maybe greater freedom needs to be reserved only for the competent and mature. Maybe it needs to be reserved for those willing to take responsibility for their actions and not to those who use idealistic/ideological notions of “freedom” to justify their behavior.

Many people will simply say that we go here due to greed.

But seeing how the greed reached such levels of sophistication and complexity is fascinating.

The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Given my past anti-ideology posts, I am curious to see whether having two non-party-ideology candidates makes any difference in the tone of the election campaign and whether they will be more effective than the trained seals that most party MPs and MLAs become.

I will be supporting Geoff Currier as my candidate because from what I understand, he refuses to take an ideological position on any issues, but evaluate each according to his best judgment. Sounds refreshing to me. In addition, he is a fiscal conservative which aligns with my values of keeping government as small as possible.

Good luck Geoff!

It’s a spectacle that stands in stark contrast to Canada’s celebration of a new political leader. New prime ministers are simply sworn into office with little more than a low-key ceremony with the Governor General at Rideau Hall, attended by a handful of dignitaries and family members.

Inauguration day of the U.S. President is a grand affair, with the swearing-in at the majestic Capitol, an inspirational speech to kick off the new presidency, a packed parade to the White House along Pennsylvania Avenue and then a series of star-studded dusk-to-dawn balls.

With such a grand, awe-inspiring celebration, I would expect to see a king being crowned. Yet the United States went to war with Britain to dispose of the monarchy and the entitlement of royalty. It is just pure irony that Americans celebrate and treat their President and the First Family like fairy tale royalty.

And just like the fairy tale kings of old, Obama’s rise to the top is a real fairy tale in the making. For the first time we see a man of very modest parentage rise to the top of an entire nation through a dynamic combination of personal grit, political sophistication, and intelligence. In allowing this to happen, the United States has finally backed up its claim as being a land of opportunity.

It was through this book that Schumacher is credited with influencing green economic thinking from the 70s and afterward. He articulated the fundamental question about growth: “How much further growth will be possible, since infinite growth in a fine environment is an obvious impossibility”. Such thinking was radical, yet not socialist. Instead his thinking was the basis of humanistic, or human-centred economics.

This book helped shift the tired and largely irrelevant debate of Left wing vs Right wing economic politics or big government standing up to big business. Small is Beautiful infused the debate with the question of size, saying that both smaller business and smaller government was healthier for us and our environment. This position was and still is revolutionary. In many ways, Schumacher’s ideas were a further refinement of anarchist thinking.

Yet Schumacher was not simply a political agitator. He asked metaphysical questions of economics, something few have done, and echoed Gandhi’s disapproval of economists that spend time… “dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.” His criticism of the market being the “the institutionalization of individualism and non-responsibility…. To be relieved of all responsibility except to oneself means of course an enormous simplification of business.” I would have to disagree with his blanket opinion here. Institutional thinking in the world of business, is no different that institutional thinking in the world of government. He is accurate that there is an abdication of responsibility, but it happens everywhere, not just in the world of business.

His anti-big-technology stance may prompt his critics to label him a Luddite, but Schumacher did believe in technology. His vision of technology is that like his view of economics, it must be small and human-scaled. Too much technological dependence puts people in a position of weakness. The allows the people who control the technology to centralize matters, which tends to lead to bigness. We can see this in the automobile manufacturing industry; it is located in just a small part of North American and is controlled by a handful of companies. It is also hopelessly inefficient and harmful to our ecology.

Schumacher also helped define work-life balance. He states… “to strive for leisure as an alternative to work would be considered a complete misunderstanding of one of the basic truths of human existence, namely that work and leisure are complementary parts of the same living process and cannot be separated without destroying the joy of work and the bliss of leisure.” This was a person who understood the importance of living life fully. A radical economist he was!

Schumacher may have denied that he was a prophetic person, but it is striking that he has written a book that continues to define the meta-issues facing us. Not only did he help define the issues of small vs big, but did so with poetic simplicity. Small becomes beautiful especially when being big poisons our ecology and society. He rightfully anticipated that our future will be full of conflict when the power elites are in a deadly race for scarce resources like petroleum. The problems we face have many others asking what can be done. Schumacher at least was kind enough to provide the answer: Small is beautiful. Unfortunately, many people appear to not be willing to listen.

Rating:

(4.5 stars out of 5 – defining an era & philosophy)

Small is Beautiful
Price: CAD 17.48

18 used & new available from CAD 4.97

The research about world conflict was conducted by the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research, and has some pretty amazing information there.

Does my criticism of ideology mean I am anti-thinking? No, I would instead argue that ideological thinking is an oxymoron. Ideology is a mental disorder that afflicts politics, religion, culture (political correctness), and business. To be ideological means to not think and to abdicate one’s rational powers. To truly be a thinking person one must be philosophical and open to new information.