Money is make-believe. I mean this sincerely, particularly in situations where it is used as the basis for decisions that hold people down and keep them from or strip them of the basic requirements of life, like food and shelter.
I also recognize that the “prosperity for all” aspect of this position at least approaches a socialist view. That doesn’t make the position wrong, or me a socialist. Deal with it.
I’m not advocating socialism, nor completely siding against capitalism. I’m saying that there exists some basic quality of life to which all men ought be naturally entitled, and that meeting that need might require finding a middle ground between the extremes.
I’m saying that it is morally repugnant, for instance, that veterans who have defended these liberties “we hold so dear” are left to panhandle, while some blonde tramp lives large because she manages not to flutter her lazy eye too much while exercising her only marketable skill – “That’s hawt.“
Or maybe it’s because she was born into a family fortune. I’m just saying that, perhaps, such a station in life should be earned rather than be dictated by happenstance. If fortune and luxury are a birthright, are we really so much better than a feudalistic aristocracy?
At this point, everybody in my reading audience with even a single conservative nerve fiber in their body is champing at the bit. The vile spectres are raised – redistribution of wealth, state ownership, censorship, government control, burdensome regulation. I know, I’ve heard the arguments. I’ve made some of these arguments. You want to know why? Because they’re all valid concerns.
That does not make status quo the correct choice. My concerns about class disparity are valid, too. It is not enough to embrace one evil for fear of another. We should seek what is good in each argument, discard what is not, and attempt to build a system that is of benefit to all.
To that end, I’ll now field some imaginary Frequently Asked Questions.
Q: How do you propose to fund this “basic equity for all” you suggest?
A: Money is a make-believe score keeping system, remember?
Q: Dude, seriously.
A: OK, fine. If one needs money, one must go where the money is. In the US, the top 1% of the population control 38% of the wealth (and the top 10% control 71%), while the bottom 40% of the population control less than 1% of the wealth. So… we go squeeze the top 1-10%. What amounts to a minor discomfort to those few, but results in major quality of life improvements to many, seems acceptable.
Q: AHA! Socialist! Wealth redistributor! Damn dirty commie! And what’s this “in the US” crap? I thought you didn’t believe in borders! Where’s your birth certificate?!? Have you even read this bill?!?
A: Dude. Seriously.
Q: Sorry.
A: It happens. Care to try that again in the form of a question?
Q: Erm…. OK, who are you to decide how much squeezing is “a minor discomfort”?
A: Me? I’m nobody. But I’m not making that decision, either, I’m just throwing stones at windows. Socio-economic policy is ultimately decided by large groups of people much higher up the food chain than I. Historically, those decisions are made by that 1% for as long as they can keep the bottom 40% from changing minds with pointy sticks… which often causes something more than “minor” discomfort. Just saying.
Q: Wealth is the reward for hard work and success! Why would you punish the people who are working the hardest to prop up those who do the least?
A: A lot of “those who do the least” are people who have been laid off to improve the bottom line of “those who work the hardest”. Real hardships inflicted in the pursuit of money. I go back to that $38,000,000 bank CEO. A month of his salary would completely feed 240 families of 4 (probably more) for an entire year, and he would still be left with more money than I’d make in a millennium – and I dare say the laborers who get laid off in these sort of economic times work a hell of a lot harder than that CEO on a golf course.
Q: The ultimate goal of socialism is to have us all equal in poverty.
A: That’s not really a question, but I’ll field it anyway. I’m not a socialist, I am not advocating socialism. I want you to go forth and prosper. Live large, make mad money. Go to a golf course and call it work. I don’t care, and I don’t want to take that from you. All I’m saying is needs before wants. You can’t buy a keg for the party until you’ve paid your bills. In this context, meeting the basic needs of its citizens is one of the duties of society. If ensuring that families have homes and food means you have to wait a few more months to get another gold-plated Ferrari or private jet, I’m OK with that.
Q: Wow – that was awful snarky, wasn’t it?
A: I’m a snarky kind of guy.
Q: Don’t we already do these things?
A: No.
Q: I mean, there are shelters and soup kitchens and compulsory emergency medical treatment and…
A: NO!
Q: Aren’t these things best left to charitable organizations?
A: Basic needs are not an issue of charity, but of responsibility. Food and shelter and basic medical care are needs. Leave Angel Tree to the charities.
There are more bodies that need beds than there are beds in the shelters. There are more people that need food than there is soup in the kitchen. Economic downturns hurt us all, and it is at these times when “charity” would be needed the most that people can least afford to give, and the coffers suffer.
Q: OK, but medical. Why medical? Aren’t the emergency rooms obligated to treat everybody regardless of ability to pay?
A: There are many problems with this, starting with – how do you think the ER pays for this? If Joe doesn’t pay, his bill gets absorbed in higher cost to everybody else. We’re already paying for Joe’s care, and at the highest possible rates, and for the least benefit.
Healthy people don’t go to the ER, and the ER’s only obligation when discharging you is to have patched you up enough that you aren’t in imminent danger of death. To quote a Disney parrot – “You’d be surprised what you can live through.” And this sort of policy doesn’t do anything to address chronic needs or ongoing care, like diabetes and cancer. It treats immediate health threats, but leaves you days and weeks at a time to spiral toward death.
Better in terms of both health and cost to offer basic health maintenance than clog the emergency channels.
Q: If we are compelled to meet a person’s basic needs no matter what, what incentive does he have to do anything useful, at all, ever?
A: This is an excellent question. I’d like to hope that one would aspire to something higher than bare sustenance, but the conditions of the current welfare system seem to indicate otherwise. In short, I don’t know. I don’t have a good answer for this. I wish I did.
That kinda taps me at the moment. I know there are other questions, but they aren’t coming to mind at the moment, so I’ll leave it at this.
If you’d like me to answer actual questions, feel free to drop me a comment!
Meet the Furback, economy, philosophy
economy, health care, money, snarky
