Danny over at his Economics For Morons blog wrote about the problem of the infamous "1%". You know them. They're the ones with more. More than what? Well, more than I have. And that's unfair ... right? His article explains how it is unavoidable. Someone will always have more than someone else.
In the World War II movie, Enemy at the Gates, the fledgling communist country, the Soviet Union, was being battered by the Nazis. The movie tells the story of a young soldier, Vassili, who proved himself a very capable sniper. His friend, Danilov, an avid communist and an information officer, uses Vassili's exploits as he plays cat and mouse with a top German sniper to rouse the demoralized troops back into fighting for the motherland. All well and good. Eventually Vassili wins the girl and Danilov, jealous of it, nearly ends Vassili's life. In the end, Danilov repents. His words are telling. "I've been such a fool, Vassili. Man will always be a man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbor. But there's always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love." Danilov recognized that it is not actually possible to make a society where everyone is genuinely equal. There will always be differences, better or worse.
America loves individuality. We love individual liberty. We thrive on the notion that "you can become anything you want", even if we're really not entirely sure it's true. And we will fight for equality. We'll go to court for it and, if necessary, go to war for it. Because we are all, we are quite sure, created equal, even if we don't all believe in a Creator. Individuality and equality, two key American concepts.
But does it work? Are they not mutually exclusive? If I believe, as an individual, that I can earn more money than Bob (my favorite fictional friend), will we not cease to be equal? Or if I, as an individual, come up with a grand method to sell snow from Alaska to Arizona at a great profit, won't I cease to be equal because now I'm making money that others are not? Is it actually possible to be both individual and equal? That is, if we are all equal, do we not cease to be individual?
I don't know. Danny made me ask. Oh, not directly. He just made me think. Thanks, Danny.
3 comments:
No, thank you for not rendering me amusing.
You do know what "amusing" means in its most literal sense, don't you? Most literally it is built on "muse" meaning "to think" and "a" meaning "not". Most literally, then, "amusing" is "not thinking". And your post made me think, so it certainly was not amusing. :)
Yes I do know that... but only because I read your blog :)
Post a Comment