hopelesshappiness.com

I do not want to rid us of the concept of wealth, but I do think it is necessary to drastically reduce the wealth gap. I believe we have to find a middle road between a poorly managed welfare state and unchecked capitalism. According to my understanding, a welfare state intends to drive growth but simultaneously creates a sense of entitlement. And unchecked capitalism intends to create wealth but simultaneously discourages effort. And though we can point at some efforts to check capitalism in order to control excessive wealth for the few, we are obviously not doing so in ways that will consistently benefit the many or uplift the downtrodden (which are fast becoming the same), or slow the widening of the wealth gap. In fact, this very month, entangled inroads were made when our government took food away from 700,000 Americans in need. Question: Why? Answer: To funnel more advantage to the wealthy and powerful few, and to continue to widen the wealth gap. We are a wealthy nation, yet we consistently appear to refuse to take care of our people.

We have to find a middle road, yet oddly enough it feels like our current path is moving towards not so much a middle road as it is keeping us in this convoluted entanglement of (occasional) growth, wealth (and an ever-increasing wealth gap), entitlement and quiescence. It feels like we have manufactured a conservative progressivism that cannot find an identity or a direction. I am not an expert and I may be misinterpreting some aspects of this dynamic, but these four factors

1. Growth
2. Wealth and its accompanying Wealth Gap
3. Entitlement and
4. Quiescence

certainly feel like they are (together) steering us deeper and deeper into an abyss of acrimonious ignorance.

Looking closely at the ever-increasing wealth gap, today it seems that growth within our unchecked capitalism is most frequently funneled right back to the wealthy; not necessarily or only because capitalism itself is unchecked, but partially because our bureaucracy is so incompetent and mostly because the wealthy have learned to take advantage of the aforementioned convoluted entanglement.

We have been warned.

In 1832 Andrew Jackson said,

“It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.”

In 1788, in Federalist No. 62, James Madison wrote,

“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood...
…Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?...
…Another effect of [this] public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uninformed mass of the people...
...This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.”

And 200 years later, in his book “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism” published in 1988, Friedrich Hayek (who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974) wrote,

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To the naïve mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order.”

Interestingly, Hayek, a contemporary, appears to give our leaders the benefit of the doubt by attributing their misdeeds to naïveté, whereas Jackson and Madison appear to foresee selfish manipulation. Either way, if most of us were able to see this for more than 100 years, and some of us were able to see this for 200 years, how is it that Progressives have not been able to see it since early in the 20th century, and neither Progressives or (so-called) Conservatives can see it today?

In this nation we have two parties from which to choose our leaders. The fact of only two parties is sad in and of itself, but it is a different problem from our most pressing challenge. Today our biggest problem is the similarity between the current versions of the two parties. Today our choices are 1) big government where the rich selfishly manipulate the system to get richer, or 2) big condescending, pretentious government where the individual loses autonomy and rights; vanilla or vanilla bean. So in actuality, in today's convoluted entanglement, this is not an either/or but instead a less/more choice.

We have big government and it looks nigh on impossible for us to extricate ourselves from this convoluted entanglement of growth, wealth, entitlement and quiescence that is endorsed and perpetuated by the inner entanglement of the rich and the powerful who have infiltrated and learned to bend and shape our government to their will.

So to find a truly effective middle road, we must first disentangle ourselves as individuals from big government. Big government is not the answer. As suggested by Friedrich Hayek, we must reduce government by decentralizing decisions, but to do this, we as individuals must somehow separate our self from entitlement and from quiescence. We must pay attention to our limited choices, listening carefully to what our factions are espousing and (at this sad moment of political reality) we must choose the lesser of the two evils. In this sad moment we will be unable to extricate ourselves from big government, so I believe we must choose the least divisive evil; we must choose the faction and the voice that will at least acknowledge the individual, no matter how misguided their efforts at granting individual autonomy.

By nature, I am conservative. Horrified by the direction and nature of conservatism in recent years, I have recently gone so far as to identify as a social democrat. Even more recently though, I have realized that this is inaccurate. By nature I have always been conservative, but with thoughtful consideration I now see that as a nation this perspective is no longer a choice. So I am forced to choose less divisiveness and live with more government, because I believe that will allow the individual a little more opportunity to disentangle him or herself from the entitlement and quiescence, which I believe is the first step toward individual autonomy.

To disentangle ourselves as a nation, we must first do so as individuals. And to do so as an individual, I must recognize and work to understand the balanced necessity of each and every individual; and I will never be able to do this as long as I am finding fault and blaming and accusing and pretending and going along for the ride down into our self-made abyss of acrimonious ignorance.

The middle road begins with the individual; and we as individuals must find our way before the middle completely disappears.

Twas the week before Christmas, when all through our nation

Impeachment was stirring, Presidential ablation

Amendments were hung by their necks with great care,

In hopes that our rights would soon run out of air;

High justice was nestled all snug in its branch,

While the other two Powers, enjoyed their carte blanche;

With Congress in its mischief, and Trump in his cap,

The judges and Senate were sharing a nap,

When up in my head there arose such a clatter

I sprang up to scream can't you see what's the matter!

Away to the bookshelf I flew like a flash,

Tore open my mind to expunge balderdash.

The words that addressed all the bluster and blow

Gave the lustre of mid-day to how we should know,

In front of my wondering eyes it was clear,

My Liberty’s why my government's here.

With an old Declaration, still lively and quick,

I knew We the People together should stick,

More rapid than eagles the Bill of Rights came,

And I whistled and shouted, and called them by name;

“Now Liberty! Now Safety! Now Grievance Redress!

On, Assembly! On, Religion! Free Speech and Free Press!

To the Rights I've not named! To Amendments unwrit!

To We People defamed and our leaders unfit!

As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,

Self-evident truths, askew and awry,

A government meant to secure and protect,

Now governs with ego, unmoved and unchecked.

And so, in this inkling, I've heard and discerned

Our Founder’s intent that today goes unlearned.

Worth saying again and again to be clear,

My Liberty's why my government's here!

Dressed in two parties, from his head to his foot,

Uncle Sam is now tarnished with ashes and soot;

A partisan bundle he's flung on his back,

And he looks like a swindler just opening his pack.

His guise – how it sparkles! His eyes though are scary!

His cheeks are so sallow, his nose is so hairy!

His droll little mouth is drawn up in a scowl,

The odor that's wafting is corruption most foul!

The stumps of our rights he holds tight in his teeth,

And the smokescreen encircles his head like a wreath;

He has a flat face and a distended belly,

That heaves when he breathes like petrified jelly.

From his pack he lays out an undignified spread

Of judges and lawmakers and agency heads;

A roll of his eyes and a scrunch of his neck,

Soon gave me to know Uncle Sam is a wreck;

He speaks and his minions go straight to their work,

Upholding bad laws and creating more murk,

One party's too much, the other's too little,

Both too pretentious, divisive and brittle.

Worth saying again, and again I will shout,

“You've got it backwards! Turned all inside out!

I wish you would listen! Here's my Christmas cheer!

My Liberty's why my government's here!”

But he’s covered his ears; to his team gives a whistle,

And away they all hide, with nose hairs abristle.

And I heard him exclaim, ere he dove out of sight,

"Happy Christmas to some, and to all a good-night."

Life is not fair. There will always be another who is better off than me; and even more who I perceive as better off than me. There will always be a circumstance that would improve my lot in Life; and many others where, from a distance, the grass appears to be greener. Some of us constantly move from one lot to another, and some of us settle down and make the best of it, and some of us give up and make the best of it, and some of us are perplexed by the thought that Life is not fair. …I am pondering the difference between settle down and give up and I am amazed by those who are perplexed.. But that is not where I want to go with this.

To acknowledge Life is not fair is to acknowledge nature; most specifically my nature. I will always want for something. Be it tangible, intangible, tangible leading to intangible, intangible leading to tangible, intangible leading to greater tangible, intangible leading to greater intangible, and on and on and on and on; I will always want for something.

I have moved now from Life is not fair to my nature is such that I will always want for something. Where to next? Perhaps acknowledgement that your nature is such that you will always want for something? Which (though seemingly a step backward) may lead me to the realization that you may also see Life as unfair. Will this realization lead to empathy? Or resentment? Competition? Respect? Duplicity? All of the above. And then some.

It feels now like I am no longer being led to a next logical step. It feels now like I am simply living; better for knowing that I am not the only one. To get hung up on a detail is to clump through heavy snow, head down against a biting wind. To deal with “all of the above and then some” is to run, (at times guardedly and at times with abandon), and feel the amercement of a gauntlet and the exhilaration of a marathon. To move past the fact of consciousness is to swim naked and free in the shallows and in the depths, coming up as necessary for air and sustenance and sunshine and to clothe my brazenness in modesty.

I am not the only one.

