Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Property
The original draft of the declaration of independence carried these lines. Property was later replaced with the more idealized and ambiguous word "happiness." It sits better over time and imbues the declaration with a sort of American optimism and grandeur that carries with it faith and sentiment that this country has always needed. The point that it was originally property should not go unnoticed though.
At first glance using "property" instead of happiness smacks of some kind of materialism. If it hadn't been changed its true this country might have been more material-minded instead of harrowingly optimistic but its negative connotations, to a certain and more subtle degree, miss the point.
One of the most important ideals of early Americanism, dating back to before the country even existed, was the vast availability of good land and the ease with which people were able to gain ownership of it. In the earliest of days it was as simple as claiming a plot of land, or uprooting natives off of it, or simply paying a small fee (or perhaps deals of servitude). Whatever the case, land was cheap and sometimes free and it wasn't difficult for fairly common people to own their own land. It marked a major distinction from earlier European history which was littered with both indentured servitude and even earlier by feudalism. It broke down certain barriers of class and was one of the greatest allowances of the emerging democracy.
Property was owned outright. The land belonged to the holder and everything on it was their property. The government insured this in its earliest legislation going so far as to make sure the only voters were specifically property-owning. As the saying goes, "Every man is a nation unto himself." All the property owned by a person is a natural and external extension of their sovereignty over themselves and their representation in society. Property was protected and given pivotal importance. By the early bill of rights the government had no right to encroach on that property just as no other person had either. It was firm individualism in line with the earliest ideals of the founding fathers and the founding people.
Forward two-hundred years later and the situation has changed. People still have a right to their property, but it is far more difficult to acquire, and even harder to keep. What do Americans own now? Their homes? So long as they are tied to a mortgage the bank has the ultimate claim on the property. Power and water are provided by municipal works and are bound by paychecks and prices. The money that people make is given over to what have now become, pretty much, necessities. Phones, internet, power, water, housing, transportation. Even purchases have been taken over by credit cards. Ownership now takes the form of recurring payments made vastly overtime. It is only the extremely fortunate who can choose to buy things outrightly.
The economy and the people have hit extremely hard times and we are going to have to come to face with two things.
1. That the level of consumerism we all participate in has reached levels of absurdity.
2. That the price we pay (a result of the unconscious consumerism) has gone beyond our ability to pay, and beyond what they ever should have been.
Yes, our consumerism is absurd. We are, as a people, only now becoming more aware of that fact. As individuals I don't think we are making as much progress as we should. We still aren't conscious consumers. If the blame goes anywhere it's to human psychology. Behavioral studies show that if we have something available to us, we will likely use it. It is only be overcoming certain psychological levels that we wisely choose to gain more and consume later. Studies have been done showing that the decision to consume something now is based on our reptilian brain, while the delaying of gratification accesses the neo-cortex (higher mammalian brain functions; all this from the triune brain theory).
To a certain degree credit cards are bad psychological practice and take advantage of our more innate weaknesses. Having money available to us now creates the temptation to spend what we don't have. Only the people who practice diligence and thoughtful use of CCs are rewarded with "good credit." When we have "good credit" the system further rewards us with even more money. It's a cyclical bind that renews itself and rewards certain behaviors. But the temptation is almost malicious in nature. It makes the credit card the arbiter of a kind of consumerist morality. It extends a helping hand that either rewards or punishes us for our behaviors.
So if we are endowed with crucial property (housing, transport, education) yet we are also bound to it by the debt that accompanies it, can we still say we have individual sovereignty in our ownership of that property? These kind of things always make me more mindful of the America that Thomas Jefferson envisioned.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
The demand for certain items of necessity, combined with the rising population, combined with a credit system that allows for the expansion of prices and money, along with wages that are lopsided and not rising to meet the levels of demand, not to mention the innumerable other factors (more to come!), will spiral further out into even greater levels of absurdity. They say the bailout is a band-aid for the economy. I can accept its necessity, but I can also note the reality that accompanies it.
The ultimate commodity of man is time. Yet when we fill our future with debt that commodity becomes a shackle. Its no longer a resource of freedom and possibility, but rather an obligation.
Here is a neat little quote relating to last post and about the current election cycle :
Charles C. Haynes (right), a leading expert on religious liberty issues, argues in an op-ed piece published by several newspapers that "In the long history of religion in presidential campaigns, the 2008 race may well be remembered as the sleaziest and most disturbing example of misusing religion to win votes and demonize the opposition." He argues that both sides are guilty, citing widespread attacks on the supposed religious affiliation and beliefs of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, and, during the primaries, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. An excerpt:
"There is a critical difference between faith as motivation and faith as manipulation. Unlike the civil rights movement - where faith was a key motivation for many in the struggle for social justice - the current God strategy by candidates and their surrogates often uses religion as a weapon to destroy opponents in the name of winning elections. Enough is enough. It’s time for the candidates to set an example by dialing back the God talk. Speak out instead for what the Constitution actually requires: A president committed to upholding the First Amendment by keeping government out of religion while simultaneously ensuring that people of all faiths and none are treated with fairness and respect."
