Labor’s Two Ways of Life Contrasted

Posted by Buck68 on September 4th, 2008 filed in Misc, Thoughts

Inspired by Paul Greenberg’s article, The Labor Theory of Value; written Monday, September 01, 2008

Does “Change you can believe in” depend on change? No. Change is an inherent part of reality. Change is an intrinsic, continual characteristic of every living thing. Change is a universal function, like time. So, “change you can believe in” depends not at all on change itself. Why? Because change is already, always, occurring. “Change you can believe in”, depends entirely on what is believed in, and, how people choose to exercise beliefs to initiate and influence changes. In other words, “change you can believe in” depends on how you walk your talk. In human relationships, recognizing “change you can believe in” depends on whether the laborer in change says what he means, and does what he says.

Why? Why does “change you can believe in” depend entirely on the laborer in change saying what he means, and doing what he says? Consider the nature of the relationship if you believe in someone who does not say what he means. If you do not know what he means, whether or not you disagree with him, how do you know what he truly, actually, accurately believes in or means?

Exactly: you don’t. You can not know if he does not give you the opportunity to know. Who would believe in a person who prevents you from understanding him?

Now, if this same person intentionally does not say what he means, what is that? That, is some form of misleading. Should a misleader, lead? Perhaps. Under what conditions might you pick a misleader, to lead you? Why, in order to mislead…the enemy. But, first and foremost, before you give that intentionally misleading leader the power to lead, what have you done already? Well, for better or worse, in good times and bad, have you not in some way…decided to trust him? Hopefully yes, because if not you have just given power over you, to an untrustworthy misleader.

So, how are we regular, normal, ordinary people to decide whether to trust a misleader who does not say what he means in order to lead us, come what may, to overcome actual, deceptive, bad-intentioned enemies…foreign and domestic?

Let’s return to “change you can believe in” for the beginning of a reasonable, practical answer. The practical situation is that at times our leader cannot say what he means because that would give an enemy advantage over us. Furthermore, our leader competes with adversaries of all kinds, in our name, to keep advantaging our country in all kinds of group interactions. Now missing from this description is what? What’s missing is what guides our leader. What guides every person? Rationally, it is what that person believes in. Interestingly, what a person believes in, does not necessarily reveal or predict what he does…does it?

So if a would-be leader says what he means about what he believes in, this enables people to decide about trusting him. At the same time, it does not encumber our leader in misleading to compete on our behalf for the good of our country. Now, how would a person know if a would-be leader says what he means about what he believes in? In this world, and according to science and reason…we carefully consider whether what he does about his beliefs, matches what he says about his beliefs.

So, if a person will sit down and think this through, any person can find a reasonable way to decide about trusting a person to lead, despite a leader’s practical need to mislead at times. Or, we can vote in this country for any person we like, or against any person we don’t like.

But what has this whole long logic trail got to do with Paul Greenberg? Well, nothing. It had to do with the inspiring laborer in Greenberg’s article. Specifically, that laborer’s freedom to choose what he did, and how he did it, and where he did it, based on what he believed in, for his entire lifetime. Who told this person what to do? Who told this laborer where and how and when to labor? Who told this laborer what was right or wrong about his values and efforts and how he acquired and used resources? Who told this laborer whether others took advantage of him, conspired with him to take advantage of others, or kept him down, or gave him unfair advantage? What’s the matter with Greenberg? He left out all the right stuff! Greenberg completely left out what we are told over and over we must think a certain appropriate way about. He left out what we are told over and over we must fight back for, have, and get. He left out that we must pay more and more for more and more programs with more and more rules to compel many people to live a certain way. He completely left out who is to blame for my problems, who and what to be frightened and outraged about.

So, we come at last to two ways of life contrasted. There is this laborer’s lifetime of exercising his choices, over time and in changes all around him. And there are the Labor Theories of Value where you are told what to think, what to do, how to do it, to pay more and more for programs to tell you more and more, and how you must feel about everything or you are inappropriate.

And now there are leaders to elect based on “change you can believe in”, in a world where people neither say what they mean, nor do what they say. Looks like a labor of trust is at stake for each person, come what may.