==
“I fight to give people a destiny, but not to give them happiness. Destiny is what fascinates me.”
==
The role of government in people’s lives, and with people’s lives, is one of the most wretched discussions it seems like someone can have.
That said.
No one should live in poverty.
No one should be food deficient.
No one should be homeless.
No one should have no access to healthcare (preventive or remedial).
No one should not have opportunities to education, living wage jobs and to some version of happiness.
The weird thing is a shitload of people will invest a shitload of energy debating “no one.” They will attach laziness and hard work and a whole bunch of stipulations on ‘no one’ until all of a sudden it becomes permissible to permit ‘some people’ be one or all of those things. That seems weird to me. It seems weird because no one is suggesting someone should be wealthy or live a life of leisure. All we suggest is that there is a baseline sustenance of life , maybe think of it as a potential springboard, for seeking out one’s destiny. If someone is content living on sustenance, or survivable means, that is their choice but it would seem to me that part of a country’s responsibility is to maintain a basic level of sustenance to all citizens – regardless of their ambition or lack thereof. It also seems weird, if not absurd, to think everyone – 330 million people – will all want to work hard or work as much or even work at all. It may chafe to those who do work hard, but its silly to suggest everyone has the same attitude. All that really should matter is that those who really do not want to work can live that life and let the ones who want to work hard build the destinies they desire. I could actually argue letting the ‘sustenance accepters’ tag out of the game leaves more for the rest of us and clears the field a bit for a better game.
Which leads me to ‘the game’ or what some people call the free market.
The problem is a “free market,” or let’s call it a lassiez faire attitude, isn’t really effective at enabling 100% of the people to fulfill their destiny. I will not argue that in certain circumstances a hands-off approach can work with an economy, but there have to be some specific features to give it a chance:
- The structural tools have to be accessible to many and not few
- There have to be widespread opportunities accessible to large swath of population
- There are no limits to distributional aspects of earning wealth, i.e., there are limited protectionist policies and limited protectionist groups.
Any sane person recognizes the government cannot be solely responsible for economic success nor is the market truly a mechanism of the pursuit of self-interest in which the interests of society will be served well. For example, Noah Smith has noted transforming the U.S. economy, in order to more effectively compete with China and Russia, will involve industrial policy. There’s a very basic economic reason for this. The industrial structure of the free market will tend to produce, if left to its own devices, things that do not take national interests into account – it produces not what the market needs, but what profits the business. Thus, if we want to have an economy that’s optimized not just for consumption, but for the good of individual destiny manifestations, government has to play a role with economic interests. These solutions reside somewhere within what Adam Smith suggested in the Theory of Moral Sentiments in that ‘however how selfish soever man may seem to be supposed there are evidently some principles in our nature which interests us in the fortunes of others.’ Government interventions implement a more rounded view of human behavior which acknowledges the coexistence of both the self-interested and altruistic sides of human nature. To be clear. Humans are neither inherently altruistic or selfish, they are what researchers call conditional cooperators and altruistic punishers. I believe this is called “reciprocity” and defined as ‘a predisposition to cooperate with others and to punish even at personal cost, if necessary, those who violate the norms of this cooperation even when it is obvious the personal cost will never be recouped.’ I would argue this is the true invisible hand, not the market, in that there is no rationality other than ‘the structure of the system will define behaviors’. I say that because one cannot blame individuals for most failures, but rather the system itself. This is an important thought as I discuss “no one” because e tend to highlight the accountability of ‘the individual’ in some unhealthy ways within economic narratives. I say unhealthy because, well, as Hanzi Freinacht has suggested the entire idea of individual or collective is outdated in today’s world. And in the Cluetrain Manifesto they suggested “I am parts of you, you are parts of me, and the whole is a malleable mix of parts of all of us – even those we interact with outside the internal system within the business.” I imagine my point here is that business and our little personal circles of existence are simply a system within a system, or of the system, and people are systems in and of themselves and true self-interest really doesn’t exist because no one ‘self’ can exist without the whole. That’s today’s world no matter what the politics of economics may suggest.
Which leads me to where it all goes wrong from there as we discuss “no one.”
Mancur Olson suggested, in stable countries with unchanged boundaries, distributional coalitions (interest groups, collusive organizations) are inevitable. The longer the country is stable, the more distributional coalitions it will have. These groups influence politics to gain benefits for their group, thereby imposing economic effectiveness for themselves and, simultaneously, macro economic inefficiencies. Yeah. Coalitions of self-interest slow growth. The only way to increase growth and enhance societal feelings of ‘collective good and needs’ is to break down the coalitions of self-interest. If you don’t, these groups increase not only wealth, but power and ultimately increase divisiveness (haves and have nots). This issue is actually where the world is struggling most (and, in particular, the US).
