Passions and Decision-making

Posted on January 15, 2013 by admin

Isaac Newton (1642-1727) discovered the natural laws of motion which provided the final piece to the puzzle to explain why the Earth revolves around the sun. Newton refashioned the world governed by an interventionist God into a world crafted by a God that designs along rational and universal principles. These principles were available for all people to discover, allowed people to pursue their own aims fruitfully in this life, not the next, and to perfect themselves with their own rational power the understanding of the world. Newton was aware of specific problems in the solar system that his laws did not explain which included the fact that Saturn was moving away from the sun while Jupiter was moving closer. To account for movements not able to be explained by his formula, Newton proposed the hand of God to guide the planets in various circumstances – providing long-term stability to the universe. The Age of Enlightenment celebrated men turning from religion to reason and science to find answers.

During the Enlightenment, as each new idea spread across Europe, it was debated and challenged by other thinkers. David Hume (1711-1776), the skeptic, rejected the scope and power of reason in decision-making that Newton’s work had released. Hume thought that our passions and our affections naturally lead us to perform certain actions with reason acting only as a guide.  In his early career Kant (1724-1804) had studied Newton’s ideas, but upon reading the philosophy of David Hume, he claimed he awoke from his dogmatic slumbers spending 12 years looking for answers posed by Hume’s skepticism, resulting in Kant’s efforts to combine components from both camps. Adam Smith’s efforts to discover the general laws of economies were directly inspired and influenced by the example of Newton’s success in discovering the natural laws of motion and Hume’s idea that passions (feelings and emotions), not reason, are at the centre of human nature.

In both of his mature writings, Theory of Moral Sentiments, and Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith (1723-1790) makes reference to the invisible hand. In his first significant work, an ‘invisible hand’ passage occurs in a discussion of a rich man with a sense of entitlement to what ever he wishes yet with a stomach of limited capacity, so that he eats only as much as a poor man. It is in this sense, Smith observed, “[the rich] are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same division of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society.” Smith’s concept of the invisible hand (in this instance), as an indirect intervention (under Providence) into the mechanism of social life, is based on the instability of human reason to achieve social harmony by itself.

The invisible hand passage in Wealth of Nations, Smith’s classical introduction to economics, appears in a section during a discussion on foreign trade. Smith notes, while greater risk and profits were possible with investment offshore, investing capital in domestic industry increases domestic capital and revenues and, as if led by an invisible hand, has the unintended consequence of helping others they do not even know by increasing the wealth of the nation. This is the ‘invisible hand’ quote that Milton Friedman championed and incorporated into the ideology of trickle down economics.

Behavioral economics, part of microeconomics today, is not about how people would behave if they were perfectly rational, but how they actually behave. For example under the influence of passions people tend to overreact to new information, care disproportionately about what others do, and respond to the way choices are presented. Behavioral economics deals with myopic passions – people do not make rational, long-term choices but rather, shortsighted, choosing smaller rewards today rather than a larger one later.

During the 1980s promoting self-esteem to protect children from failure became an important part of the education system. This self-esteem movement has had a significant impact on the school system – in order to ensure positive self-esteem, education standards were lowered, creating a milieu for extreme individualism. The world would be saved from crime, drug abuse and under-achieving through bolstering self-esteem. However, when there is too much self-esteem there are problems of self-tolerance, entitlement, and narcissism. The cult of self-esteem has now created a pool of individuals with an exaggerated sense of entitlement in the workplace. These people view the world from an emotional rather than a rational perspective – this allows personal feelings to override the distinction between right and wrong. The cult of self-esteem created a group who make decisions based on emotional factors for short-term gain.1

Individuals in the financial services industry, with self-tolerance and a sense of personal entitlement, manipulated the market for short-term gain, creating the instability that brought on the economic debacle of 2008. Reforms need to counter the power of the banking oligarchy and provide the tools to the regulatory agencies to ensure good decision-making accountability of the players. These political decisions will launch the required processes to return back to a democracy from a plutocracy (government by the wealthy).