Haynes (right) is a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington.
At first glance using "property" instead of happiness smacks of some kind of materialism. If it hadn't been changed its true this country might have been more material-minded instead of harrowingly optimistic but its negative connotations, to a certain and more subtle degree, miss the point.
One of the most important ideals of early Americanism, dating back to before the country even existed, was the vast availability of good land and the ease with which people were able to gain ownership of it. In the earliest of days it was as simple as claiming a plot of land, or uprooting natives off of it, or simply paying a small fee (or perhaps deals of servitude). Whatever the case, land was cheap and sometimes free and it wasn't difficult for fairly common people to own their own land. It marked a major distinction from earlier European history which was littered with both indentured servitude and even earlier by feudalism. It broke down certain barriers of class and was one of the greatest allowances of the emerging democracy.
Property was owned outright. The land belonged to the holder and everything on it was their property. The government insured this in its earliest legislation going so far as to make sure the only voters were specifically property-owning. As the saying goes, "Every man is a nation unto himself." All the property owned by a person is a natural and external extension of their sovereignty over themselves and their representation in society. Property was protected and given pivotal importance. By the early bill of rights the government had no right to encroach on that property just as no other person had either. It was firm individualism in line with the earliest ideals of the founding fathers and the founding people.
Forward two-hundred years later and the situation has changed. People still have a right to their property, but it is far more difficult to acquire, and even harder to keep. What do Americans own now? Their homes? So long as they are tied to a mortgage the bank has the ultimate claim on the property. Power and water are provided by municipal works and are bound by paychecks and prices. The money that people make is given over to what have now become, pretty much, necessities. Phones, internet, power, water, housing, transportation. Even purchases have been taken over by credit cards. Ownership now takes the form of recurring payments made vastly overtime. It is only the extremely fortunate who can choose to buy things outrightly.
The economy and the people have hit extremely hard times and we are going to have to come to face with two things.
1. That the level of consumerism we all participate in has reached levels of absurdity.
2. That the price we pay (a result of the unconscious consumerism) has gone beyond our ability to pay, and beyond what they ever should have been.
Yes, our consumerism is absurd. We are, as a people, only now becoming more aware of that fact. As individuals I don't think we are making as much progress as we should. We still aren't conscious consumers. If the blame goes anywhere it's to human psychology. Behavioral studies show that if we have something available to us, we will likely use it. It is only be overcoming certain psychological levels that we wisely choose to gain more and consume later. Studies have been done showing that the decision to consume something now is based on our reptilian brain, while the delaying of gratification accesses the neo-cortex (higher mammalian brain functions; all this from the triune brain theory).
To a certain degree credit cards are bad psychological practice and take advantage of our more innate weaknesses. Having money available to us now creates the temptation to spend what we don't have. Only the people who practice diligence and thoughtful use of CCs are rewarded with "good credit." When we have "good credit" the system further rewards us with even more money. It's a cyclical bind that renews itself and rewards certain behaviors. But the temptation is almost malicious in nature. It makes the credit card the arbiter of a kind of consumerist morality. It extends a helping hand that either rewards or punishes us for our behaviors.
So if we are endowed with crucial property (housing, transport, education) yet we are also bound to it by the debt that accompanies it, can we still say we have individual sovereignty in our ownership of that property? These kind of things always make me more mindful of the America that Thomas Jefferson envisioned.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
The demand for certain items of necessity, combined with the rising population, combined with a credit system that allows for the expansion of prices and money, along with wages that are lopsided and not rising to meet the levels of demand, not to mention the innumerable other factors (more to come!), will spiral further out into even greater levels of absurdity. They say the bailout is a band-aid for the economy. I can accept its necessity, but I can also note the reality that accompanies it.
The ultimate commodity of man is time. Yet when we fill our future with debt that commodity becomes a shackle. Its no longer a resource of freedom and possibility, but rather an obligation.
Here is a neat little quote relating to last post and about the current election cycle :
Charles C. Haynes (right), a leading expert on religious liberty issues, argues in an op-ed piece published by several newspapers that "In the long history of religion in presidential campaigns, the 2008 race may well be remembered as the sleaziest and most disturbing example of misusing religion to win votes and demonize the opposition." He argues that both sides are guilty, citing widespread attacks on the supposed religious affiliation and beliefs of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, and, during the primaries, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. An excerpt:
"There is a critical difference between faith as motivation and faith as manipulation. Unlike the civil rights movement - where faith was a key motivation for many in the struggle for social justice - the current God strategy by candidates and their surrogates often uses religion as a weapon to destroy opponents in the name of winning elections. Enough is enough. It’s time for the candidates to set an example by dialing back the God talk. Speak out instead for what the Constitution actually requires: A president committed to upholding the First Amendment by keeping government out of religion while simultaneously ensuring that people of all faiths and none are treated with fairness and respect."
Haynes (right) is a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington.