Here was his original post: [http://www.debate.org/forums/economics/topic/20219/]
"The Economic and Ethical Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie
Caveat lector, my object here is to make your minds boldly go to a place they've never gone before, a place of critically questioning one of the most fundamental and virtually unquestioned tenets of your core worldview – the belief that we can and must earn our daily bread, our piece of the pie, and the proverbial cherry atop it.
Yes, in that assumptional matrix called common sense resides and is entrenched the normative notion of "earning". And in our capitalist culture it's a notion especially near and dear to our minds. We hold it to be quite the tangible truism that every individual has an unalienable right to exercise private proprietary control over the proceeds and profits, i.e., the earnings of his self-interested efforts, and to earn a measure of wealth superior to that of his neighbor, even if he exploits and impoverishes his neighbor in the process. This, this individualistic and possessive concept of earning and ownership, is the essence of the system and spirit of so-called "free enterprise". It's a system and spirit that we've all been educated from the cradle to embrace and that few of us ever think about in a truly skeptical fashion.
However, that an idea is widespread and largely unquestioned doesn't establish it's veracity beyond reproach. Once upon a time no one on earth had any inkling of gravity, the universally accepted explanation for why whatever goes up must invariably come down was the concept of natural place, the idea that terrestrial objects naturally belong on the ground and consequently return there when thrown up into the air. What could be more commonsensical?!
But then along came Newton, and physicists began to realize how common sense could and does lead our thinking about the nature of reality into astray from the truth and smack-dab into error. Likewise, the concept that the natural place of wealth is in the purse and coffers of those who supposedly "earn" it is in need of quite fundamental reevaluation and revision.
To begin with, the concept of earning is inherently egoistic and runs contrary to and flouts humanistic, ethical, and spiritual principles of equality. In both a democratic and an ethical-spiritual worldview we hold it to be a self-evident truth that all human beings are equal embodiments of the ultimate reality and mystery called creativity. Each of us gives it form as the same species of life and possesses the same intrinsic baseline value, goodness, and entitlement to well-being and joy. Each of us is therefore endued with an equal natural right to the economic necessities and prosperity necessary for a dignified and happy existence.
Sure, some individuals give evidence of greater genetic gifts than others, and some individuals actualize more potential than others. In a positivistic and profane, utilitarian and "tough-minded" perspective all men and women are not at all equal. But this flat fact does not take away from, let alone trump, the sociomorally revolutionary truth that we all enjoy the same fundamental, ontological nature and sanctity of life. And yes, this being the case, no one is privileged to be entitled to greater economic security and status than his fellow man; and no one can privilege himself with, i.e., no one can "earn", such a right.
Not even through the virtues of hard work and an enterprising spirit? No, being driven harder than your neighbor by a selfish and materialistic desire for wealth, which is often achieved by expropriating the value of his labor, does not mean that you thereby acquire a superior worthiness to enjoy the decent quality of life that we all have an inherently equal right to.
To put it in theistic language, everyone's welfare and fulfillment is equally important to God; equally important from a cosmic and metaphysical standpoint, that is. And from a human-equality perspective everyone's needs are of equal validity and concern. A more equitable distribution of society's wealth, reflective of these enlightened viewpoints is what we ought to be striving for, not a capitalistic form of economics that in the name of rewarding hard work places egoistic acquisitiveness before the spirit of egalitarian community.
Ontologically and ethically-speaking then, sharing ought to take precedence over "earning", and living on a coequal basis ought to be preferred to existing under a hierarchical power structure in which capitalist plutocrats claim to have somehow legitimately earned their place at the top. And no, this rejection of the concept of earning in favor of socioeconomic coequality and communal sharing is certainly not a denial or infringement of people's right to pursue and attain what they want out of life, it's merely the rejection of the notion that we have a right to behave with the kind of selfishness that leads to 1% of the population enjoying an obscenely opulent standard of living, and 99% coping with poverty or chronically struggling to make ends meet.
All of this might sound like insanely radical nonsense to someone who believes that we have a right of some kind to practice a socially-autistic privatism, that the best form of society is one in which we all economically function like atomized individuals edaciously earning, rapaciously reaping the fruits of our self-interested pursuits. But behold the insanity of capitalism, of a system that elevates private ownership and economic egoism above all other principles and produces a status quo in which a tiny elite is disproportionately blessed, and the bulk of humanity is unjustly distressed.
