This hypothesis is not intended to point out particular culprits for punishment. It's not even the intent to be a call out to do something about the problem or to act on it in some way. And it most certainly is not yet another attempt to exhibit ones jealousy of wealth.
It is to ask for a dialogue to start on the topic. So that we can finally discuss what is actually there, by observing it 'suspended', free from the judgement of our prior beliefs.
In other fields there will be other drivers with the same effect on distribution of whatever has value in that field.
The reason rent seeking never comes under proper scrutiny is because nature assures it does not. Nature is directly active. And the result of systemic rent seeking, being the foundation of every economy within social organisation, is a Pareto Distribution.
Caveat: I'm by no means a nature worshipper. I am saying God's will is not done on earth. And nature holds sway.
That is to say, rent seeking will always deliver a small group of winners and a large group of losers, or at least a large group of people who did not win anywhere near as much. Once again, do not confuse this idea with one which is jealous of wealth and seeks the punishment of the winners. Nor is it asking what to do about the losers or that they deserve better. We are just pointing at it for further scrutiny, in the hope we can do that with a clear and unbiased lens - a gargantuan challenge for even the best among us, it is true.
This rent seeking, which drives the Pareto distribution, is governed through social institutions which are strongly incentivised by nature to removing its simple dialogue from the narrative, making it almost impossible for society to attend to - it has been rendered into the unconscious. In fact, the intellect, from deep inside our academies of learning is used most intensely to provide the logic and reason to bury the idea and reinforce a narrative of disinformation. Universities, the media, the state. These institutions are not created by humans per se. But at the root by nature, driving humans. Nature commands them to act in a way which delivers the distribution she wants in all things. And in the economic sense, the mechanism used is rent seeking. Once more, do not confuse this proposition with one which asks that the state, science and the media are corralled into a conspiracy to depopulate the world or some similar collective neurosis. It is just to point at it, suspended freely in front of our faces, for proper scrutiny, free from all ideologies and belief systems.
Similarly, this idea is not in the least bit trying to support the hypothesis of 'survival of the fittest'. It is saying just what it is saying - that nature drives this distribution, in the economic sense, by using a rent seeking narrative. And as we know well today, a narrative is not something the individual can act on, only the collective or great masse of people can act and only unconsciously, so theres no mitigation pathway available to democracy or even a tyranny. Voting or selecting a leader in any way is just part of the narrative, a sham, helping the assurance of delivery of the distribution.
There is no conspiracy here. The activity is an act of nature, pure and simple. There are no culprits nor a cabal of wealth and power. There is no reason for jealousy of wealth. Or a revolution. This is the way.
It is not known why nature operates in this way. Perhaps it is because its better than the next best alternative. A kind of protective shield. Who can say what would be the effect of the abolition of all taxation except for that on the economic rents? Which to be fair is technically a perfect theory. No professor of economics objects to confiscation of the rents and abolition of taxation. They merely never discuss it. It is not part of the narrative therefore it is not relevant.
I say the effect of this remedy would be a far worse alternative than just leaving things alone. And in a theoretical society which was functioning perfectly, the policy would not be required already. Because no one would be trying to get a free lunch anymore as a primary household duty. Systemic legalised gambling would be obviously considered a psychosis.
It is bizarre that rent seeking is such a simple concept. Yet only very rarely will you find anyone willing to speak about it well and with energy, of which I know a handful of wise old men. Or will devote a lifetime to it. Maybe one in a million. There's a good reason for this. The reason is what we're saying right here. Nature does not desire it to be so... for our own good. Further still anyone of the one in a million who starts to succeed in extracting the idea from the narrative and into the light, will be mocked by all and sundry. If its not part of the narrative, it is not relevant, and the idea is seen as simultaneously a left and right wing duality, depending on from which side of the narrative one is possessed.
This is nature at work. Protection of the material world, maybe. Is God's will actually done on the earth as the prayer goes? No! Of course it is not. But the narrative insists it is.
It's also bizarre that the great masse of people choose leaders who most certainly will make it one of the few things that never gets spoken about. And that the great masse votes willingly for leadership which is most likely to achieve this. Whoever they are and whatever their reputations, the people as a whole will select those best at keeping this idea buried away deep. For the good. And this is driven by nature.
And those public figures, rich in the rewards are nearly always skilled in maintaining the secret. Hutton, Monbiot, Toynbee are very good examples sitting in media high seats. Nature puts them there for good reason whatever superficial morals say about it, so beware if its your thing to criticise them - you will be missing the mark. This, again, is nature at work. Have the leaders been put there by God and is this the significance of Romans 13?
Rent seeking is not the only mechanics used by nature to deliver a particular distribution. But it is the one driving it economically. It might not be the biggest factor or have the biggest impact on the world. But it is right up there with the biggest. Yet it's happening often enough and in a big enough way for it to at least be suggestive of a hypothesis for more than the one in a million surely?
This hypothesis is not intended to point out particular culprits for punishment. It's not even the intent to be a call out to do something about it or to act on it in some way. The benefit of looking at a topic as important as the systemic distribution of wealth in this way, is that it removes the passion of ideology, allowing it to be left suspended in front of us, free at last for authentic dialogue. Even if this activity were to proceed 'successfully' does not mean a solution will be discovered because there is nothing to resolve already. What a dialogue means is that at last we will be observing, directly, the thing.
I am asking for a dialogue to start on the topic, where the hypothesis is 'suspended' in front of us. So that we can finally discuss what is actually there, free from the judgements of morals, ideology and beliefs.
The principle of voluntary self sacrifice
Dangerous ground of course. Certainly not for the feint hearted.
Comments
Post a Comment