Endgame - who gets the toys?
At some point in the future, if not already in the present, there will be more demand for resources than supply, and there will have to be a process for deciding who gets what share.
We like to believe we live in an egalitarian society at many levels, and to the degree access to cheap energy allows wealth to all of us unknown to many a king in days of old, we can continue our illusion of equality and individual rights and justice for all.
If and when things get harder, a careless generosity will say we ought to share resources equally with all, whatever we have. Certainly this is true at the level of survival or revolution, but whenever there is something MORE than the bare necessities, sharing can't simply be done on a basis of equality, at least not when power is wielded without open public awareness.
Consider an indian reservation with a new casino. Does the community divide profits equally among members and let them do what they want with it? Or do the community leaders debate investments in "public good" that benefit all or most? Which is more egalitarian?
The capitalists might suggest the first (Maximize the wealth of the people so they'll thoughtlessly waste it on junk they don't need), and the socialists might suggest the second (assuming high-minded leaders thinking of the effects to the of "7th generation" and all that.)
Capitalists will call the Socialists "elitist" because it assumes the government knows better what to invest in than the people do. Socialists will call the capitalists exploitive because they only want to enrich the people to have more suckers to scam.
Well, perhaps my characterizations can tell you which side I'm on? Hmmmmm... Okay, I'm basically elitist, and too trusting that leaders can and will make decisions that benefit our collective future.
Well, it is funny, a mental reversal I made here, starting thinking of "share the wealth" as a egalitarian side, but recognizing the power that be will resist, whether for their own greed or good vision.
Probably as good to call capitalists and socialists as both interested in the concentration of wealth and power. Capitalists want power in corportations, and socialists want power in government. Neither is overly interested in sharing power.
It's a simple king of the hill game. Collect together your supporters, form an army and take as much power as you can get.
Anyway, it is curious to try to imagine how power may be wielded in the future, what priorities will be given resources, and which will be neglected.
And how will resources held by a small minority be protected against a suffering majority, or suffering strong minority.
Are "Walled communities" and paramilitary forces the answer? Obviously in the land of the lawless, but the wealthy can be as fearful of the government as anyone.
Oh, too depressing to imagine that scheming world of holding power.
We like to believe we live in an egalitarian society at many levels, and to the degree access to cheap energy allows wealth to all of us unknown to many a king in days of old, we can continue our illusion of equality and individual rights and justice for all.
If and when things get harder, a careless generosity will say we ought to share resources equally with all, whatever we have. Certainly this is true at the level of survival or revolution, but whenever there is something MORE than the bare necessities, sharing can't simply be done on a basis of equality, at least not when power is wielded without open public awareness.
Consider an indian reservation with a new casino. Does the community divide profits equally among members and let them do what they want with it? Or do the community leaders debate investments in "public good" that benefit all or most? Which is more egalitarian?
The capitalists might suggest the first (Maximize the wealth of the people so they'll thoughtlessly waste it on junk they don't need), and the socialists might suggest the second (assuming high-minded leaders thinking of the effects to the of "7th generation" and all that.)
Capitalists will call the Socialists "elitist" because it assumes the government knows better what to invest in than the people do. Socialists will call the capitalists exploitive because they only want to enrich the people to have more suckers to scam.
Well, perhaps my characterizations can tell you which side I'm on? Hmmmmm... Okay, I'm basically elitist, and too trusting that leaders can and will make decisions that benefit our collective future.
Well, it is funny, a mental reversal I made here, starting thinking of "share the wealth" as a egalitarian side, but recognizing the power that be will resist, whether for their own greed or good vision.
Probably as good to call capitalists and socialists as both interested in the concentration of wealth and power. Capitalists want power in corportations, and socialists want power in government. Neither is overly interested in sharing power.
It's a simple king of the hill game. Collect together your supporters, form an army and take as much power as you can get.
Anyway, it is curious to try to imagine how power may be wielded in the future, what priorities will be given resources, and which will be neglected.
And how will resources held by a small minority be protected against a suffering majority, or suffering strong minority.
Are "Walled communities" and paramilitary forces the answer? Obviously in the land of the lawless, but the wealthy can be as fearful of the government as anyone.
Oh, too depressing to imagine that scheming world of holding power.
posted by Ares Olympus at 3:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home