1  Horsman, Greg The Narcissist’s Vocation and the Economic Debacle. (p 39-43)

Posted in Global Economy, The Narcissist's Vocation and the Economic Debacle | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Equality and Freedom

Posted on January 1, 2013 by admin

John Locke (1632-1704) popularized the concept of natural rights and freedom. Human freedom meant being free from as many constraints as possible. Natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are the rights that are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or civil government. Locke maintained that natural freedom was obtained when natural law is obeyed. He believed that when securing social order through government the will expressed by the majority must be accepted. Through legislative power is found the ability to provide for social order and common good by setting standing laws over acquisition, preservation and transfer of property. The purpose of authority was to protect human equality and freedom. He declared that when society or institutions unduly interfere with the property interests of the citizens the people have an obligation and a natural right to protect themselves by withdrawing their consent and altering their relationship.1

Rousseau (1712-1788) believed that the role of government should be to secure freedom, equality and justice for all within the state (regardless of the will of the majority).  He believed every man is free and equal and has no more power or influence than any other citizen – everyone forfeits the same amount of freedom and imposes the same duty on all. By ‘equality’ Rousseau did not mean that everyone should be exactly the same, but that differences in wealth should not imbalance the state.  Equality, it seemed to him, is a necessary condition for the preservation of liberty, while property and material inequality are the root of human misery and evil. Rousseau believed that within the social contract freedom must be directed towards a common interest.

Both Locke and Rousseau pledge membership through a social contract and not to an individual or minority. Societies or institutions lacking the consent of the governed are illegitimate. For Locke the basis of equality, independence and freedom that exists between all men is reason.

Wellness (good health) is about reaching one’s full potential as a person. The World Health Organization defines wellness as the optimal state of health of individuals and groups. There is a growing body of evidence about what makes people healthy and that the contribution of medicine and health care is quite limited, and spending more on health care will not result in significant further improvements in population health. It appears that lifestyle behaviours – smoking, diet and physical activity account for small variations of incidence in heart disease, cancer and diabetes. The environment, things over which one has little control, plays a greater role in wellness than personal life style choices. Ideally people should be in a position to avail themselves of these freedoms – and have choices and opportunity – not affected by access to education and healthcare. Governments have a role in protecting this (newly recognized) freedom of potential.

Globalization is the dominant ideology with the largest institution of the 21st century, corporations, expanding across borders while capital moves to locations where it will find the best conditions for return. Countries compete for the world’s investment capital, which removes traditional government accountability – consequently affecting the ability of elected leaders in democratic countries to make decisions in the interests of the workers. Five decades of tax cuts for the rich have been linked to income inequality, but not job growth in Canada and the US. This highlights the hollowing out of the middle class and the polarization of jobs – job growth for high and low paying jobs.

Living in a society that tolerates large gaps between the rich and the poor is bad for your health. The stress that comes from the inequality of our society, in particular, from economic inequality, may have more effect on our health than any other single factor. With the increasing income gap, many have lost their previous opportunity to achieve their potential – inequities (Social inequity is unfair, avoidable, differences arising from poor governance, corruption, or cultural exclusion.) potentially leave the most vulnerable at sustained risk and disadvantage.

This inequality reduces the freedom and opportunities for one to reach their full potential. The financial institutions unduly undermined natural freedom and choices of individuals, and must be held accountable. As the institutions’ decision-making interfered with the choices of citizens who had nothing to do with the institution, citizens have the right to protect themselves. The middle class must press elected officials (who have the obligation) to legislate changes to how the big banks operate in order to reverse the increasing inequality and subsequent loss of freedom of citizens.

