Quick Hits: 10/24
CMK on October 24th, 2008
Have a great weekend everybody! Here’s some fun and challenging stuff I ran into this week.
* Bono gave a sweet speech this week. It’s been awhile since I’ve heard from him, but it’s always good. Check out some highlights here: h/t The One Campaign
* The gap between the rich and the poor keeps getting bigger. And it’s a bad idea to share the wealth a bit? h/t PsyAct
* With the election around the corner, Christians are weighing in from different perspectives. My dad sent me this imaginative letter from Focus on the Family, but I align more with Jim Wallis’ perspective.
* Finally, one of my Psychologist heroes spoke at TED a few years back, and the talk was posted this week. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (try pronouncing that!) has some great things to say about happiness and the concept of flow. You can watch his talk below:
October 24th, 2008 at 8:46 am
So, my question:
Is it “sharing” if it’s forced?
October 24th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Great question, Todd. I would suggest that in every community there are terms by which the resources are cycled and shared. When these resources are hoarded to the detriment of members of the community, some regulation needs to take place to ensure that resources cycle effectively or the community itself will break down. Perhaps the questions are how this is done and by whom.
I would suggest that we are all responsible for this as individuals and micro-communities. We have tremendous power to share the wealth (we tend to consider wealth in financial terms, but there are numerous non-monetary resources we share as well) and create equity. However, in our system of government we have relegated authority to elected officials to create public policy and set these rules for us. With such authority, public policy must set guidelines to aid the cycling of these resources effectively. Now, we can debate whether this is better done a government level or as micro-communities, but our current system places the perceived loucs of control with the government. I’d be happy to brainstorm how we change that perception.
But, back to your original question. Sharing has to be forced to some degree. Just as I expect and require Ester to share toys with Justice, so we must expect the same from members of our communities. Of course, my desire is that Ester will begin to develop the character by which she does this out of the goodness of her heart. But, my hypothesis is that this character only develops after she has been trained in the right way and forced to share her toys or face the dreaded time out!
What do you think?
October 24th, 2008 at 11:45 am
[...] post is inspired by a conversation started over at Chris Kirk’s blog. Check it [...]
October 24th, 2008 at 11:46 am
I don’t think that the government should view itself, nor should we view it, as a parent. I don’t think that the punishments the government hands to successful people will help them develop more generous character.
I think forced sharing isn’t actually sharing at all. Sharing has to be a conscious decision of the individual with to give to the individual without.
October 24th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
So, let’s think of this. If we both agree that resources must be shared for the community/society to exist, than the issue is with the method by which these resources are cycled. You seem to suggest that the government should take a backseat, relying on the goodness of hearts to make these decisions. You would probably argue that the best thing we could do is to cut taxes, particularly on high-finallcially-resources folks, because then they will want to generously open their wallets.
While I’m often accused on this blog of being an idealist, I think you have me beat on this one, Todd. It seems to me that the data does not back up your point. As prosperity has increased and taxes been lowered during the last 8 years, we have seen the gap between the rich and the poor (and the rich and the middle class) increase. Why are we not seeing this abundant sharing from the top?
Now, you make a good point. Should the government enforce sharing by taxation initiated, collected, and distributed by politicians in Washington D.C.? I am quite sure we could think up a better way of doing this than that. I’d prefer that we sit down within our own communities and work agreements out that way. Even then, some sort of governance must ensure that all parties get to the table and that typically unheard and underrepresented voices have equal footing.
Finally, let me suggest that when talking of resources in a broader term than dollars we can consider what everyone has to offer. I believe that the poorest of poor in this country have a great deal to offer us all, yet our GDP-focussed insanity prevents us from seeing it. One of the tragic breakdowns of our communities continues to be this separation between the haves and have-nots, between the rich and the poor. As that gap widens, we all lose out, and eventually our society will crumble.
October 26th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Chris, you seem to keep thinking that being an idealist is a bad thing. It’s not. The world needs idealists to challenge us pessimists into thinking outside the box. So don’t be offended. It’s a good thing.