And because I am not the only one, I have to come up for air and sustenance and sunshine; and clothing. When I come up, I will come up to run; but on occasion I will find myself clumping through heavy snow. For me, the brazen exploration makes the detail bearable; and the detail makes the gauntlet preferable and the marathon worthwhile. And each time I come up, the experience makes the brazen exploration increasingly more brazen.

Moments stolen here and there. To see me reading or writing, deep in thought, one might not see risk and adventure, but I am there. To question everything – to doubt everything – to, each morning, start with nothing – no knowledge, no assumptions, no identity, no hope – and to spend the day searching for these things – that would be the ultimate in thrill-seeking freedom and adventure. But of course I am tied to my detail, and to the fact of my consciousness. So all I can do is glory in those stolen moments; here and there.

This is how it should be. Moments interrupted by a butterfly, or a speeding car, or a menial task, or a heart attack. Moments interrupted by Life. This is how it should be.

To get hung up, to move past, to acknowledge another, to live some moments, and to steal some others; this is how it should be.

And though it should be this partially because it is this, I believe part of “this” must be brazen exploration; or at least, exploration; even if only in the shallows, clothed in caution and constraint.

Details are not fair. The fact of consciousness is not fair. But I believe each one of us has opportunity to steal a few moments, here and there.

If I believe I am deserving, and if I believe I am good, and if I believe I am fulfilling a purpose, and if I believe strongly enough in belief, then nothing else matters.

Here is my response:

I don't believe I am any more deserving than any one of the other 7,748,096,046 individuals occupying this planet in this moment. And I believe goodness is measured by effort and actions and (sometimes) results, but never exclusively by a hopeful desire or longing for everything to be okay. And I believe that if my sole or (even) overriding purpose is to believe, then I am less deserving and I am nowhere near good.

To be clear, I believe one can be less deserving and nowhere near good in one regard but not necessarily so in others. For example, an individual who fervently believes that guns are good, (and makes it obvious that his or her sole purpose, in this specific regard, is to stand behind that belief regardless of disagreement or evidence to the contrary), is unlikely to work toward or contribute to an interdependent solution for the comparably inordinate number of firearm deaths in this country, because that effort will likely work against his or her belief. To this individual, nothing else, (including the accidental shooting deaths of children), matters. Another way to say this is, to this individual, nothing tangible matters more than his or her belief. So in this regard, in this world, when the belief is paramount, I maintain that the individual entangled in belief and emotion is less deserving than those making a reasoned effort toward tangible results; and if part of to-be-good is to-do-good, then the entangled individual is not good or, at the least, less good. Yet this same individual may be simultaneously leading an initiative to feed and house homeless people, thus doing much good in this different regard.

I want to break down and take a closer look at belief. The definitions below are mine.

• Tangible Belief: Belief that drives reasoned effort and actions toward tangible results that are good.
• Intangible Belief: Belief that requires significant effort to defend, maintain and/or periodically rejuvenate, thus lessening effort toward tangible results that are good. Intangible belief drives emotionally charged or tinged effort toward intangible and/or (fewer) tangible results that have greater potential for less good.
• Duplicitous Belief: Belief that drives effort and actions toward results that are favorable for the believer; often characterized by a sleight of hand or misdirection that claims selfless / benevolent intentions though reality is otherwise.
• Good: As a broad beginning and for purposes of this week's thought, Goodness is measured First, as reasoned efforts toward; or Second, as lack of infringement upon – Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Safety, Security, and the General Welfare or Well-Being of First, other individuals and Second, society.

I don't believe that good can cancel out bad. I believe that reasoned effort toward good is necessary in all regards. Any amount of Reliance on intangible belief, in even a single regard, diminishes all effort in all regards. I believe it does so because it distances one from the world, thus lessening the impact of other good they may contribute.

Additionally, effort that works exclusively, or even in part, to strengthen a belief becomes part of that belief. Though it may work toward tangible, (of this world), results, it is not the type of effort that moves one from less deserving to as deserving; and it is not the type of effort that leads one toward being good.

Belief, unsupported by reasoned effort and actions, is like a film or stage set filled with second-hand props and scenery, and bad actors who believe they can act.

Duplicitous belief is more complex than intangible belief because the believer is not only working to persuade and/or trick the skeptic or nonbeliever, but some (and perhaps many) believers are also working to fool him or her self. If I claim for example that guns are good for self defense and are a deterrent to crime and I truly believe this, but I am working as a lobbyist for a large gun manufacturer, then my efforts are duplicitous and because they have become part of my belief (no matter how strong my conviction), my belief is duplicitous.

