Striking a balance

Communism and Socialism focus on the good of the masses; sometimes to the detriment of the individual.  Capitalism and Libertarianism focus on the good of the individual with no regard to the impact on the rest of society.   As humans, we are both A PART OF the group and APART FROM it.  Both idealogies cannot work sustainably if implimented 100%.  So there has to be a balance between what is good for me and what is good for the rest of my fellow human beings (who I consider to be extended family).  The functioning and prospering societies in the world right now strike a balance somewhere between 30/70 and 70/30 Capitalist/Socialist.  I think that we can tinker with the balance between those benchmarks.  But to go too far in either direction is ridiculous.  I hear a lot more talk about moving to 100% capitalism than I do about eliminating it completely.   Those who say there should be no regulation, no safeguards, no taxation, no public services, etc. are really saying that there should be no community.  I feel sorry for them and would not want to live in their world.   The ideal balance may never be found, and it should probably change with the times and needs.  But we need a mix of both Capitalism and Socialism.

2 visions of utopia

Imagine that technology has progressed to the point where all our basic needs can be taken care of at no cost.  Clean and renewable energy powers the machines that farm the land, clean the water, build our shelters, cut our lawns, and transport our people and goods.  Medicine has evolved to the point where major illnesses are obsolete.  No one has to work.

Now, would it be great if this technology was freely available to everyone in the whole world?  If everyone was taken care of and were free to pursue their passions?  There would be much less motivation to commit crimes and wage war.  Everyone would be safe and secure.

Or would it be better if only you owned this technology and could withhold it?  Then you could control people.  Make them do what you want or else they die (or steal).  

Which vision is more appealing to you?  

It takes courage

So I wanted to remodel my house.  I brought in a designer who took one look and said, "we'll knock out all the interior walls and open up all the space.  It'll be great, trust me."  So he drew up some plans and I had them evaluated by an architect.  The architect said, "you can't knock out these walls, they are load-bearing.  If you follow this plan, your whole house will collapse."  So I said to my friends, "This designer is an idiot.  He doesn't know what he is doing and should not be in this position.  Who is this guy anyway?"  But then Fox News said, "Hey, that's Paul Ryan.  At least he had the courage to draw up a plan.  All he deserves is credit and our admiration."   

What kind of society do you want?

My man Thom Hartmann breaks the difference between the Liberal agenda and the Conservative agenda as a question of: Do we want to live in a ME society or a WE society.  I think this is a great way of understanding and explaining it, but I have come up with a different way of framing it.

Are we, as a society, better served when our primary focus is that we should be competitive with each other or that we should be cooperative?  In the former view, there are limited resources and everything you have takes away from what I could/should have.  I have no responsibility to you and you have none to me.  Might makes right and only the strongest should survive.  The only reason why you would not break into my house, kill me and take all my stuff, is that the combined strength of society is stronger than you and could punish you.  So you play by the rules and defer your gratification because you have to.

In the latter view, we recognize that 1) there are enough resources to go around for all of us and 2) that we can accomplish much more and better things when we combine our strength towards a common goal.  We all chip in some money (taxes) and build a road, from which we all benefit.

I benefit from everyone being healthy, productive, fed, and educated.   It might seem to benefit me if I were the only one with an education and therefore no one could compete with me for jobs; but that is very short-sighted.  I heard a radio interview with a man from India; and the topic was: the emerging superpowers.  The Indian man asserted that India would never be a superpower because of the caste system.  When only 1/5th of society is allowed to maximize their potential, it cripples the growth.  How many Einsteins are we missing out on because college has become prohibitively expensive?   Too many, and the problem is getting worse.

I think there is enough to go around, and that people should view some of our success by the quality of life of our neighbors, not just ourselves.   People talk about running our county like a corporation.  Well, the profits of that corporation should be viewed in terms of health and education and happiness of its citizens, not just GDP, taxes, and military prowess.

This does not mean, as some people like to twist it, that I think we should all have the same regardless of effort or talent.  I do believe (as do 99% of liberals) that hard work, innovation, and risk should be rewarded.  I want there to be incentive for people to contribute.   But I would like all of us to (minimally at least) take care  of all of us.    I want to live in a society where we work together, care for each other, and help each other out when necessary.  Of course there will be some who abuse the system, but I believe that most people do want to contribute.  I do not believe that everyone who is unemployed is happy and lazy.

If we didn't cooperate, the human race would never have accomplished such great things.  We would never build bridges, aquaducts, ships, phone lines, etc.  We are all one big family; and we should start respecting each other as such.