I would like to point out that Jim Wallis said in point #2 that, “we can insist on one who views military force only as a very last resort, when all other diplomatic and economic measures have failed.” Hmm… sounds familiar. At least someone agrees with me.
I really liked his article though, thanks for sharing.
Regarding “forced” sharing, I agree with you, Chris. I think for some reason, the more money someone has, the less generous they are with it. I don’t know why that is. It seems backwards to me. But the most generous people I know are the ones who don’t have the resources to give, but do it anyway. Generosity has more to do with a person’s heart than the balance of their checking account. Putting more money in their checking account will not change their heart.
Furthermore, it is my observation that simply throwing money at the problem doesn’t fix it. This is where we need government to step in, pool our money together, and create programs to help people. (And we cross our fingers that they actually work.) An individual doesn’t have the power do make a difference on such a large scale. So, we ask government to help us work together. And we ask by voting.
That reminds me, I need to mail my ballot. I cannot forget to do that!
October 26th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I just watched the Csikszentmihalyi speech. It was really cool to see that from a more scientific standpoint. I have experienced that same kind of ecstasy/flow that he talks about. Recently, in fact. Like today.
I was thinking of it more from a spiritual standpoint. When you can learn to get rid of your sense of self, the things you worry about, a sort of peace falls over you. And that allows something (a higher power, perhaps) to work through you, without you having to think about it. My best work is done in that state of mind.
I would argue that anyone can produce that state of mind through discipline and practice. My discipline is my “morning pages.” I do three pages of free-writing every morning. I just dump everything that’s in my brain onto the paper. That, in turn, leaves me empty an open to new, creative ideas. When I can maintain that state of mind, I can go write a song, a play, paint a picture, etc. And then I’m truly satisfied with my work.
I completely disagree that you need 10 years of experience before you can be any good at it. I have about three months practice, and I think I’m getting the hang of it.
October 28th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Chris,
You say you think we should redistribute all of our assets. I am curious are you willing to take whatever grades you get in the classes you are taking and let them be redistributed through the class so everything is fair for everyone. Let’s say you work really hard and study everything in a section (which I assume you actually do). Are you prepared to share your A so you have a C and the guy or girl who just went and partied and got an F can have a C too. Then everything would be FAIR.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:18 am
I love it. Good analogy. If my goal was equality of outcome, then your illustration would make sense. Yet, I don’t advocate for socialism as a philosophy, rather for the creation a sustainable world. Thus, I would not argue for the simple redistribution of grades along the lines you describe.
However, what if the grades I receive are based not only due to my diligence in studying, but due to other factors which have given me an advantage. For example, what if I had a deaf person in my class? I would possibly have an advantage in that I could hear the instructor. Should we not provide interpretation to level the playing field between the deaf and the hearing? Of course, we should and do.
Fariness is not giving an equal outcome (i.e. grades or money), but rather an equal opportunity. Individual choice will still determine outcomes. However, it is important to give everyone a fair chance.
In a country where the income gap is widening and opportunity is not equal for all, we need to establish mechanisms by which these resources are distributed throughout the community.
October 28th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
How does simply taking money from the “RICH” and giving it to the poor, through programs “tax cuts” or just a regular welfare check, really give them more opportuniy?
Also, How do you insentivise the rich to continue to work as hard if they are going to lose a bigger percent the more they make? As long as I give a quarter of the effort I get to keep more of my money.
This redistribution idea is what caused the USSR and China to be so poor. Those who are capable will slow there productivity until there is nothing to take from anyone and all are equally poor. I would dare to say that, other than kids, there is no excuse for anyone to be impoverished in America. Even the poverty of children is born from the choice of a parent. If a person is willing to try and work and give every effort they have they can make plenty of money to live on. (Speaking as one who fully qualifies for government assistance, but works eery day because I refuse to be a drain on society.) If you are uncapable of working, then there are government as well as private programs that will take care of your basic needs, from food to clothes to owning a house even.
What is your proposal do deal with the lazy who just want to sit back and get something for nothing?