Or, in a more complex example, if I claim that guns are good and the Founding Fathers intended this right through the Second Amendment which does clearly enumerate “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and I couple this with some anecdotal evidence to claim that we need more guns to protect us from all the criminals with guns, then my efforts are again duplicitous, (thus again creating duplicitous belief), because by picking and choosing my evidence I am working to strengthen my belief and convince myself that I am right and advocates of more stringent gun control laws are wrong; I do this selfishly, perhaps for the sake of my ego; or perhaps because I am afraid; or maybe I just like the feelings of power and the rush of testosterone I get when I fire 41 rounds in 4 seconds. I maintain this is selfish because if I were to make the effort to study and reason, I might come across some solid research that contradicts my handpicked anecdotal evidence. And I might come across the Supreme Court decision on the Pentagon Papers in 1971 in which the court acknowledged the tensions inherent in our Constitution; (in that specific example it was tensions between a free press and national security). In his 2010 commencement speech at Harvard, former Supreme Court Justice David Souter explains that “the Constitution has to be read as a whole, and when it is, other values crop up in potential conflict.” The conflict in my example is between “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and the right of the people to Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Safety, Security, and General Welfare or Well-Being. It cannot be emphasized enough: when rights conflict, we the People must choose. At what number of dead children will the right to Life eclipse the right to Bear Arms?

And of course the implications of this thought stretch far beyond the argument on gun control...

Worldwide, of those killed by firearms, 91 percent of the children under 14, 90 percent of the women, 92 percent of the 15 – 24 year olds, and 82 percent of all victims, were killed in the United States. This is according to a study published in 2015 in the American Journal of Medicine that included the following 25 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom (England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland) and the United States.

I am shocked. I am embarrassed. I am angry.

I don't want to rehash previous thoughts on gun control. But I do want to explore connections. What does this say about us as a country? Is there a common thread that stretches, (beyond our inability to understand the danger inherent in our negligent, nearly nonexistent gun laws), and helps to explain our inability to understand reality across multiple spectrums?

Regardless of evidence to the contrary, those who fervently believe that guns are good also believe that those who disagree are wrong. I believe the common thread is fervent belief. Too many in this country take a stand for a fervent belief and will not move away from that desperate entrenchment for fear of showing weakness; for fear of being left behind; for fear of being left out; for fear of change; for fear of progress; for fear of being wrong; for fear of losing faith. Reason does not stand a chance against ardent, devout, impassioned, emotional, heartfelt, devoted certainty; no matter how ignorant that certainty may be.

I may have angered some with the word “ignorant” above. If so, and you're still reading (or listening), then that's okay. I want a reaction. In fairness, ignorance for me is defined as not knowing and/or incapable of knowing. And a large part of this week's thought revolves around a recognition of the inevitability of individual ignorance. I don't know far, far more than what I do know, and what I do know I am not sure of. Those who fervently believe would likely fervently disagree, especially with the second part of that statement. Stop for a moment, choose a personal belief, and ask yourself if you can say these words about that belief: “What I do know, I am not sure of.” When a belief becomes an unyielding conviction, the individual becomes a quiescent and condescending guardian of a possible truth perceived as The Truth. Constant questioning tests and strengthens faith.

And this is supported by the definition of belief: “confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.” Why are we so afraid of rigorous proof? Why are we so afraid to be skeptical? To ask questions? To admit to uncertainty? Amongst all the believers, I don't know how to choose. Amongst all the options, I don't know what is best. Amongst all the disagreement, I don't know why it must be so divisive. Amongst all the factions, I don't know who is right. I do know what I believe in this moment but I don't know if it is what I will believe in the next moment. Without rigorous proof I will constantly, in each moment, question myself and question my beliefs. I will listen to and study differing opinions. I will defer to rigorous proof from those I believe (in this moment) to have more expertise than what I possess. I will continue to raise my personal standards for rigorous proof. I will know that I don't know, and even then, I will question that. Some would call this indecisive, cowardly, weak and/or ineffective. I call this a recognition of reality and a desire for interdependent learning and progress. Immovable, unchanging certainty will only keep us where we are at. And as I look around, where we are at is not a very nice place.

I have talked to fervent believers who agree it is not a very nice place; but rather than work together to learn and change and progress and survive, according to the overbearing and unsympathetic judgement of a fervent believer, it would be a much nicer place if we would all just drink the kool-aid.