===
It is more beneficial for the groups to spend money to redistribute wealth to themselves (through political lobbying or collusion), rather than increasing overall efficiency of the economy (investing in new technologies, etc.), since the redistributions go only to their small group while the overall efficiencies would benefit the economy as a whole. The involvement of many special interest groups in politics makes issues more divisive and complex.
===
We should be seeking to have society operate, prosperously, with an incentive to redistribute opportunities (give people access to destiny). I would argue if we did this than wealth would naturally be better distributed. The problem is individual coalitions naturally protect jobs, opportunities and wealth thereby restricting jobs, opportunities and wealth. Within this protection it actually speeds up siloed decision making which only exacerbates the greater unhealthy asymmetry in totality. But maybe worse is that these self interest coalitions are inherently slower to adopt things (technology and new process) and are horrible at reallocating resources to optimize future growth. Why? Because, once again, their objective is to their protect jobs, opportunities and wealth, not fund the largest growth potential, destiny, possible. They may not seek to purposefully want other people not reach their destiny; they just cordon off their resources to ensure their own success above all. I bring some of this up because a lot of what I just said flows into discussion surrounding where I began – what ‘no one’ deserves versus what one does deserve.
Which leads me to economic support in government is inextricably linked to how it is viewed in the public’s eye.
Ordinary people, the public, tend to have certain biases particularly when it comes to government and the role of government in economics. Those on the left tend to be more altruistic and when things don’t go well, they see it as true as greed and self-interest. Those on the right tend to see welfare programs as ineffectual and a waste of their taxes because people become lazy nor self-reliant/self-interest mindsets. However, the truth, as pointed out earlier, of how we accept economic policies gets driven by reciprocity. Strong reciprocity norms tend to encourage people to categorize the disadvantaged into the deserving and the undeserving and programs that reflect this distinction tend to enjoy broad support. Programs that run counter to these norms, even if it’s just by perception, and benefit perceived undeserving people tend to be controversial. The easiest example of this is welfare programs that give benefits with no requirements such as work or training. My point here is that politicians exploit our biases within the politics of economics. The truth is most people are not lazy, requirements tend to exclude some people who really could use the system and the most people who abuse economic policies are actually not the ones who need the programs.
Which leads me to embracing a ‘no one’ philosophy.
Well. Not to get philosophical but I think all cultures are in a constant tug of war between self-interest and collective good. And this is where systems play a role. If someone believes the system is rigged or unfair in some way then the individualistic aspects start getting stronger. Or. Say for example the system leans in hard on wealth accumulation or productivity/materialism this sucks out any ‘individual meaning’ which bends the arc of the everything toward individual versus collective good. So. Systems create dynamics which bend a society toward either collective or individualistic. This is important if you care about enabling ‘potential destinies.’
Some politicians seem to hijack scraps of moral precepts to justify actions, ignoring the realities of the ‘no ones’ we are always discussing. They seek to offer simple, and simplistic, answers to things that are neither simple nor have any real answers. They also seek to use pseudo-logic to de-humanize humans and their situations. They seek to divide in order to have power over parts of the whole – because they cannot gain power by any other means. This, similar to my earlier point on ‘distributional coalitions’ is counterproductive if your objective is to fight to give all people (no one) opportunity to fulfill some destiny.
The truth is self is actually about a collective ability to understand and act. Problems are rarely individual; they are more likely larger tragedy of the commons issues and therefore demand some type of collective action. Politics of resentment is anti- ‘everything in that last sentence’. Resentment, at its worst, makes everyone an individual and everyone a potential enemy or someone to blame for any number of my individual woes – real or perceived. Consequently, politics of resentment makes everyone a victim. That last sentence was hard to type because it is a hard thought to swallow. But maybe the first step out of resentment is to accept someone is attempting to make us a victim and have the self awareness to understand everyone enjoys some version of a ‘free ride’ in a healthy society. 