1 Greg Horsman, The Narcissist’s Vocation and the Economic Debacle, (p. 230)

Posted in Global Economy, The Narcissist's Vocation and the Economic Debacle | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Occupy Wall Street Success

Posted on December 1, 2012 by admin

John Locke (1632-1704) claimed that individuals had the fundamental natural rights of “life, liberty, and property,” and it was the government’s responsibility to protect them. Locke supported economic inequality with his vigorous support of the right to property. There is a limitation or caveat in his statement – the individual is entitled to ownership, but only if this leaves “enough, and as good, left in common for others.” This was intended to ensure that the situation of others is not worsened by one’s appropriation of property. The right to property is central to John Locke’s philosophy;  along with the state’s right to protect this property. This stumbling block, or Catch22 – Locke’s sense of justice –  is that the caveat does not have a work around from the conservative libertarians – they remain silent on the issue. (The Enclosure Acts of the 18th century, passed by a Parliament controlled by rich landowners, forced poor laborers off the ‘village commons.’ Loss of the rights to the commons (loss of rights to grazing and gathering fuel) meant the difference between a subsistence living, and starvation for the farm laborers. The laborers migrated to the cities to become part of the Industrial Revolution working in industries whose conditions and wages were ‘a little better than slavery’.)

Rousseau (1712-1778) described an endemic moral inequality that was related to power and wealth. He claimed that in the formation of government the property owners (the wealthy) trick the poor into creating a government with the sole purpose of protecting property and locking in moral inequality as a feature of civil society. This social contract is promoted as treating everyone equally, but in reality, it is in the interest of the few who have become stronger and richer through the development of their private property. Rousseau warned that while everyone could not be exactly the same, massive inequality could put liberty up for sale. The poor would be willing to sell their freedom and the rich would be capable of buying it. Both the very rich and the very poor would value money more than liberty.

Over the past 65 years, tax cuts for the rich have been linked to income inequality, but not economic growth. In other words, income disparity was increasing and the middle class shrinking. Three years after the economic debacle of 2008 the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests began – connected by the anger of the common person against the banks for manipulating the system and tanking the economy. The OWS protesters reminded us that, since the 2008 financial debacle, there has been no progress on significant reforms of the financial services industry (to reduce the risk of reoccurrence). OWS challenges the excesses of the corporations in general, and in particular, a government controlled by corporate money and the growing income gap between the very wealthy and the rest in society. OWS educated many more of the middle class that they have been taken advantage of by a financial system that favors the rich – identifing extreme inequality as the hallmark of a dysfunctional economy, and highlighting the failure of the legislators to protect 99% of the people.

In 18th century, Rousseau warned  his contemporaries of the limitations of science and politics – that material progress does not necessarily bring moral progress. John Kenneth Galbraith (1909-2006) foresaw the problems caused by globalization and deregulation. He described the ‘economics of abundance’ and warned that individual and societal compliance about economic inequality would have consequences.1 The result of five decades of change to the social contract is severe inequality in the West – the hollowing out of the middle class and a growing income gap between rich and poor.  As cultural processes gave rise to the inequalities, Rousseau noted, it would take a change in cultural process to reverse the harmful inequalities. The singular success of OWS is to put inequality on the political agenda.

1 Waligorski Conrad.  John Kenneth Galbraith: The Economist As Political Theorist p 64

Posted in Global Economy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Bad Choices and Poverty

Posted on November 2, 2012 by admin

October 17 was the International Day for the eradication of poverty. It highlights the need for individuals, communities, business, and government to look beyond myths to the realities of poverty and to partner together for lasting solutions. The present weakness is the life style approach to interventions, instead of across the community activities focusing on poverty and inequities in the system that affect choices.

In 19th century Britain the increase in the poor population resulted from the ongoing closure of the commons and the upheaval produced by the Industrial Revolution. The Enclosure Acts and the destruction of the cottage industry forced farm laborers out of the rural areas into the cities to look for work. The growth in the labor class led to a decrease in wages, and further unemployment. The cost of providing relief for the poor, that fell to the landowners, increased over ten-fold from 1750 to 1818.

Where Rousseau (1712-1778) claimed social equality was possible, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) believed social equality was not possible.  At the turn of the 19th century, Bentham introduced the principle of utility – reflected in the statement “every action should be judged right or wrong according to how far it tends to promote or damage the happiness of the community.” Bentham believed that human behavior was motivated by the desire to obtain pleasure and avoid pain.  Utilitarianism taught that through the infliction and threat of pain people would be provided with motives to abstain from decisions associated with socially harmful behaviour.

The Reform Act of 1832 organized workhouses based on utilitarian principles – paupers would be forced work in the poorhouses – the conditions of the inhabitants were not to be better than the conditions of the lowest classes not working in the workhouses. This Poor Law reform was expected to work wonders for the moral character of the working man, while reducing the costs of the relief system. The choice to incorporate the principles of utilitarianism in this legislation created an unmitigated disaster.

After the influenza and typhoid epidemics of 1837 and 1830 in Britain, Edwin Chadwick (1800-1890), a lawyer and social reformer, was asked by the government to carry out an inquiry into sanitation in Britain. Chadwick was appalled at the number of people admitted to the workhouses and became convinced that if the health of the working population could be improved then there would be a drop in the numbers of people on relief. Chadwick used an economic argument to drive change – loss of revenue to the government because of early death of so many people. He believed that a healthier population would be able to work harder and would cost less to support, and if all of his recommendations were carried out the average life-expectancy for the laboring classes would increase by at least 13 years.

Bad decision-making of individuals in the financial services industry, with self-tolerance and a sense of entitlement, leveraging the market brought chaos on the world financial system in 2008.1 Poverty has increased as a result of the recession, while banks are netting the biggest profits in years. Without interventions many unemployed and under employed workers will either endure sustained periods out of work or drop out of the labor market entirely leading to permanent skills erosion. The consequence of the prolonged recession for workers in manufacturing related industry is long-term unemployment.

Poverty limits choices. Poor people have limited choices for their diet. They often lack shops in their area where they live, or have trouble reaching them. In particular, the poor have the lowest intake of fruits and vegetables. This leads to consumption of an over abundance of cheaper junk food (high fructose corn syrup drinks and processed foods), leading to more obesity and chronic disease than the general population. Falling back on the lifestyle rhetoric of the health promotion approach that relies on health education to encourage healthy behavior has worsened social inequalities in health as upper socioeconomic classes have secured the most benefits.2

In Canada a senate report in 2009, In From the Margins: A Call to Action on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness, identified that Canada’s system for addressing poverty is broken – many income supplement programs sustain people in poverty, rather than lifting them out of poverty. The main strategies recommended to break the cycle of poverty were: early childhood education, a national housing strategy, and an income floor for all Canadians who are severely disabled. The cost of poverty in 2009 in the province of Alberta (population of 3,654,000), that includes, health care costs, costs attributable to crime, intergenerational costs, and opportunity costs, is in excess of $9 billion. These staggering costs cry out for an effective program to reduce poverty for the whole country. This is about including the social and economic environment as well as the physical environment to life style and behaviour factors in a poverty reduction strategy.

1 Horsman, Greg. Objectivism Lost: And an Age of Disillusionment p 27.

2 Prinja, Shankar and Rajesh Kumar.  Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2009;87:84-84. doi: 10.2471/BLT.08.062695

Posted in Canadian Economy | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Trickle Down Ideology

Posted on October 6, 2012 by admin

The Roman Empire maintained strong top down control. The Roman Empire came into contact with the religious beliefs of major cultures, and was happy to assimilate any deities they encountered. With the passing of the Roman Republic into an Imperial system, the nature of the Roman religion expanded to include the Emperor themselves. The Imperial cult that developed was inseparable from Roman deities. This included a top down favoritism of the Roman gods, which began with the emperor and trickled down, if only feebly, to the lowest of society. The divinized emperor was seated in splendor at the high point of the patronage system, and he distributed power and privilege down the system. Rites and ceremonies integrating patriotism and religion legitimized this trickle down system. Christians were persecuted for refusing to recognize this imperial divinity.

When Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, it had the power to suppress dissention and heretics, and organize wealth. The church took on the authoritarian qualities of the Roman imperial culture – a powerful central hierarchy, a judicial system to enforce obedience from church members and its effective enforcement formalized rituals and institutionalized sacraments, a defense against any divergence from accepted ideology. Richard Tarnas noted, “leading early Christians concluded that the beliefs of the faithful must be established, disseminated, and sustained by an authoritarian church structure.”1 With the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, the Catholic Church was the only organized force in Western Europe.