October 28th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
We have to stop blaming the victim, JT. I still twitch when you make comments like “There is no excuse for anyone to be impoverished in America.” While I certainly agree that America is a land of tremendous opportunity (in part created by the type of government assistance you despise) and while I certainly do not wish to abdicate individuals from responsiblity, we cannot ignore the societal factors which create inequity and limit opportunity. Perhaps you deny that these exist, but it is well-documented that women continue to receive less pay for equal work, the effects of slavery and racism still affect minorities in this country, and that children in the foster care system have less opportunity to attend college and pursue a fruitful life. While many individuals within each of these situations have risen beyond the bounds of these societal ills, the odds are still stacked against them. The question is: Why should it be that way?
It shouldn’t. Thus, the role of public policy is to assist in creating equitable conditions for all members of society. Now, you raise a good point about human ambition. On the one hand, you posit that wealthy people will not work hard if they are taxed more because they will want to keep a lower tax base. On the other hand, you suggest that most of the recipients of this money (in Barack Obama’s plan it would be all those poor folks making under $250,000 a year), are simply lazy, sitting back and trying to get something for nothing. I wonder why motivation is essential for one group, but not for the other? I would suggest that rich people make money because they a) have opportunity to do so and b) like money and the benefits thereof. Could it be that many of the poor do not follow that same track because they do not have said opportunity and thus cannot experience those benefits?
Having said that, I suggest that we sit down as communities: the rich and the poor, the powerful and the empowered, the young and the old, and discuss what resources we have and how they should be shared. Then, we could hear the voices of those we don’t listen to–those we assume are just lazy or just greedy. Then, we can commit together to make equity happen.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:53 am
First to say I am blaming the victim is ridiculous. I am only blaming the people who have the ability to work but won’t. I’m not saying that everyone has the ability to be a doctor or lawyer, but that everyone has the opportunity to go work at a McDonalds, Wal-Mart, or Home Depot. These may not be high paying glamorous jobs but they are still jobs that will pay the bills.
I agree there may still be progress that needs to be made in the area of equal pay and some race issue. However, it is also documented that women are not willing to fight for pay the same way men are. I don’t know of anywhere but I am sure there are a few places that will not hire someone because of whatever race that person might be, but there are more than enough places that hire every one to make that a moot point.
You said that “many individuals within each of these situations have risen beyond the bounds of these societal ills” That is exactly what I am saying. As long as people are willing to put their head down and try they can over come their “life situation”. I have no desire for anyone to be held down. Rather I simply understand that LIFE is not FAIR, nor should it be. The only way to make it fair is if every person is given the exact same amount and made to do the exact same things. If we go there then we lose everything this country stands for. We lose all freedom.
You asked “Why should it be that way?” The answer is simply one word FREEDOM. Freedom leads to unequal starting points because some people are lazy, stupid, or invalid and others are very gifted or driven. Those who are gifted or driven should not be punished because of the lazy and stupid people. It is not necessarily a person’s fault if they are stupid but just being slow doesn’t mean they are not capable of working hard and earning a living. As for the invalid I do think we should take care of them. I support having aid for people who are unable to work however, this does not mean people who simply won’t work because it is too hard.
As for your next point Obama has now changed it to $200,000 and Biden has said $150,000. Next will be $100,000 and then we are getting way to close to the $50,000 average household income. I would say that a majority of the people who will receive that money are people who are fully capable of working a job and supporting themselves. However, we now come to another major flaw in the Welfare State. The current system actually punishes those people who actually begin to get ahead. If you “accidentally” make too much money you lose all you assistance and may be sent a bill to pay some back. This is wrong. If we are going to give a person a leg up to get back on their feet (I don’t really have a problem with this I just think that private interests and churches could do it better than the government) then it needs to be a more incremental system that actually rewards a person for making more money and being able to support themselves. I’m not entirely sure how this can be done but I know it is possible.
As for the motives of people you are absolutely right the rich become rich because of their opportunities that they take advantage of, and they like to have the money. This seems the same reason that the poor are screaming that they need to receive the redistribution it seems to me that the poor are trying to gain some of the money that the rich have, so the poor can “like the money and benefits there of.” I would rather see work for assistance and training schools for helping the unskilled learn trades to be able to work.
October 29th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
JT, two things. Mostly because I don’t have the patience to argue with everything.
If you think the reason women don’t receive equal pay for equal work is because we’re not willing to speak up, then you need to come work at Washington Federal. Discrimination still exists with a vengence. I didn’t believe it either until I saw it. And believe me, I speak up plenty, but then they just pass it off as a whiny woman. She must be on her period. I kid you not. It’s bullshit but it’s the way the world works.
Second, if the church and private interest could help people better than the government, why don’t they?
October 30th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Jillian,
First you can always find some company who will be backwards and descriminatory. That does not make it the standard. I know there is a pay gap between men and women, but it is up to each person to negotiate what they are willing to work for. Women are GENERALLY less agressive than men in pursuing better pay. That makes up a large part of the gender pay gap. It may not fix the whole problem but it will help a lot. Again this is a result of FREEDOM. An employer is free to choose how much any given employee is worth. We can try to legislate morality and fairness but there are already laws requiring equal pay and we still have an income gap. Short of government mandated salaries, raises, and benefits, there will always be some sort of unfair pay gap between people. I believe that what it comes down to is, are you satisfied with what your paid for the work you do? If yes, then don’t worry what someone else makes. If no, start working to change that whether you have to fight harder for a raise or look for a new job.
Your second question seems very ignorant. I am not trying to be insulting, but if you just look around you will see the Church and private interests providing aid all the time. So, I’m not sure what you mean by why don’t they.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:07 am
You do make a wise point about freedom, JT. We cannot completely mandate fairness from a governmental level. But freedom is only one side of the coin. Freedom is not the ultimate end for which we aspire, just one aspect which in important in creating the community we long for.
You simply cannot continue to minimize the issues facing marginalized groups when you are a white, male, born on the back of privilige. You cannot possibly hear how horrible it sounds for you to say that “they” don’t have it so bad. How do you know, and what gives you the right to presume as much?
I don’t think Jill’s question was in the slightest ignorant. If the church is best at providing aid, given that we have a profilferation of churches in this country, why is our world not a better place? Why are 47 million uninsured? Why do so many live in poverty? Would the world be worse off without the church’s contribution, most certainly, but can we say that the church has accomplished more than governmental programs like SCHIP (Insurance for Children) or Social Security for the eldery? It would be a stretch to make such a claim.
Now, I would suggest that the reason church and private interests do not do more is not for a lack of concern. It is a false ideology, the one you seem to be espousing here, that those who struggle are lazy and it is their own damn fault. If I can believe that, then why should I give at all?
October 30th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
You are right I am minimizing the circumstances that CAPABLE people are in. That is because I myself face “dire” circumstances. I have a disease that allows me to be on every form of public assistance but I refuse to be beaten by my disease. I work every day to make a contribution to the economy and not be a burden to others. I have missed out on and been out right rejected for jobs simply because of my disease yet I am still working. The job I have now, though I am grateful for it and enjoy it, is not the job I went to college for or where I thought I would be at this point, but again I keep working any way. I also have family who, as you would say, was “born on the back of privilege (sp)”. They have faced difficult situations and rough times, but are fully capable of working. However, due to laziness they don’t work at all and expect a paycheck from Uncle Sam Taxpayer each month.
So I say “they” meaning people who are capable of working but simply refuse to do it.
As for the Church not making the world a better place, you answer your own question. “Would the world be worse off without the church’s contribution, most certainly”. Also the government has tied the hands of churches and private interests in many areas.
As far as Social Security (SS) and SCHIP, the Church and private programs offer plenty of options to take the place of these programs. A few might be food pantries, financial planning, coat closets, free health clinics, reduced price drugs (every major drug company I know of offer a plan to assist those who can’t afford necessary medicine), temporary housing, homeless shelters, shelters for battered women, and many other things. I know many Christian business owners who give discounts for people from their churches. And a couple of weeks ago a group of guys from our church helped roof a ladies house so she didn’t have to pay roofer. Considering this I would say YES, the Church and private programs do offer comparable programs to SCHIP and SS.
