REGULATIONS: HOW WE PROTECT OURSELVES AGAINST OURSELVES

We like to think that we are not selfish or at least we are fair.  Ha ha, are you sure?  It is easy to point to other people who are selfish and unfair, but if we look deep inside ourselves are we that much different?  The key factor often seems to be opportunity and I would concede part of that is our upbringing.  Most of us are taught the importance of fairness and we can agree with the Golden Rule that we should do on to others as we would have others do on to us.  But almost everyone of us knows someone who cheated and got away with it.  For myself:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/08/what-have-you-gotten-away-with.html

People are wonderful.  We can be creative, generous, and wise.  As a survival tool we are also self interested and protective or we wouldn't have made it this far.  A common refrain is that freedom is one of the most, if not the most desirable of aspirations.  The problem with our freedom is that all too often it infringes on other people's freedom.  Our freedom to do selfish or bad things can hurt other people.

Evolution has been portrayed as a struggle for survival of the fittest.  We now realize that survival often hinged on co-operation inside a group.  Human nature being what it is there was probably always an element of exploitation, but in the early days it was soon recognized that it is easier to survive (and thrive) as a member of a group than as an individual.  We learned that there is survival value in restraining our greed for the common good.

A key to human progression was producing more food than was needed for one person or even just one family.  Agriculture unleashed civilization as we know it.  Cities could develop, businesses could innovate and serve a variety of needs, and banding together people could protect themselves against outside forces.  Now many did not have to work as hard as others and could still prosper if they were smart.  The masses could organize against some abuses.  We came to rely on leaders.

And surely there were abuses.  We read about adulterating the value of coins, of tampering with weigh scales, of misleading promises and of the fact that often might is right.  While the masses were always interested in getting their fair share of resources, others were more clever or cold hearted to get more than their fair share.

We certainly hear the laments about how abusive regulations are.  Tamping down innovations and ambitions.  Yes there is a lot of truth in that, but it only tells part of the story.

Human nature has proved itself continuously that anyone can exploit their resources over others to gain an edge.  Often times this is admired and rewarded with gratitude and concrete advantages. Other times the perpetrator is thrown in jail.  Mostly it is not noticed and the perpetrator has gained some advantage, small or big.

Regulations attempt to keep a level playing field.  If you are an honest, hard working, but rational person you are concerned that your co-workers and your competitors might be cheating.  If they are thought to be unfairly exploiting opportunities you will be tempted to do so as well. The consumer would like to think that when they buy something or trust someone they are getting what they have been led to believe.

On the other hand regulation can create barriers for outsiders.  Those who have established themselves can make the rules.  In fact the most important edge someone achieved might be the ability to help set the rules.  Often the rules make it difficult for outsiders to make any inroad

Chrystia Freeland in her book, "Plutocrats" recounts the story of the rise and fall of the Venetian Empire.  It was founded with legal mechanism to encourage daring entrepreneurs out on long distance trade. You might remember Marco Polo and his father and uncle participated in this.  Everyone benefited from the profits of of the successful risk takers.  By 1500 Venice had lost much of its power.  Chrystia attributes it to the rise of oligarchs, many of whom were self made.  They wanted to entrench their power and wealth and closed opportunities for newcomers.

In ancient times we can read about adulterating coins and altering scales amongst many other tricks to persuade gullible consumers.  Today we are perhaps a little more sophisticated.

Newspaper headlines keep reminding us that those in power (and those who want to take a short cut to power) are always looking for an edge.  Volkswagen engineers found a way to pass pollution tests without actually having the expensive adjustments.  Back in 2008 after lobbying for de-regulation in the financial industry we had a major financial event that was negative for most people.

We tend to feel most comfortable with the status quo or the default position.  Disruptive innovations are by definition things that upset the apple cart and force the rest of us to adjust.  An example might be some green energy breakthroughs may hurt those who are deeply invested in fossil fuels.  You can read about the delicacy of the innovators dilemma at http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/03/the-innovators-dilemma.html

Regulations have been touted as job killers.  Maybe, but they can have positive effects.  A company can only sell defective or harmful goods for so long before consumers stop buying or suffer other consequences.  The regulators are employed and in most cases paying taxes and protecting the public good and encouraging honest endeavors.

It is actually the presence of safety nets that allow some entrepreneurs to take a risk.  Take away the safety net and some innovations may seem too risky.  Safety net tools include unemployment insurance, food stamps, welfare.

After all is said and done regulation is a delicate balancing act.  Who do you trust?

AGAINST FAIRNESS

The philosopher author, Stephen Asma appeared on TVO with Steve Paikin a few weeks ago.  His premise for his new book stunned me and an investigation seemed in order.  It seemed to me that the problems of the world boil down to the fact that it is not fair.  Anything that can be done to make it a somewhat more fair world is worth doing.  The next few paragraphs are about the baggage I carried to this investigation.

At University one of the things that still affects me was Plato's "Republic" At the time it seemed a solution to the world's problems.  Basically children were not raised by their parents but by the community itself.  Who was given the opportunity to make money and who made decisions affecting the community was not decided by family connections, but by tests given at critical ages.  The idea was to separate money from power and as Stephen Asma  points out that reasonably assures disinterested (and therefore more just) decisions to be made. In other words your career options would be decided on merit not nepotism.

I grew up in a fairly typical Canadian family.  I knew my grandparents (have lived with both grandmothers at various stages) my aunts and uncles and cousins.  With six siblings we now live in 5 different cities (at one time 6).  I felt family connections, but nothing like what I married into.  Family is everything.  At times I have felt it suffocating, but on the whole I love it.  I have benefited immensely from the support and concerns of my in-laws and I am not alone.  They have all benefited from close connections.  There is a feeling that no matter what the outside world does we will stick together just like we enjoy each other's company whenever practical.

A previous blog on "Fairness and Freedom" resonated my feeling that some cultures are superior because they (in this case New Zealand) are focused on treating everyone fairly whereas other cultures are focused on freedom supposedly emphasizing merit  (in this case United States.)  There was a  bit in there about how too great an emphasis on fairness could create destructive envy, but on the whole a fair society was more attractive.  You can read my post here:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/06/fairness-and-freedom-book-review.html

Any social system has to accommodate human nature.  The idea of equality may have some merit in an abstract sense, but in practice it doesn't always work.  The author, Stephen Asma, admits that there is no one more precious to him than his son and the rest of his family.  Favoring your relatives is noted as nepotism and is considered a form of corruption when it comes to business and politics.  Ethnic networking has helped many deserving individuals crack the establishment.  Other forms of networking might seem artificial, but as we align ourselves with a wider group of people who share  something in common (sometimes only by attending a networking group) we extend our own power.  Aside from social pressure another factor in nepotism is that people naturally trust people they know more than strangers.

There is a natural chemical bonding established just after birth, usually between mother and child.   These bonds are critical for survival.  We humans retain a capacity to bond with others throughout our life, but family bonds are very strong.

Stephen has used examples from China and India to point out that in these societies family loyalty does come first and they look askance at suggestions that we treat strangers better than family.  From other reading I am conscious that in fact societies can only grow if we find ways to avoid killing strangers.  In our complex cities it is common to walk by hundreds of strangers every day which in other cultures would cause a great deal of anxiety.

One of the themes seems to be that in our egalitarian society we have developed the concept of charity, but Stephen asserts that favoristic societies can also develop the concept of charity and acceptance of those different or worse off than ourselves.

Every day we make countless choices, most of which impact on both our families (plus other favorites) and society in general.  You may feel an obligation to one goal or another, but I now think it is legitimate to give your family first consideration, but probably not a good or fair idea to ignore the greater good.

THE RIGHTEOUS MIND

Jonathan Haidt's guest appearance with Bill Moyer impressed me with his understanding of how people cling to their beliefs in the face of logic.  He even said that those dastardly conservatives have a legitimate viewpoint.  After the 8 days it took me to finish it seems the best book I have read this year.

In "The Righteous Mind" he builds his case carefully.  Jonathan has an interest in philosophy, psychology, morals, sociology and politics.  Like many observers he has been dismayed over how polarized politics has become in the United States.

Evolution plays a key role.  It is thought that every human trait is there for its survivability value.  Much thinking has focused on individuals, but increasingly it is realized that individuals survived who could fit into groups.  The first groups of people were essentially equal and were very careful to not let anyone slack off.  As groups got bigger it became possible to have a division of labour that made them more effective.  A more cohesive group could dominate lesser groups and survive difficult times more effectively.

One of the most important factors became religion.  The key was not so much the specific beliefs, but that members felt a sense of belonging that encouraged them to support other group members that were not close kin.  Some of Jonathan's thinking came from Emile Durkheim who was the founder of sociology which essentially deals with group social pressure.

A key definition which comes near the end of the book, after a lot of preliminary explanation is  "Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, technologies and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate self-interest and make co-operative societies possible."  We don't always understand from what moral system other people operate from and we would benefit if we could really appreciate they really feel they are right.

Joanathan feels that three main segments of American politics; liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism all have a role to play.  Too much conservative control and society doesn't make the necessary changes.  Too much liberalism and things can get out of hand.  It is healthy that each can balance with the others.  Compromise is more likely to come after each group realizes that the opposition is not totally wrong and in fact are a healthy check.

One area where conservatives and liberals see things differently is fairness.  From a liberal perspective they are well aware of disadvantaged groups and strive to remedy the inequalities.  From a conservative viewpoint they feel it is unfair that some people do the work and others take advantage of the rewards.  These two views can be reconciled better if each side realizes the other side does in fact have a strong sense of what is fair.  A different and compelling perspective at http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/06/fairness-and-freedom-book-review.html

It is hard to realize that my underlying moral philosophy might not be totally right and that other person might not be totally wrong.  Progress will occur as we respect each other.

On the link below you can connect with a website devoted to this book that includes videos and blog posts.

http://righteousmind.com/

"FAIRNESS AND FREEDOM" Book Review

When my son, Michael recently moved to New Zealand to try his luck at getting a job this book got my attention.  In some ways it is one of the more profound books I have read.  Profound might be interpreted to mean they supplied me with notions that support my already established beliefs.  Perhaps so, but  not enough people have really thought out the issues of fairness and freedom.

New Zealand and United States are both open societies with much in common.  The American author uses a comparative study of the two to analyze what he sees as a significant difference.  In United States freedom is the underlying philosophy, while in New Zealand it is fairness.  Fairness sounds namby pamby to those who feel individual freedoms are the highest value of all, but freedom, not really understood can be perceived as selfish and short sighted.  Your freedom should end somewhere away from my nose and vice versa, but freedom lovers don't always appreciate that aspect of it.

Each concept has its faults, after all human nature is not conducive to restraints of any kind.  Envy, resentment, vengefulness, pride, fear and above all selfishness are normal human traits.  Harnessing those traits is a hard task if one wants to optimize civilization.

They were both English speaking colonies.  The United States gained its independence after a bloody war whereas New Zealand took a longer more legislative transition.  Americans fought the original inhabitants, known as Indians and pretty much subdued them.  The New Zealanders fought the Maoris who were more united, at least in language.   The Maoris managed to find a more decisive role in their society.

Land seemed endless in America, whereas there was a definite limit to New Zealand.  Land reform helped to stabilize affairs in New Zealand in 1891.  There was a much higher percentage of owner occupied land in New Zealand.  New Zealand abolished provinces in 1876 whereas United States is really a union of states with federal oversight.

From the beginning Americans felt the need for personal liberty, although they justified slavery. Over time the New Zealanders developed a concern for fairness although they abused the Maoris.

In 1920 New Zealand put restrictions on gun ownership.  Americans are very vocal about their gun rights under the Second Amendment.  Violent crime and imprisonment are much more common in America.

In 1893 New Zealand became the first nation to enfranchise women.  Women were better represented in the New Zealand Parliament than in most of the world.  In 1936 New Zealand was the first nation to broadcast Parliament.

United States adopted an electoral college in order to assure the smaller states they would have disproportionate influence, but often distorts what the majority of Americans actually want.  New Zealand adopted a proportionate voting system that many people (including myself) believe is more fair and better reflects what New Zealanders want.

After World War II,  New Zealand fought against the United Nations Security Council having vetoes wishing to give more power to the General Assembly.  They always seem to fight for peaceful negotiations.  Ronald Reagan was infuriated with their refusal to accept nuclear battleships on their ports.

After a lot of historical details of both nations the author summarized his thoughts on the two title traits. Freedom can be interpreted in many ways, but essentially refers to no or minimal restrictions on what a person can do.  In reality one person's unrestricted freedom runs up against another person's freedom.  One of the best examples deals with slavery.  Slave owners were adamant that they had the right to own other humans whose freedom obviously meant nothing.  Any law is a restriction on someone's freedom, but is often to protect others.

Tea baggers seem to resent taxes, and claim that the American Revolution was fought against taxation.  In fact the actual Revolutionaries were against taxation without representation.  After the Revolution taxes were increased as it was realized money was needed to maintain a free and strong republic.

Fairness is a restraint on freedom.  One person's unlimited freedom has to cut into the freedom of another.  How do we determine what is free and fair?  The author has a good perspective well worth examining.

Rich people in the United States sometimes are heard to say that poor people are just envious of successful people.   In New Zealand and other countries envy has been a problem.  Equal opportunities do not lead to the same outcomes.  There is envy that some people with talent or who work harder achieve more.  There are many people who feel entitled, some because of wealth and others because they want to receive more than they give.  Fairness would include people rising to the top of their talent and effort.

Democracy and freedom come with responsibility.  Part of the responsibility is to vote and not claim ignorance or claim choices are fraudulent.  Americans actually have a very low voting record and yet one party seems to think there are too many people voting.  Part of the responsibility is to recognize no one got their level of success without support from a wider community.  The next generation deserves as much support as our generation was given.

By the way my son did get a job teaching and seems very pleased with living in Auckland.