The Medieval church became the most dominant institution in western Europe. It was one of the largest landowners of the time and collected rents and many fees for offices and services. The church did not pay taxes. Its top down structure facilitated control of information and the creation of wealth, ultimately ensuring the abuse of power. The power of the church was challenged with new ways of thinking ushered in during the Renaissance. In 1512, Colet, a student of the Renaissance, preached a sermon on the most burning question of the day – how to reform the church. Hunt Janin notes, “[Colet] argued that if the high officials of the church began to reform themselves, this would have a trickle down effect and would soon improve the lower clergy and the laity as well. No new laws or onerous regulations would be needed. His sermon had a dramatic impact on the public because it used specific examples of the luxury, covetness, sloth and simony of the bishops and senior clergy of England.” In response, the Bishop of London brought forward charges of heresy against Colet, which were subsequently dismissed.2

In the 21st century the top down system of control is about cheap money and power staying concentrated with a small group at the top of the economic pyramid. The most dominant institution of the day, the corporation, is specifically designed to create wealth and avoid paying taxes. In addition, billionaires (at the top) can purchase instruments from Wall Street to ensure that they pay no taxes. This system is perpetuated by proxies who control information and communication supporting laissez-faire capitalism. The trickle down economic theory was rebranded in the 1970s to an ideology – supply side economics – the doctrine that tax cuts could be had for free (incentive effects would generate new activity hence more revenue) without causing budget deficits. Its creators never believed supply side economics worked – it was an ideology that was created to unite the right. However, anyone who challenges that this thinking contributes greatly to economic inequality is declared a dangerous heretic, and a threat to freedom and prosperity of the free market system.

1 Tarnas, Richard. The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View. p (118, 158-160).

2 Janin, Hunt. The University in Medieval Life 1179-1499. p (154).

Posted in Global Economy | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Choices and Reaching Full Potential

Posted on September 29, 2012 by admin

For Aristotle the goal of human life was happiness – the necessary precondition being virtue. Virtue or good involved choices between two opposite evils, it was a midpoint between excess and deficit. For example, courage was a mean between cowardliness and foolhardiness. Virtue lets the individual achieve the good life or ‘happiness’. The subsequent actions (leading to happiness) allowed one to live in a way that reaches their highest potential.1

Søren Kierkegaard, father of existentialism, claimed that the highest good of any individual was to find his or her vocation against the traditional view that moral choice involved an objective judgment of right from wrong. Existentialists argued that the moral choice involved subjective judgment of right and wrong with individuals making choices arbitrarily. Existentialism stressed the importance of the individual, people had to create their own values, as traditional values were no longer the standard.2

The logic of globalization is seductive because it is based on a simple premise – free the market of its restrictions and its self-organizing dynamics will bring employment, wealth, and prosperity. Globalization supports diversity and freedom of choice and enhancement of material production. However, it rests on inequality of income, life style, and property ownership. In return, the system is to provide everyone, equally, an opportunity to exercise a full range of choices.

Wellness or good health is a process or quest by which a person is always seeking and moving towards their own full potential. At one time it was believed that to stay healthy all one had to do was make good life style choices. Now it is known that one’s physical environment plays a greater roll in wellness than personal life choices. In fact, the primary factors that shape the health of the individual are not medical treatment or life style choices rather the living conditions they experience.

Substance abuse may not be considered a chronic disease (by some) but rather a life style rooted in repeated bad choices – from lack of personal responsibility. This attitude leads to the marginalization of those with alcohol and drug problems. Personal health choices are not easy. Economic globalization with the power of advertising to shape global behavior has tended to make unhealthy choices easier choices – alcohol, cigarettes, and fast food diets, high fructose corn syrup drinks.

Poverty affects choices and opportunities. The last forty years of globalization has been associated with an increased gap between rich and poor. This has been associated with a hollowing out of the middle class, with less choices of well paying jobs (that disappeared overseas). The larger the gap between rich and poor – the more unequal the distribution of income, and the greater the gap in health outcomes.

