Axiomatic Civic Responsibility

I’m looking at the “protesters” in Michigan and ruminating on the nature of civil disobedience versus civic aphasia. By that latter term I mean a condition wherein a blank space exists within the psyché where one would expect an appropriate recognition of responsible behavior ought to live.  A condition which seems to allow certain people to feel empowered to simply ignore—or fail to recognize—the point at which a reflexive rejection of authority should yield to a recognition of community responsibility.  That moment when the impulse to challenge, dismiss, or simply ignore what one is being told enlarges to the point of defiance and what ordinarily would be a responsible acceptance of correct behavior in the face of a public duty. It could be about anything from recycling to voting regularly to paying taxes to obeying directives meant to protect entire populations.

Fairly basic exercises in logic should suffice to define the difference between legitimate civil disobedience and civic aphasia. Questions like: “Who does this serve?” And if the answer is anything other than the community at large, discussion should occur to determine the next step.  The protesters in Michigan probably asked, if they asked at all, a related question that falls short of useful answer:  “How does this serve me?”  Depending on how much information they have in the first place, the answer to that question will be of limited utility, especially in cases of public health.

Another way to look at the difference is this:  is the action taken to defend privilege or to extend it? And to whom?

One factor involved in the current expression of misplaced disobedience has to do with weighing consequences. The governor of the state issues a lockdown in order to stem the rate of infection, person to person. It will last a limited time. When the emergency is over (and it will be over), what rights have been lost except a presumed right to be free of any restraint on personal whim?

There is no right to be free of inconvenience.  At best, we have a right to try to avoid it, diminish it, work around it.  Certainly be angry at it.  But there is no law, no agency, no institution that can enforce a freedom from inconvenience.  For one, it could never be made universal.  For another, “inconvenience” is a rather vague definition which is dependent on context.

And then there is the fact that some inconveniences simply have to be accepted and managed.

Continue ReadingAxiomatic Civic Responsibility

The Immorality of Fully Embracing Homo Economicus

Nick Hanauer gave a speech on the lies on which neoliberalism is built. He characterizes neoliberalism as "dependably orthogonal to the last 50,000 years of moral norms and traditions." Hanauer then turns the focus toward the foundation for neoliberalism, "homo economicus," the belief that human beings are "perfectly selfish, perfectly rational, and relentlessly self-maximizing." This unbecoming portrait of human animals dovetails with other unsubstantiated ideologies. For instance, you will often read that natural selection created a horrific dog-eat-dog world and that we are nothing more than these sorts of insatiable philistine dogs, which is nonsense, as discussed by primatologist Frans De Waal. De Waal’s main message is that we are NOT condemned by nature to treat each other badly. Though competition is part of the picture, we have evolved to be predominantly groupish and peace-loving beings who are well-tuned to look out for each other.

Now back to homo economicus. Here is an excerpt from Nick Hanauer's speech:

And how did we get to a so-called “ethics” of business that insists that the only affirmative responsibility of a corporate executive is to maximize value for shareholders?

I believe that these corrosive moral claims derive from a fundamentally flawed understanding of how market capitalism works, grounded in the dubious assumption that human beings are “homo economicus”: perfectly selfish, perfectly rational, and relentlessly self-maximizing. It is this behavioral model upon which all the other models of orthodox economics are built. And it is nonsense.

The last 40 years of research across multiple scientific disciplines has proven, with certainty, that homo economicus does not exist. Outside of economic models, this is simply not how real humans behave. Rather, Homo sapiens have evolved to be other-regarding, reciprocal, heuristic, and intuitive moral creatures. We can be selfish, yes—even cruel. But it is our highly evolved prosocial nature—our innate facility for cooperation, not competition—that has enabled our species to dominate the planet, and to build such an extraordinary—and extraordinarily complex—quality of life. Pro-sociality is our economic super power.

Hanauer sees homo economicus as a salve we invented to give ourselves permission to do terrible things;  "It is also a story we tell ourselves about ourselves that gives both permission and encouragement to some of the worst excesses of modern capitalism, and of contemporary moral and social life."

But what about capitalism? Isn't that would puts our food on our shelves. Isn't capitalism the explanation for why we strut around with our miraculous smart phones? Hanauer explains:

Capitalism is the greatest problem-solving social technology ever invented. But knowing that capitalism works is different than knowing why it works. And contrary to economic orthodoxy, it is reciprocity, not selfishness that guides it—indeed—as if by an invisible hand. It is social reciprocity that builds the high levels of trust necessary for large networks of people to cooperate at scale. And it is only through these networks of highly-cooperative specialists that the complexity that defines our modern economy can emerge.
Capitalism is good and useful, but only to an extent. More is needed for a just and prosperous society. Hanauer offers these four rules:

  • Capitalism is self-organizing, but not self-regulating. Government regulation is necessary.
  • True capitalism is not shareholder capitalism.
  • Capitalism is effective, but not efficient. Capitalism can raise our "aggregate standard of living, but it can also be extraordinarily wasteful, cruel, and unequal."
  • True capitalists are moral capitalists. "Being rapacious doesn’t make you a capitalist. It makes you an asshole and a sociopath."

For now, I'll close on this topic, but I've written often on the purported virtues of the unfettered free market, which is an ideology that I have sometimes termed the "Fourth Person in the Holy Quartet."  No doubt I'll return to this topic as homo economicus continues to destroy most of the institutions that had made the U.S. an exemplary place to live.

Continue ReadingThe Immorality of Fully Embracing Homo Economicus

Americans pretend there are free markets in many industries

I figured it out myself when I traveled. The airfares in Europe and the Middle East are surprisingly affordable. I bought asthma inhalers in Lebanon, Turkey and Spain for about $3 each. Equivalent medicine in the US costs $85 per inhaler, $120 if you don't have insurance.

I was primed to notice an excellent Article in The Atlantic, "The U.S. Only Pretends to Have Free Markets." Here's an excerpt:

Internet service, cellphone plans, and plane tickets are now much cheaper in Europe and Asia than in the United States, and the price differences are staggering. In 2018, according to data gathered by the comparison site Cable, the average monthly cost of a broadband internet connection was $29 in Italy, $31 in France, $32 in South Korea, and $37 in Germany and Japan. The same connection cost $68 in the United States, putting the country on par with Madagascar, Honduras, and Swaziland. American households spend about $100 a month on cellphone services, the Consumer Expenditure Survey from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates. Households in France and Germany pay less than half of that, according to the economists Mara Faccio and Luigi Zingales.

Continue ReadingAmericans pretend there are free markets in many industries

The dark underbelly of competition

From Truthdig,

Societies worldwide are suffering epidemics of mental illness because “human beings, the ultrasocial mammals, whose brains are wired to respond to other people, are being peeled apart,” writes George Monbiot at The Guardian. “Though our wellbeing is inextricably linked to the lives of others, everywhere we are told that we will prosper through competitive self-interest and extreme individualism.” The consequence? “[P]lagues of anxiety, stress, depression, social phobia, eating disorders, self-harm and loneliness.”

Continue ReadingThe dark underbelly of competition