Yes, the concept of earning, though it might seem innocuous and right-minded, is in fact a euphemistic conceptualization and a rationalization of self-interest and uncompassion, which recklessly swings the door wide open to precisely the sort of egoistic, dog-eat-dog individualism that has always visited so much cruelty and pain on the poor.
The self-justifying idea that I've "earned" what I have allows me to feel okay about being one of the fortunate haves enjoying the good life amidst the suffering of other human beings whose lives are worth just as much as mine and who don't deserve to be consigned to the underclass of hapless have-nots. With my sanctimonious sense that I've entitled myself to live better than the losers struggling in their own self-made squalor I needn't feel guilt or show pity. If I can hide my selfishness behind the concept of earning, well, I needn't feel the slightest pang of conscience! And of course I therefore see no moral imperative to reorganize society and redistribute its wealth along more equitable lines to help give all of my fellow men and women a first-class ticket to ride aboard the capitalist gravy train.
Indeed, my attitude will transcend even Marie Antoinette's in callousness, instead of "Let them eat cake" I'll declare in my hardened heart "Nay, don't even let them eat cake, they haven't earned it like me". Thus and so, the "commonsense" concept of earning leads to brutal individualism and the familiar evils of a capitalist economy.
Interdependence and solidarism, a recognition that the underlying structure of our existence is relational and social, that we are all individuals within the cosmic context of interconnectedness, and that our mode of economic production and way of living together should actualize this reality, that's the ticket to a genuinely kinder and gentler form of economics and society.
To stand on your supposed right to be an autonomous, utterly autarkic economic actor, securing success for yourself with depraved disregard for the community that has in fact made your success possible is an irresponsibly selfish rejection of the synergistic structure of reality as the best model upon which to base our socioeconomic system, it significantly impedes our growth into a more mutually caring society, it's the height of egoistic hubris, and it makes you morally complicit in the misfortune and misery of capitalist society's casualties. That is, clinging to the concept of earning is contraindicated for the common good and for your personal moral good.
Nope, no man is truly an economic, "earning" island, individually entitling himself to an extra large à la mode slab of the ole prosperity pie. He never does alone and independently whatever it is that he thinks "earns" him a middle or upper-class lifestyle. His economic activities and achievements are all intricately involved with the economic doings of the rest of humanity. The notion that one "earns" anything by him/herself is an outright lie that our ego tells our conscience. And the notion that the private enterprise system is merely a meritocracy based on our right to earn our way to affluence is a social lie that we're fed to give it the illusion of being fair – and that our own egoism feeds into and helps to perpetuate.
It's not at all hyperbole, then, to say that the putatively commonsense concept of earning is actually a morally and socially catastrophic conceit. It's certainly far from being the valid & sound, right & proper, a priori, axiomatic and absolute principle that it's usually taken to be. Indeed, if excessive egoism and the concupiscent love of personal gain is the root of all human evil, well, then the concept of earning is the beguiling bloom that belies the moral and social danger. And whether you agree with this or not, the sooner that we realize that no one should have to "earn" his exemption from poverty and his right to partake of a rich society's prosperity, the better off will the average human being's lot and life be.
As the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau realized, the invention of the idea of private property and earning was the beginning of the fettering of human beings by their egoism, their fellow man, and by social systems geared around these ill-begotten ideas. Embracing Rousseau's realization, and renouncing the rationale for private ownership formulated by the likes of John Locke and Adam Smith that ideologically underpins the capitalist system, replacing it with a more ontologically and ethically enlightened concept of community property, cooperation, connectedness, and coequality, will be the next great revolution in human history. The most life-transforming since the Agricultural Revolution!
Before the Agricultural Revolution, before the dawn of thinking in terms of owning and earning, Homo sapiens were certainly sapient, wise enough to realize that egalitarianism, not egoism, is where it's at. For the hundred thousand or so years that our prehistoric predecessors spent as hunter-gatherers the egalitarian ethos of one for all, all for one prevailed and was strictly enforced. For instance, when a bison or mammoth hunt was successful the individual who killed the woolly beast did not claim that he had "earned" first dibs on the meat; rather, it was considered the bounty and wealth of the group and divided equally. The beauty of this system was obvious even to Paleolithic primitives. It ensured that no one went hungry, that everyone received his/her portion. It was truly common sense. Alas, common sense that we promptly fell away from when the egoistic ethos of uncharitably keeping what you "earn" for yourself came into fashion.