Generally speaking in any societal action, there is no way to exclude people from the benefits nor should we want to. A society should permit someone to refuse to participate, and not make any contribution, and yet still benefit. I can decide to not contribute to the local library or the local park and yet I can still have access to both. In this case I am a ‘free rider.’ I do think it’s fair for a society to selectively pressure any one individual, including me, to assess my selective free-riderism, but at the same time I like being part of a society which understands that it is impossible to attain symmetrical organization of all people, and all groups, with a common interest and attain optimal outcomes for everyone. And that is the fundamental argument for “no one” left out. There will always be abusers of what is free. Period. But a society doesn’t design itself to these outliers, it designs itself so that ‘no one’ should be deprived of what is good for everyone. No one should be representative of everyone. We should fight so that no one is deprived of a potential destiny and within that I tend to believe we will not only encourage individual happiness but societal happiness. By ignoring the few abusers of the system, the many will achieve a better destiny. And, yes (circling back to my opening sentence), government can play a role so that no one can be part of everyone. Ponder.
The 
The consequence of all that is captured in the theory Generation Jones still wants to change the world but they are less ideological and more pragmatic. Pontell explains:
Question:
“Admittedly, determining generations is complicated, an inexact science, with inevitable blur on the edges. Nonetheless, broad accurate generalizations emerge with careful analysis. The three generations differ in many ways. One major difference is that Boomers tend to be idealistic, Xers tend to be cynical, and Jonesers tend to be a balance of idealism and cynicism. Attitudinal research bears this out.
====
As we discuss individuals, lets discuss communities. Since the dawn of time people have chosen to build and be part of communities. It’s not just a survival decision; it is psychologically and sociologically beneficial. We may choose to have some alone time, but not many people choose to be alone all the time and being part of a community was a shared experience enhancing beliefs of collectivism (in some form or fashion) and being part of something bigger than just ‘self.’ In the past a home may have been your own ‘castle,’ but you were in and of the community every time you stepped out of your door. This relationship defined many aspects of who and what we became as people. Everything from security to well being was, in part, a shared value creation model. But that connectivity has been disrupted as our emphasis has shifted from front yard openness to backyard closedness. So, as we reflect upon increased small crimes (home burglary), increased sense of loneliness, increased tribalism, increased sense of zero-sum of the ‘commons’ and decreased belief in collective good, maybe we should reflect upon how we engage with community because it shapes our relations with others. To be clear, in this piece I am drawing a stark line between being a front porch community and a backyard people.
“a line in the sand between your family and an uncertain world.”
One of the less innovative items business has become quite creative in persuading people to buy is, uhm, walls. 
Which brings me back to where Ryan Gravel started this entire thing – use, abuse and protection of land.
Should people have to escape and is “awhile,” if you actually do need to escape, even a worthy objective? I imagine the answer to the latter is obvious. It isn’t. It’s not an escape, it’s simply a break. But this isn’t about what is a worthy break and what isn’t, this is about why we believe we have to escape at all.
To the rising generation many of the past “values influencers,” many were found in religion, seem to have ridiculous beliefs and are out of touch.
actually created by us (everyday people), yet we point fingers at those in power. It contaminates our minds and, ultimately, society.
This all has the consequence of dystopian feeling. Where it often seemed like America thrived on optimism, now it seems weighed down by pessimism and disappointment.
your own book and live it, live by it, and add chapters as life goes on. The problem is people do not live their lives in silo-like ways. Our physical and mental self doesn’t exist in the absence of the interaction with other people and society. The brain and the body and the external world all shape one another in fluid dynamic ways. To truly understand ourselves, or people in general I imagine, we must not focus on what’s happening with one of part, but on the interactions between the parts. In fact, I would suggest there is a partnership between the brain and society and it is somewhere within this alliance (or battle) between the body (experience), the mind and society as a mutually informing and codependent entity that society changes as well as the individual. That said. Our brain has limits and existing thought systems can accommodate change up to a point. Of course, overstimulation (overload), causes us to ‘shut down’ if not retreat into our most comfortable beliefs. But more when enough new insights and changes in our thinking accumulate, the resulting strain almost demands our brain to consider a paradigm shift. It is conceptual thinking in action. New assumptions create new expectations and even some new choicemaking rules emerge like a phoenix from the fire. The reality is knowing yourself is kind of like the gradual twisting of a kaleidoscope wherein a large number of small modifications eventually yields a substantially different picture.
Many of our constructs reside in the subconscious. What this means is that the brain does a lot of talking amongst itself. In fact, most of the brain spends its time communicating with itself and only infrequently do we consciously get to take part in these conversations. What I mean by that is that the neurons, and groups of neurons, are having conversations among themselves with regard to what we are seeing, hearing, feeling in our interactions and creating ‘constructs’. Occasionally the results of their conversations bubble up into our consciousness and we become aware of them as ‘constructed thoughts’ which appear as a form of reasoning (making sense of the world). Here is an unfortunate truth. Much of the time what the neurons tell us are constructed stories. What I mean by that is some of those stories, just from a sanity standpoint because we just do not have time to know or experience everything, add things to create it and subtract other things to be able to create the story. What I mean by that is that oftentimes we get an incomplete data input and our brain completes the data and then gives us back the story; constructed.