The reason I would suggest that more people don’t take advantage of the programs offered by the churches and private sector is because too many people have come to depend on Uncle Sam Taxpayer’s wallet. Also we have an epidemic of people who think too much of themselves and are willing to damn themselves and their kids because of their cursed PRIDE.
It is not a false ideology that causes the belief that people are responsible for and in charge of their choices. I want to help as many people as I can, I just don’t want to force help on them. Also, I don’t think it is right for those who are capable not to have to do some work in the process. I guess that if you want to put it closer to your terms it would be that…for those who are capable but too lazy to try, it is their “own damn fault.” As for those who are not capable of working to support themselves, I will say again I fully want to take care of them. I think it is our job both in the Church and as a society to take care of the incapable. In fact I have no problem paying taxes so the government can support it. (I bet that just blew your mind.) I’m not some hard hearted jerk that doesn’t care about anyone who isn’t working 60 hours a week. I just don’t think it is the responsibility of the government to tax us to take care of the lazy.
I give because I chose to follow Jesus Christ who taught us to give. It is a product of my desire to follow his teachings and have a personal relationship with him. It is only because of that relationship that I have any desire to think of others. It is part of the nature of man to be selfish. I am not perfect and probably don’t give as much as I should, but I try and I’m constantly growing as a person.
October 30th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I forgot to say that your 47 million uninsured includes 12 million illegal aliens. (Barack forgets to mention that in all his speeches too.) Of course they are uninsured, they are here illegally; but that’s a whole different debate.
October 30th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I don’t want to argue about specifics because I don’t think that would be of any interest to us. It would be interesting to see data on contributions from faith communities versus contributions from government. I’ve yet to see such data, so all I could offer are suppositions.
However, I would like to respond to this idea of responsiblity of the capable. I totally agree that we should encourage, teach, and require appropriate levels of responsiblity to be taken by all members of society. However, capability is quite subjective. Obviously you have overcome a great deal and are a highly motivated, capable individual. But, it would be wrong to assume that every person in the world having the same condition you have will be able to do the same.
October 30th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
You seem to like to twist words. I never said that all people with my condition could do the things I do. However, I do think that all people who don’t have a diagnosable disease or demonstrable condition should be working, or not getting assistance.
It seems to me that you are, for some reason, scared to call a duck a duck and say there are people who are just plain LAZY.
I still believe that we should take care of the incapable. I don’t believe that just because someone can’t earn as much as a lawyer or accountant they need to get assistance. People need to make sure they are budgeting what they have and being smart with their money.
I also think we need to have a progressive form of assistance. Just an example, if I were to have to go on disability I have to make less than $800 dollars a month for 6 months before I will be considered. Then if I accidentally make $801 one month I lose all assistance I have been getting and start the 6 month period over. How is that going to encourage anyone to possibly get better? I know this is a side note but this shows how the government programs work; not very encouraging to ambition.
As for determining what people with potentially debilitating diseases are capable I’m not sure how to decide that but as I said I don’t really mind taking care of people who have evident problems.
It seems to me we have a different understanding of what standard we need to hold people up to. I think we can expect more out of more people despite their circumstances. It seems to me you are saying that life’s circumstances are acceptable excuses for not trying. Help me to understand if I’m miss understanding you.
October 31st, 2008 at 6:40 am
I totally agree with you in that we can find better ways of giving help, and I don’t disagree with your previous assertion that more of this should be done by individuals, neighborhods, and faith communities. I’m an advocate for empowerment of communities from the bottom up.
However, where I have difficulty is with the swiftness as which you are willing to write off a large group of people as lazy without accounting for societal factors which may be affecting them. Just because you know what it is like to overcome a disease, does not mean that you understand what it is like to be black, to be a woman, to have a family history of addiction, etc. Is there a place in time to look someone in the eye and say, “You’re lazy”? Yes, but only in the context of relationship. It is unfair to do so arbitrarily.
November 1st, 2008 at 9:21 am
Under your plan what standard would you use to determine a person’s need? How do you, as the situationally unrelated giver, decide who gets assistance and who doesn’t?