But if we were to abolish the ethic of earning and return to the ancient wisdom of equalitarianism wouldn't that disincentivize productivity and lead to a major "free rider" problem? Well, wouldn't it be logical to expect that we'd end up with a large percentage of the population parasitically living off of the economic productivity of others? If one could share the wealth without contributing to its creation why deign to work? Well, for one thing, society could insist on full, universal employment for all able-bodied members, being a lounge-about leech would not be permitted. Also, it's a bit cynical and materialistic to think that material gain is the sole motivation that drives people to be productive. There's also the moral desire to do one's part, and the internal need to express our creativity, which would still be in effect after the abolition of our selfishness-based system. At any rate, the values of an equalitarian society would be radically different and arguably just as effective at inducing everyone to be of use to his community.
To wrap up, our system geared for the obsessive, insatiable overaccumulation of capital and wealth is the ultimate evolution of the bad idea that we're entitled to earn the reward of being actively self-serving, of following our covetousness and greed. It's a system that doesn't really work very well at all, except to guarantee recurrent recessions and the routine victimization of workers. And it conclusively convicts the concept of earning of having tendencies that are pernicious, corruptive, anti-social, and seriously at cross-purposes with human well-being. "Earning", it turns out, is one of those ideas that at first blush and when not subjected to critical thought might seem reasonable and right, but upon further investigation is seen to be morally and socially crazy and warped.
A society explicitly predicated upon the principles of equality and interdependence; that kicks "earning" and economic egoism to the curb of socially-unacceptable motivations; and in which the good of all takes priority over the special interests of businessmen, bosses, and bankers, over their supposed prerogative of grossly overaccumulating prosperity at everyone else's expense; such a prosocial socioeconomic system can be the beautiful destination of human civilization's long journey, if we dare to aspire to it."
What do you think?
"The Economic and Ethical Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie
Caveat lector, my object here is to make your minds boldly go to a place they've never gone before, a place of critically questioning one of the most fundamental and virtually unquestioned tenets of your core worldview – the belief that we can and must earn our daily bread, our piece of the pie, and the proverbial cherry atop it.
Yes, in that assumptional matrix called common sense resides and is entrenched the normative notion of "earning". And in our capitalist culture it's a notion especially near and dear to our minds. We hold it to be quite the tangible truism that every individual has an unalienable right to exercise private proprietary control over the proceeds and profits, i.e., the earnings of his self-interested efforts, and to earn a measure of wealth superior to that of his neighbor, even if he exploits and impoverishes his neighbor in the process. This, this individualistic and possessive concept of earning and ownership, is the essence of the system and spirit of so-called "free enterprise". It's a system and spirit that we've all been educated from the cradle to embrace and that few of us ever think about in a truly skeptical fashion.
However, that an idea is widespread and largely unquestioned doesn't establish it's veracity beyond reproach. Once upon a time no one on earth had any inkling of gravity, the universally accepted explanation for why whatever goes up must invariably come down was the concept of natural place, the idea that terrestrial objects naturally belong on the ground and consequently return there when thrown up into the air. What could be more commonsensical?!
But then along came Newton, and physicists began to realize how common sense could and does lead our thinking about the nature of reality into astray from the truth and smack-dab into error. Likewise, the concept that the natural place of wealth is in the purse and coffers of those who supposedly "earn" it is in need of quite fundamental reevaluation and revision.
To begin with, the concept of earning is inherently egoistic and runs contrary to and flouts humanistic, ethical, and spiritual principles of equality. In both a democratic and an ethical-spiritual worldview we hold it to be a self-evident truth that all human beings are equal embodiments of the ultimate reality and mystery called creativity. Each of us gives it form as the same species of life and possesses the same intrinsic baseline value, goodness, and entitlement to well-being and joy. Each of us is therefore endued with an equal natural right to the economic necessities and prosperity necessary for a dignified and happy existence.
Sure, some individuals give evidence of greater genetic gifts than others, and some individuals actualize more potential than others. In a positivistic and profane, utilitarian and "tough-minded" perspective all men and women are not at all equal. But this flat fact does not take away from, let alone trump, the sociomorally revolutionary truth that we all enjoy the same fundamental, ontological nature and sanctity of life. And yes, this being the case, no one is privileged to be entitled to greater economic security and status than his fellow man; and no one can privilege himself with, i.e., no one can "earn", such a right.
Not even through the virtues of hard work and an enterprising spirit? No, being driven harder than your neighbor by a selfish and materialistic desire for wealth, which is often achieved by expropriating the value of his labor, does not mean that you thereby acquire a superior worthiness to enjoy the decent quality of life that we all have an inherently equal right to.
To put it in theistic language, everyone's welfare and fulfillment is equally important to God; equally important from a cosmic and metaphysical standpoint, that is. And from a human-equality perspective everyone's needs are of equal validity and concern. A more equitable distribution of society's wealth, reflective of these enlightened viewpoints is what we ought to be striving for, not a capitalistic form of economics that in the name of rewarding hard work places egoistic acquisitiveness before the spirit of egalitarian community.
Ontologically and ethically-speaking then, sharing ought to take precedence over "earning", and living on a coequal basis ought to be preferred to existing under a hierarchical power structure in which capitalist plutocrats claim to have somehow legitimately earned their place at the top. And no, this rejection of the concept of earning in favor of socioeconomic coequality and communal sharing is certainly not a denial or infringement of people's right to pursue and attain what they want out of life, it's merely the rejection of the notion that we have a right to behave with the kind of selfishness that leads to 1% of the population enjoying an obscenely opulent standard of living, and 99% coping with poverty or chronically struggling to make ends meet.
All of this might sound like insanely radical nonsense to someone who believes that we have a right of some kind to practice a socially-autistic privatism, that the best form of society is one in which we all economically function like atomized individuals edaciously earning, rapaciously reaping the fruits of our self-interested pursuits. But behold the insanity of capitalism, of a system that elevates private ownership and economic egoism above all other principles and produces a status quo in which a tiny elite is disproportionately blessed, and the bulk of humanity is unjustly distressed.
Yes, the concept of earning, though it might seem innocuous and right-minded, is in fact a euphemistic conceptualization and a rationalization of self-interest and uncompassion, which recklessly swings the door wide open to precisely the sort of egoistic, dog-eat-dog individualism that has always visited so much cruelty and pain on the poor.
The self-justifying idea that I've "earned" what I have allows me to feel okay about being one of the fortunate haves enjoying the good life amidst the suffering of other human beings whose lives are worth just as much as mine and who don't deserve to be consigned to the underclass of hapless have-nots. With my sanctimonious sense that I've entitled myself to live better than the losers struggling in their own self-made squalor I needn't feel guilt or show pity. If I can hide my selfishness behind the concept of earning, well, I needn't feel the slightest pang of conscience! And of course I therefore see no moral imperative to reorganize society and redistribute its wealth along more equitable lines to help give all of my fellow men and women a first-class ticket to ride aboard the capitalist gravy train.
Indeed, my attitude will transcend even Marie Antoinette's in callousness, instead of "Let them eat cake" I'll declare in my hardened heart "Nay, don't even let them eat cake, they haven't earned it like me". Thus and so, the "commonsense" concept of earning leads to brutal individualism and the familiar evils of a capitalist economy.
Interdependence and solidarism, a recognition that the underlying structure of our existence is relational and social, that we are all individuals within the cosmic context of interconnectedness, and that our mode of economic production and way of living together should actualize this reality, that's the ticket to a genuinely kinder and gentler form of economics and society.
To stand on your supposed right to be an autonomous, utterly autarkic economic actor, securing success for yourself with depraved disregard for the community that has in fact made your success possible is an irresponsibly selfish rejection of the synergistic structure of reality as the best model upon which to base our socioeconomic system, it significantly impedes our growth into a more mutually caring society, it's the height of egoistic hubris, and it makes you morally complicit in the misfortune and misery of capitalist society's casualties. That is, clinging to the concept of earning is contraindicated for the common good and for your personal moral good.
Nope, no man is truly an economic, "earning" island, individually entitling himself to an extra large à la mode slab of the ole prosperity pie. He never does alone and independently whatever it is that he thinks "earns" him a middle or upper-class lifestyle. His economic activities and achievements are all intricately involved with the economic doings of the rest of humanity. The notion that one "earns" anything by him/herself is an outright lie that our ego tells our conscience. And the notion that the private enterprise system is merely a meritocracy based on our right to earn our way to affluence is a social lie that we're fed to give it the illusion of being fair – and that our own egoism feeds into and helps to perpetuate.
It's not at all hyperbole, then, to say that the putatively commonsense concept of earning is actually a morally and socially catastrophic conceit. It's certainly far from being the valid & sound, right & proper, a priori, axiomatic and absolute principle that it's usually taken to be. Indeed, if excessive egoism and the concupiscent love of personal gain is the root of all human evil, well, then the concept of earning is the beguiling bloom that belies the moral and social danger. And whether you agree with this or not, the sooner that we realize that no one should have to "earn" his exemption from poverty and his right to partake of a rich society's prosperity, the better off will the average human being's lot and life be.
As the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau realized, the invention of the idea of private property and earning was the beginning of the fettering of human beings by their egoism, their fellow man, and by social systems geared around these ill-begotten ideas. Embracing Rousseau's realization, and renouncing the rationale for private ownership formulated by the likes of John Locke and Adam Smith that ideologically underpins the capitalist system, replacing it with a more ontologically and ethically enlightened concept of community property, cooperation, connectedness, and coequality, will be the next great revolution in human history. The most life-transforming since the Agricultural Revolution!
Before the Agricultural Revolution, before the dawn of thinking in terms of owning and earning, Homo sapiens were certainly sapient, wise enough to realize that egalitarianism, not egoism, is where it's at. For the hundred thousand or so years that our prehistoric predecessors spent as hunter-gatherers the egalitarian ethos of one for all, all for one prevailed and was strictly enforced. For instance, when a bison or mammoth hunt was successful the individual who killed the woolly beast did not claim that he had "earned" first dibs on the meat; rather, it was considered the bounty and wealth of the group and divided equally. The beauty of this system was obvious even to Paleolithic primitives. It ensured that no one went hungry, that everyone received his/her portion. It was truly common sense. Alas, common sense that we promptly fell away from when the egoistic ethos of uncharitably keeping what you "earn" for yourself came into fashion.
But if we were to abolish the ethic of earning and return to the ancient wisdom of equalitarianism wouldn't that disincentivize productivity and lead to a major "free rider" problem? Well, wouldn't it be logical to expect that we'd end up with a large percentage of the population parasitically living off of the economic productivity of others? If one could share the wealth without contributing to its creation why deign to work? Well, for one thing, society could insist on full, universal employment for all able-bodied members, being a lounge-about leech would not be permitted. Also, it's a bit cynical and materialistic to think that material gain is the sole motivation that drives people to be productive. There's also the moral desire to do one's part, and the internal need to express our creativity, which would still be in effect after the abolition of our selfishness-based system. At any rate, the values of an equalitarian society would be radically different and arguably just as effective at inducing everyone to be of use to his community.
To wrap up, our system geared for the obsessive, insatiable overaccumulation of capital and wealth is the ultimate evolution of the bad idea that we're entitled to earn the reward of being actively self-serving, of following our covetousness and greed. It's a system that doesn't really work very well at all, except to guarantee recurrent recessions and the routine victimization of workers. And it conclusively convicts the concept of earning of having tendencies that are pernicious, corruptive, anti-social, and seriously at cross-purposes with human well-being. "Earning", it turns out, is one of those ideas that at first blush and when not subjected to critical thought might seem reasonable and right, but upon further investigation is seen to be morally and socially crazy and warped.
A society explicitly predicated upon the principles of equality and interdependence; that kicks "earning" and economic egoism to the curb of socially-unacceptable motivations; and in which the good of all takes priority over the special interests of businessmen, bosses, and bankers, over their supposed prerogative of grossly overaccumulating prosperity at everyone else's expense; such a prosocial socioeconomic system can be the beautiful destination of human civilization's long journey, if we dare to aspire to it."
What do you think?