By the way, this is true also of knowledge. Knowing more knowledge does not automatically lead us to being wiser in our decision making. The reality is knowledge can create what is called “accepted theory” (I believe this to be true), but the rubber hits the road on ‘applied theory’ (as in what is actually done). To be clear, I am not suggesting ‘applied theory’ is hypocritical because, as I noted in the opening, even accepted theories are contingent to interactions, i.e., reality. Excessively following accepted theory actually lacks rationality in that it ignores context. There is nothing we do that doesn’t exist in the absence of the interaction with other people and society. So you can know better but that knowledge is constantly placed at the intersection of a shitload of things and, yes, sometimes your ‘know better’ just gets run over by reality. But you know what? You get back up, dust yourself off, maybe know a bit better, and try to do better.
believe in human kindness, believe most people are smarter than we <the system> lets them be and believe most people try and do the right things. But at the heart of my current disappointment resides technology and how we appear to be thinking technology is gonna fix, well, humans and humanity.
Which leads me to Marx and Engels of all people. They grounded their thinking on a belief the country was an uncivilized place populated by idiots (I don’t agree). I would note that same distinction occurs in today’s thinking – leaders treating employees like idiots as well as city ‘intellectuals’ thinking rural idiots abound and politicians, in general, just being idiotic. This simplistic divide is timeless. But they have a larger point lurking in there. Engels thought cities were “something against which human nature rebels” speaking in terms of intellectual and spiritual/moral aspects. But what he was really suggesting was that capitalist cities were becoming devoid of ‘humanity’, homes to human poverty, where individualism prospered. But it’s not just the cities, its everywhere now. The zero-sum game has crept into every community and for the most part business lacks any sense of solidarity with society encouraging each person to pursue their own self/selfish interests (note: businesses actually believe this is the way to ‘optimize productivity’). I would be remiss if I didn’t point out if you remove collective meaning, or relegate it to a lesser value, than there really is no reason to treat someone WITH humanity <except as window dressing>. Circling back to the topic at hand, I am disappointed people allow this to happen. We have permitted the tragedy of commons to be, well, common.
continuously building walls and obstacles within this flow system.
I actually believe seeking knowledge can make some wishes come true. But even knowledge seeking is a bit tricky.
ability to be a revolutionary given the interest to engage. Sometimes you join a revolution or sometimes the revolution is within oneself. From a personal perspective you must ask whether school, community, work, life, etc. produces what we wish humanity to be made of and, if it is not, what we wish and what do we need to change – AND what your place is within that. The reality is many things can change society, but I would argue it always begins in one place – the world as it is and you. You can wish it was different, but “the world as it is” is kinda stubborn.
It was Alvin Toffler who said “the illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” In other words, literacy is an ability to absorb learning, and understanding, and adapt. So maybe you don’t do it at ‘speed’ , but you are an evolving understander. And then this is where speed comes into play. I do not believe the world is actually moving any faster than it has ever, even in business, but I will say that the faster you understand something; the faster you can do something. So the only reason the world may appear to be moving faster is that with the ubiquity of most information, the ones who ‘speed understand’ just move faster. Circling back to my opening question, the reality is that their intelligence is contingent to the environment.
While Marshall McLuhan tried to tell us how technology would shape us, it was Toffler who pointed out that technology was going to be the tool which would push our cognitive limits. In Future Shock predicted that environmental overstimulation would not only impact our physical and social worlds, but also our psyche. I would, and will, argue one of the consequences of this overstimulation is doom and gloom (dystopian feelings).
But let me end on a hopeful note.
everyone. I would even suggest that these types of technologies should be embedded into social media platforms. My point on technology here is that there are people attempting to craft solutions to the issues technology begets. I would suggest while that is a hopeful thought, it is within this relationship that many people feel gloomy about the future because while I believe we all know there is no ‘going back’ (to whatever you envision ‘back’ is) we also do not know what the future will be and the present feels a bit overwhelming. Anyway. Technology is here and, as Toffler said, the great growling engine of change (technology) will continue to growl on. But. Humans and humanity will also growl on. Ponder.