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:43 am
Good question. I would suggest that resources are shared at the lowest possible level, maximizing the opportunity for relationship and community collaboration in sharing. I would prefer this happen on a micro-level in neighborhoods and localities rather than from a top-down federal approach. However, since we have set up our country with such an emphasis on the Federal, we should not fail to help others from that viewpoint. Instead, we should start a grassroots campaign to empower all people to take action, brining the locus of control frm Washington to Wichita (or whatever locality you choose)
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:13 am
Chris,
You should be a politician. That answer initially sounds good to anyone. But when you really think about it, it’s so vague that it leaves room for any kind of policy.
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:38 am
a) I’m not trying to run for office nor develop extensive policies at this point. We’re talking philosophically.
b) I think vagueness is actually important because what works for one community or population may not work for another. JT has raised some points about the arbitrariness of certain income requirements. These are made from lofty seats in Washington. I’m proposing that rather we make these decisions on a smaller level. The cookie-cutter approach does not work.
November 3rd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I am glad that you have now come around to my view.
“I would suggest that resources are shared at the lowest possible level, maximizing the opportunity for relationship and community collaboration in sharing. I would prefer this happen on a micro-level in neighborhoods and localities rather than from a top-down federal approach.”
As I have said I fully expect that we should take care of those in need. The only way for this to happen is for aid programs to be turned over to the churches and other private interests. Only the churches and local programs can have a relationship with the people seeking aid.
I also hope you will follow through with this view point tomorrow as you cast your vote. You can vote for Barack, as you have said, and promote these arbritrary rules or you can vote for McCain who wants to increase the funds to churches and other private groups who help the needy.
Vagueness is what allows people to gain the lofty seats in Washington to make these decisions. People are willing to trust that this “smarter” person will do what’s right for me. Constituants hear the things they want from a canidate and tend to ignore the other things. We need to take a good look at all the policies a canidate stands for, as well as what they have done before, before we chose who we like.
We are at a very interesting time in history when we have more information at our fingertips than our ancestors could ever imagine. Yet the majority of the country still believe that Republicans are in charge of congress. Too many people are uninformed and passionate about it.
November 3rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Whoa, JT. I have not come over to the dark side just yet, my friend. While we may agree, in theory, that resources could be shared better on micro-levels, we still are miles apart on the idea of actually helping people. If I recall, you’re the one who thinks poverty is the result of laziness, ignoring the othter factors.
Now, while much of resource sharing can be done at a local level, there is also much which must be done on a national level. For example, Exxon Mobil again set a record for profits last quarter. Coporate greed is a national problem which should be taken on by the federal governement. Now, of course, we all have the opportunity to combat corporate greed by choosing where we shop and what we buy, but government must act to protect our interests.
I think we can agree that we should have a more informed, engaged electorate. This is why I cast my vote last Thursday for Barack Obama. John McCain cannot and will not inspire a nation to move in a new direction. I believe that Barack Obama can, and I hope to God he will. We don’t need more of the same. We need to do something better together.
But, no president can do that for us. What are we, you and me, going to do to move our country forward? Any suggestions?
November 3rd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I will first continue to pray pray pray. Until tomorrow night I wll pray that Obama does not win.
Agian you are trying to distort my opinion. I believe that in America the majority of poverty could be over come by hard work and better decision making. I DO NOT!!!! blame anyone who has a condition they cannot help. I also believe we should help the needy, through training, expectations, finances, food and many other services. This is what I am talking about “hearing only what you want to hear.” And I’m not even a politician.
As you said Obama will bring change. The problem with change from Obama is that a lot of his change goes against my religious beliefs. Also his call to Socialism is completely UNAMERICAN. That’s right I said it…UNAMERICAN. Though I do wish that every person gave as much as possible to the needy, I have a deep rooted belief, religious and governmental, that each person is FREE to chose to do as they will. I have no more right to MAKE everyone give than to MAKE everyone attend any certain church or belong to a certain religion. I think this is where we diverge. It seems to me that it is your desire to impose your will to help people, those you deem needy, on all other Americans. This is not American thought or Christian thought.
Unfortunately, this freedom is what allows Americans to make what I consider a very bad choice to vote for the first Communist/Socialist president in Barack Obama.