Globalization was to bring increased prosperity, but it hasn’t occurred equally across the population. Reduced income translates to reduced wellness – the process by which a person is always seeking and moving towards his or her own highest potential – being the best you can possibly be. Health and illness follow a social gradient – the lower the socioeconomic position, the worse the health. The social gradient means that health inequities affect everyone. Living life to the fullest possible extent is made possible by life style changes, which enhance physical, mental and spiritual health. With the increasing income gap, many have lost their previous opportunity to achieve their potential, as well as the next generation.

1 Horsman, Greg. Objectivism Lost and an Age of Disillusionment (2012) p 25-26.

2  Horsman, Greg.  Narcissist’s Vocation and the Economic Debacle (2011) p 145.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Individualism – the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Posted on August 31, 2012 by admin

The concept of freedom is that individuals be allowed to do whatever they want. Over the past two hundred years individualism and capitalism rose together. In last three decades of the 20th century, people expressed their individuality through exercising choice. Individualism supports self-interest in business organizations, and is responsible for many of the possibilities available to society. Capitalism’s merit has been the goods it has been able to deliver. Each generation could count on seeing its children enjoy a host of new products. The luxuries of one generation became the necessities of the next.

It is necessary to strike a balance a balance between the ethics of the individual and the ethics of common good. Common good is associated with such things as environmental pollution, public education and the safety net for the poor. Something counts as a common good only to the extent that it is a good to which all have access. This gave economic inequality its justification – as the best chance for advancing the living conditions of all, but is no longer functioning. In the case of individualism its rewards are not spread evenly throughout society.  No longer can social inequalities be justified on the grounds that the poor will one day have what the rich now enjoy.

Bad individualism creates negative influences and is associated with underemployment and unemployment, a shrinking middle class and increasing wage gap between the rich and the poor. Individualism and self-interest have been accompanied by an unhinging of social norms and religious obligations needed as a basis for social cooperation. Individualism reinforces the person who thinks that he should not have to contribute to the community’s common good, but should be left free to pursue their own personal ends. More and more people competing in the system are falling behind their start point, and will never exceed their parent’s (financial) success. Those at the bottom of the economic pyramid become increasingly frustrated with the growing realization that the path to their advance has been substantially blocked by the advantages enjoyed by the already prosperous.  (Jack Buchanin) The Occupy Wall Street protesters identified the middle class as being taken advantage of by the financial system.

The focus on individualism and self-centeredness in society has led to the increase in narcissism while the sense of entitlement became pervasive. Another aspect of self-centeredness is self-tolerance. Such individuals learn to tolerate their errors and personal flaws and come to accept themselves as okay. They feel justified in asserting themselves, defending their perceived rights, believe rules do not apply to them, lack respect for authority, and habitually lie to people. It is impossible to distinguish pathological narcissists from self-confident, self-promoting, highly individualistic individuals.

An energy trading company called Enron, established in 1985, developed a unique hiring format. They brought in a stream of the best college MBA graduates they could find, who became star performers, who did whatever they wanted. This created a climate for extreme individualism and narcissism. Narcissists typically make judgements with greater confidence than other people, and the decisions are rendered with such conviction that narcissists become disproportionately more influential in group situations. Enron became a narcissistic company in which workers did not need to acknowledge their faults and deception, and a declining sense of responsibility became a major part of the culture.

The culture of extreme individualism ushered in the narcissism influencing decision-making and accountability today. With narcissism, such a person lacks empathy and does not recognize boundaries: personal, corporate or legal. The world viewed from an emotional rather than a rational perspective allows personal feelings to override the distinction between right and wrong. Following three decades of the cult of self-esteem, individuals in the financial services industry, with self-tolerance and a sense of entitlement, leveraged the market and plunged the world into economic chaos. This is an example of the ugly side of individualism.

It is necessary to understand that both good individualism that is responsible for many of the possibilities available to society and bad individualism which contributed greatly to the instability in opportunities today, exist. In the 18th century, with the establishment of the  Copernican theory of the Earth rotating around the sun, the individual was placed at the center of the universe. Individualism was established as a Western value during the Enlightenment. By the last quarter of the 20th century, individualism, happiness, and capitalism were part of the core values of Western culture. The culture of extreme individualism is  associated with reduced of opportunities for many, and is linked to the inequality and growing income gap between the very wealthy and the rest of society that has occurred in North America over the last 35 years.

Posted in Individualism | Tagged | Leave a comment

Science and Change.

Posted on July 6, 2012 by admin

In the 17th century the church was the dominant institution, while in the 21st century the corporation is the dominate institution. In 17th century Europe, the church was the main place where ordinary citizens got their information and were handed down opinions on what was right or wrong. Any established church was an effective form of thought control. The churches of this time were natural enemies of new ideas.

During the Age of Enlightenment people believed that the reasoning of men could free them of their ills, and lead to peace security and good government. It was believed that reason would ensure the progress of humanity, and change the corrupt environment of the 18th century. Human reason could be used to combat misguided traditional thinking, customs, and old ideas that kept people subjugated in ignorance, superstition and tyranny. Truth and freedom would enable individuals to build a better world. The Enlightenment introduced critical thinking to replace the dead weight of tradition, and challenge the blind faith in institutions.

The legacy of the enlightenment is the scientific method, which includes knowledge that observations are prone to error and bias, so experiments need to be replicated by independent researchers. In addition, there is a peer review process to ensure proper documentation of procedures available for scrutiny. These processes ensure the steady advance of new ideas.

Corporations have adopted misinformation programs developed by the tobacco industry over the past five decades. The process clouds scientific understanding of the of the issue, which enables corporations to work behind the scene to gain access to key decision makers. The tobacco industry used this effectively to undermine tobacco legislation and hold back anti-smoking legislation for decades.

These tactics include introducing manufactured uncertainty by raising doubts about the most indisputable scientific evidence . This confuses individuals and legislators and prevents and delays action or mitigation on the issue. For change to occur, there is a need to know with certainty that information is correct.

The freedoms identified for individuals during the enlightenment are now threatened. Corporations undermine movements for change, not by rejecting science, but by selectively funding it. This includes manipulating the media to discredit scientific research and influence governments with respect to specific agendas. Now reason is used to undermine principles of the enlightenment. In addition, deregulation involves underfunding agencies that require science to monitor the safety of the environment, and products available for public consumption.

At time when evidence based decision-making is considered a standard, global corporations have processes in place to undermine science and hold back change. The mantra of minimal government and  regulations favour these processes. Today, it is necessary to factor industry-funded denial and skepticism in when evaluating many issues, including climate change, environmental reforms, and financial reform.

Posted in Global Economy | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Social Contract

Posted on June 29, 2012 by admin

John Locke (1632-1704) developed a theory of natural laws and natural rights which could be used to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate government, and to argue for the legitimacy of revolt against a tyrannical government. It was the government’s responsibility to protect them. Reason served to control and order political life. Individuals relinquish power, but not rights to government (as the government is supposed to preserve rights) He believed that no one ought to harm another with respect to his life, health, liberty, or possessions. For Locke, the role of the social contract that placed authority over people was to protect human equality and freedom; this is why social groups agreed to a social contract that placed an authority over them.1

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), a political philosopher and essayist, criticized some features of the Enlightenment; he claimed that Aristotle and Plato were wrong to think that the ability to reason was natural, and wrong to think that the human being was naturally directed by applying reason toward one final and universal state of perfection. Rousseau argued that inequality was not only unnatural, but that – when taken too far – it made decent government impossible. He believed laws should pursue freedom and equality.

Rousseau’s statement, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” is a reference to the social contract of his day. He maintained the wealthy trick the poor into creating a government with the sole purpose of protecting their property and locking in moral inequality as a permanent feature of civil society. In this manner, the social contract is promoted as treating everyone equally, but in reality, it is in the interest of the few who have become stronger and richer. For Rousseau the income gap is a problem – the very rich and the very poor would value money more than liberty.

The increasing income gap has become a source of concern today. In England, it is claimed problems were created because of a recent rewrite of the social contract. The government wants people to become more self-reliant, and less reliant on government programs. One measure of this was the discontinuation of free university education which closed a route out of poverty, while unemployment had doubled.This was the root cause of the riots in England in August, 2011.

Increased income inequality is occurring in the US, affecting how people think about each other, and society. Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor, campaigning for the US Senate in Massachusetts, made a vigorous defense that the rich got rich courtesy of the social contract, that provides society with the rules and laws that allow a functioning society to prosper. The news media on the right join in unison to accuse her of encouraging class warfare. Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929), an American economist and sociologist, provided contemporary critique at the turn of the 20th century on the economic processes in the US. The reaction to Warren’s comments is consistent with the observations of Veblen, that is, the power of the wealthy to respond to minor challenges from new ideas as a constituency, and when they do, to claim the whole system is threatened. This class warfare label in the media, as such, is engineered over reaction.2

1 Horsman, Greg. Objectivism Lost and an Age of Disillusionment. 2012 (p 55)

2 Veblen, Thorstein, The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions. New York:The McMillan Company, 1912 (p 201-202)

Posted in Global Economy, Objectivism Lost and an Era of Disillusionment | 4 Comments

Self-responsibility and entitlement.

Posted on May 16, 2011 by admin

This is a story about one self-responsibility, and two entitlements. There are two main views on the cause of poverty in North America. One view identifies the challenge as systemic and the other as personal. Personal responsibility is the libertarian worldview. Self-responsibility is about taking responsibility for our own existence we implicitly recognize that other human beings are not our servants and do not exist for the satisfaction of our needs. At the individual level the causes of poverty include family breakdown, drug addiction, poor work habits enabled by government support programs. The systemic view considers situations at the structural understanding of poverty that includes changes to the economy such as  underemployment, dead end jobs, accelerated by the last thirty years of realities of the global age. Eliminating the systemic causes would dramatically reduce, but not eliminate the personal causes.

The response to systemic problems can be addressed with minimum wage legislation, union organization and government support programs often grouped under the name entitlements. The other, self-responsibility, hinges on personal responsibility, taking responsibility for the consequences of your choices. Self-esteem has an important role in this.

True self-esteem is associated with as self-responsibility, self-sufficiency and the knowledge of one’s own competence and capability to deal with obstacles and adversity. The libertarians turned to the objectivists for ideas on self-esteem, who in turn applied Aristotle’s teachings. Aristotle believed that moral virtues are acquired by habit, such as acting justly. Virtues, Aristotle believed, are excellences of character achieved by seeking the middle way, not extremes of action or feeling. Virtues enable the individual to achieve the good life or ‘happiness’. This happiness, properly understood, requires ethically virtuous activity. In turn, virtue manifests itself in action, leading to happiness. For Aristotle this included being all you can to fulfill your potential, and live in a way that reaches your full potential. To achieve this, self-love was necessary. Aristotle described two types of self-love. For him, self-love is a proper emotion provided it is expressed in the love of virtue and is valuable. Being noble and good promotes the good of the community.

The second self-love identified by Aristotle was the dangerous self-love in which the individual’s actions assigned material advantage and pleasure which become objects of competition. This includes the selfishness driven by individualism, where there is no evident benefit for oneself in helping others. Self-serving pursuits do not create self-esteem. With this type of self-esteem there are problems of self-tolerance, entitlement and narcissism. Narcissism is an excessive form of self-love that leads to a sense of entitlement and selfish world-view. This narcissist believes that rules do not apply to them and they deserve special treatment. This person demands automatic and full compliance with his/her expectations.

Managers in the financial services industry came through the cult of self-esteem, they learned to tolerate the errors and flaws in their actions, which lead to a sense of entitlement. The sense of entitlement is at the root of the decline in standards. The fund managers were enraged when President Obama insisted on limits on remuneration and bonuses to managers of Wall Street financial services industry, who had just been bailed out with taxpayers’ dollars.

The conservative libertarians have framed self-sufficiency well, however, they tolerate two types of self-esteem. One is the narcissistic individual with a sense of personal entitlement and extreme self-esteem, concerned about himself and short-term gain, who manipulated the leveraged market creating every opportunity to make money. The other self-esteem, of course, supports the self-responsibility that forms the basis for poor people learning how to earn money in order to get off taxpayers’ sponsored entitlements.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment