Are People More Inherently Good or Evil?
As I never pick just one answer if I can help it and I always makes things as complicated, non-black-and-white as possible, of course I think we're a mix of both and can't side with an absolute answer. But whether you define evil as selfishness, self-obsession, small-mindedness, delusional rationalization, apathy, or something else, I think it's a big enough part of our natures that we need constant nudging and outwardly imposed limits to keep it in check. More to the point of what follows, I don't believe in self-regulation. Based on the quote from the second article I'm in a definite minority, but freedom always needs tempering with laws; "created equal" does not equate to equal opportunity and security without governmental limits on the concentration of power and wealth into the hands of a few. It does no good to rebel against nobility in name if you just switch to an unnamed one in practice.
-----
This article is somewhat lengthy, but packed with good information.
Capital City - "A year after the biggest bailout in US history, Wall Street lobbyists don't just have influence in Washington. They own it lock, stock, and barrel."
Let's take a virtual stroll down K Street and see what everyone is spending on the world's second-oldest profession. It's all laid out for us by OpenSecrets.org. The defense lobby? Pikers. They contributed $24 million to individuals and PACs during the last election cycle. The farm lobby? $65 million. Health care? We're getting warmer. Health care was the No. 2 industry, at $167 million.
And the finance lobby? They're No. 1, with a very, very big bullet. They contributed an astonishing $475 million during the 2008 election cycle. That's up from $60 million almost two decades ago.
But this just pushes the question back a step: How can the finance lobby afford to spend so much more than anyone else? It feels silly to say that it's because they have all the money--these are banks we're talking about, after all--but that's basically it. They have all the money. Princeton economics professor Hyun Song Shin laid it out last June in a paper that tracked the flow of money through various parts of the economy. Between 1954 and 1980 every sector he studied grew at roughly the same pace, increasing about tenfold. (See "The Securities Boom.") But in 1980, after the great financial deregulation of the Reagan era began, his charts show a sudden discontinuity--while households, corporations, and commercial banks grew another tenfold between 1980 and 2008, the securities sector grew nearly a hundredfold.
-----
Thank You, Wall Street. May We Have Another? - "Americans are angry at the financial crisis—just not at the fat cats who caused it."
Since 1965, Gallup has asked survey respondents to choose the biggest future threat to the country: big business, big labor, or big government. Big government always wins—by a lot. In December 2006, 61 percent said they fretted about the government, compared with 25 percent who feared corporate power. Last spring, when Wall Street was in deep disrepute, the numbers changed only slightly: 55 percent still fingered big government as the greatest threat. "People always have concern about the government doing too much," says Newport, "even when [it's] regulating financial institutions they don't like." In fact, as recently as September, Gallup found that 45 percent of Americans believed there was too much government regulation of business. Only 24 percent said there was too little.
-----
The Airport Scanner Scam
Beyond privacy issues, however, are questions about whether these machines really work—and about who stands to benefit most from their use.
As I documented in my book "The Five Unanswered Questions About 9/11," airport security has always been compromised by corporate interests. When it comes to high-tech screening methods, the TSA has a dismal record of enriching private corporations with failed technologies, and there are signs that the latest miracle device may just bring more of the same.
-----
Earning Some Hatred
A quote from FDR . . . :
"We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace — business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
"They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred."
The point of quoting FDR was simple: I think Barack Obama could use a little more of his attitude. . . .
5 Comments:
People are shit. So, I agree with the inherently evil side. I want to think that we are basically good, but I just don't see the evidence.
I too believe that we are a mix of both. We tend to remember the bad stuff because it hurts the most and tends to make the biggest messes. But while there is evil happening and being done, there is a lot of beautiful and quiet good going on. Sometimes we don't see it because it's quiet or because we're distracted by the evil. Sometimes we don't recognize it because we are suspicious of it, assuming that there must be some hidden, evil motive. But the good is there. If one actually makes the effort to look for it in the world and those around us, and pursues it in one's own self there is much beauty and good to be seen, to be done and to be a part of.
Elaine
I concur with Elaine. However, I find your choice of articles interesting, in that they speak more to the stupidity of people than their inherent goodness or evil.
I had flagged the articles for reading, and as I did so that thought emerged to me as a common theme. It seems to me the stupidity on display in them is a lack of awareness that greedy people need constraints, so I was trying to get at that.
Yeah, OK, so I'm feeling particularly disillusioned and misanthropic today. Can it really be called a "populist movement" if its goals have negative consequences for the common people? It's just reactionary, short-term thinking (or non-thinking, if you prefer). That's why I ask questions like this post's title, in the hopes of getting people to think about the philosophical underpinnings of their positions and move toward some kind of long-term coherence and consistency.
Lyman - A typically misspelled conservative attempt at disparaging Barack Obama.
Post a Comment
<< Home