We can’t have nice things. Seriously, we just aren’t ready to handle them yet. We aren’t… mature enough, collectively. For the first 174 years of electing Presidents, we had one impeachment, and, a grand total of three Presidents who failed to secure a second term. We elected a cripple, a bunch of bald guys, a couple fat guys, and even an ugly, crotchety looking, old mug like Martin Van Buren.
Martin Van Buren, in all his splendor.
Then, in 1960, something changed. We started televising Presidential Debates. In the intervening 51 years, we have had two of our nations three impeachments, three of our nations six one term Presidents, two celebrity Presidents, and a peanut farmer. Of the five Presidents who immediately preceded the first televised debate, three were bald, one was crippled and one had the worst five head of all time. Now, I’m not saying that things would be perfect if we couldn’t see the candidates in advance, but, I am saying that, since the televised debate became a thing, the qualifications for the position of, “leader of the free world,” appear to amount to something much more superficial in nature. In short, it has become a beauty pageant! A nice head of hair, broad shoulders, and, a height advantage seem to be all the substance that one requires to secure the office, and, the results are uglier than the candidates. So far, I have only offered anecdotal evidence, but, a 2009 study showed that 5 year old Swiss kids could pic the winner of French Parliamentary Elections, based only on a picture. People could predict the winners of an election by watching video of a debate… with the TV muted. Those aren’t positive indicators of our ability to pick a candidate based on their political platform. As long as we are able to see their faces, and, for as long as the TV Debate exists, the Martin Van Burens of the world don’t have a chance.
On the American Left, there are calls for Democratic Socialism. On the American Right, there are calls for less regulation and reduced taxation. However, there is a common thread which seems to be lost on most of us, as we engage in this debate: there is a massive flaw, which runs through each of these forms of government, and, it is such a fatal flaw, that it should disabuse us all of the notion that any existing ideological framework is able to satisfactorily address societal ills. In Communism, (which is, after all, the endgame of Socialism), everyone must contribute, and, will receive an equal measure, from the government, which owns everything. Everyone is worth only what they can contribute. The disabled don’t fit into that rubric. While we can say how “things would be different,” if communism was put in place in some country wherein it has not previously been employed, the track record is not good for the Communists, on this point, and, it is nearly identical for the Socialists. The reality has always been a life of poverty, hunger, and, institutionalization, at best. At worst, they were just “eliminated,” as was the case in Nazi Germany, which was a Nationalist-Socialist government. But, what about in Capitalism? It is true that American Capitalism does not summarily execute, or institutionalize the mentally, or physically, handicapped. However, they are often left in the societal dust, at best. In those areas that our nation has gotten better at providing care and services to these people, it has only been with the very misguided criticism that these are “socialist” policies. Too often, however, American Capitalism has been content to allow anyone who couldn’t keep up to rot in the gutter, so long as the gutter is at least one town over, otherwise, expect to have whatever shelter you’ve created razed, in an effort to convey just how unwelcome the sight of your suffering is, among those who could keep up.
The reality is that, none of these three forms of government, makes any room for someone who can’t produce goods or services valued by the market. Value is construed only as a financial benefit rendered, or the quantity of goods produced. It is only when we step outside of the ideological framework of capitalism, that we have the freedom to provide services and care for the marginalized. Now, since I dismiss Socialism and Communism as failed ideas, based more on utopian wishful thinking than grounded in reality (and I support this dismissal with the fact that even nations who have maintained Communist governments on the whole, have abandoned Communist economic policies – see China; Vietnam), I will focus on how this manifests itself in Capitalism.
Before I go any further, I want to be clear that I value the people who fall into any category. I believe all lives have significant value and worth. When I recently read an article which quoted Warren Buffet as pointing out that, it isn’t that evaluating the worth of corporations is the most meaningful skill in life, it just happens to be one which results in the accumulation of great wealth, I was moved to tears. Not because the idea of great wealth gets me all choked up, but, because of what Buffet was trying to convey: there are far more important societal contributions than wealth generation; they just happen not to be as highlighted in the media because they are much more difficult to quantify, and, also the part where they don’t generate money. Human beings have an intrinsic worth, regardless of their intellect, trade, or their physical or mental acuity. It is for these reasons, that I write.
So, the defenders of American Capitalism – usually Republicans, sing the praises of a system in which a man can rise above his beginnings, to the heights of success, using only his work ethic, and ingenuity. Herein lies the problem: We don’t all start from the same starting point, and, with the same tools. The Capitalist Dream ignores a universal reality: we aren’t equally smart; some of us are very gifted at things that are financially worthless; some of us are wholly incapable of caring for ourselves, let alone contributing to society, in an economic manner. While that is stating the obvious, it means that there is an inherently unfair, unlevel, playing field, even in the absence of things such as our “starting wealth,” and, “family pedigree.” Without making an affirmative decision to step outside of Capitalism, these people are left in the gutter. Now, while we have created systems to try to provide for these marginalized groups, they, essentially, are still consigned to poverty because we have prioritized wealth accumulation over the ability of the marginalized to live a life with dignity; not in excess, but, with basic needs having been met.
The problems that our society faces are not problems that can be solved by adjusting our form of government. They are problems that can only be solved by deciding what kind of public policies we want to have; what we want to prioritize. We would do well to remember that, most of us will find ourselves in need of a social safety net at some point. We would also do well to remember that anyone who doesn’t ever find themselves in such a position is what we would typically call, “very lucky,” and omit those privileged few from the discussion as to whether there is a need for a more robust social safety net.
Among the overhauls that our society requires, is the manner in which bad corporate behavior is punished. Presently, it goes like this: Corporation finds out that it can use cheaper rubber to make their tires, saving the corporation $10M, BUT, the rubber will cause the tires to explode more often, causing approximately 100 additional deaths this year. Furthermore, it will result in 1000 more life altering injuries. So, what does the company do? Do they say, “I’m not going to do something that will cost people their lives!” No… they engage in a cost-benefit analysis. They estimate the cost of the lawsuits that result from the accidents, as well as the legal fees. If that cost is less than $10M, they make the switch. The executives at the top have the greatest incentives to make the switch, bc, they can save the company $10M, and then leave before the deaths and lawsuits start, taking a few million dollars in bonuses on their way out the door, ultimately harming the company, bc, the bonuses weren’t factored in to that cost-benefit analysis that was performed. They will then go to another company and try to do the same thing, leaving chaos and devastation in their wake.
Look at the Purdue Pharma executives, the Sackler Family, and the manner in which they pushed opioids they knew where addictive, lethal, and, unnecessary. Now they’ve settled majors lawsuits against their company and their family. Are they penniless, at a minimum? Bc, if they aren’t, then our laws are not tough enough to address corporate abuses. When 21 years of your company’s executives pushing drugs KNOWING that they were harmful and deadly, results in over 700,000 US Deaths, penniless is the BARE MINIMUM of how you should end up – if not in prison for life, which is what I would advocate. How did the Sackler family fare? After all the lawsuits were settled, they have $10.3 BILLION DOLLARS, mostly gained from the sale of those opioids.
Clearly, we need to make some changes. At the same time, we can’t stifle growth and innovation, which come with inherent risk. So, what is the basic first step of changes to be made? First, we need to change our laws, and, likely amend our Constitution. The SCOTUS has determined that corporations are legally people, which is part of the problem. However, we can’t place the blame entirely on SCOTUS. Amending laws and the Constitution is the burden of Congress, at the direction of the electorate; interpreting them is SCOTUS’ burden. We must end the legal fiction of giving corporations personhood. Whether legal fictions should exist at all, is its own book, let alone, blog post. However, for our purposes here, we will limit ourselves to saying that, based on the Opioid Crisis alone, we can see that this legal fiction has serious deficiencies. So, let us call our first basic step the “Sackler Rule.” Let us further say that the Sackler Rule is that criminal liability attaches when corporate executives knowingly mislead anyone with respect to the known risks associated with their products, or which are by-products of their products. Let us further admit that there is a degree of ambiguity in what constitutes “misleading,” and, owing to the desire for more information than less, let us say that we are willing to risk that an executive might accidentally run afoul of this law, because, the logical consequence is that (rightfully) nervous executives would be overly forthcoming, on threat of imprisonment, making for a safer, more well informed, citizenry.
thereluctantcommentator 