On Sacrifice

Before I comment on sacrifice I would like to comment on the youth vote. As you may have heard, the New Hampshire Speaker of the House is trying to pass legislation that would make it more difficult if not impossible for younger people, especially those around 18 years of age, to vote. His argument for this has to do with his belief that young people are “foolish,” do not have any life experience, and just “vote their feelings.” They also tend to vote democratic which I am sure has something to do with this attempt to disenfranchise them. Republicans have an almost uncannily pathetic way of trying to explain their attempts to take away the votes from those who tend to vote for Democrats. This case is particularly amusing for a voting bloc that tended to vote for George W. Bush because he was someone “they might like to have a beer with.” It also contains voters, like my mother-in-law (God bless her), who vote Republican because when her husband was still alive they always voted Republican. Of course there are also those who always vote against Democrats no matter who the candidate may be, those that vote against abortion, gay marriage, taxes, and whatever. I strongly suspect that many 18 year-olds are better informed that most average Republican voters. And don’t forget Republicans are also trying to stop voter registration on election day, felons from voting, Hispanics, Blacks, and, in short, anyone who might possibly vote Democratic. I have no doubt if they had their way the vote would be allowed only for White Protestant Landowners. Anyway, enough said on that for the moment.

It seems that lately we hear everywhere that everyone should be willing to “sacrifice” to help us get out of the recession and our national debt. They seem to apply this admonishment across the board and certainly to include the rich. This has made me wonder about the nature or meaning of “sacrifice.” Turning to the dictionary does not help very much, tending mostly to suggest that to sacrifice is to give up something for something else. I don’t believe this is a very satisfactory approach to the question of sacrifice. It seems to me that sacrifice should entail some kind of suffering or at least substantial inconvenience on the part of the “sacrificer.” For example, if you are a married father of four, earning 30 or 40 thousand dollars a year, and you suddenly have to pay additional taxes, there would be a genuine sacrifice involved. But what if you are a billionaire, or even some poorer soul with only a few hundred million, or, say, even ten million, and you are asked to pay 2% more in taxes? Would that entail a similar sacrifice? I don’t think so, as individuals with that much money probably wouldn’t even miss the increase. I mean, if you have more money than you can possibly spend, what difference does a few thousands, or even hundred thousands, really matter? Perhaps I am wrong about this, but I confess when I hear someone says that we all have to sacrifice equally I wonder if they have even thought about it. Perhaps it would be painful or inconvenient to have only seven or eight mansions rather than nine or ten, or owning only a single Rembrandt rather than a dozen, or having only one $50,000 wristwatch rather than several, personally I wouldn’t know, but if it did I suggest the person must have a very strange pain threshold. Strangely, many here in the U.S. are so sensitive to the pains that might be experienced by the super-wealthy we insist they must be given even more money.

This leads me to a final thought for the evening having to do with “greed.” I think if I experience greed, which at some level perhaps I do, it must be a pale imitation of the greed experienced by many others. I simply cannot understand why anyone would want so much money they could not possibly use it, or perhaps even enjoy it. I mean, what joy is there in knowing there is literally nothing you could not have, and having everything, what else could you want? Why do millionaires and billionaires keep on piling up more and more wealth once they have far more than enough. Is it merely to show off, is conspicuous consumption carried to the highest level a goal that one must aspire to? Are those less fortunate truly impressed by someone’s blatant “showing off?” Since when has accumulating enormous wealth become such a noble goal for the human species? It has not always been so.

Consider the case from more “primitive” societies. In the New Guinea Highlands, for example, there were no formal chiefs, nor did power or authority derive from birth. Certain men became leaders, “men with a name,” by virtue of ability and personality. Being a successful warrior could help but just being a warrior was not enough. Indeed, if a man was just a warrior he was more likely feared than respected as a leader. A man acquired a “name” by organizing huge feasts and presenting other groups with massive gifts of pork and sometimes other items. He would probably have more than one wife and thus he would also have larger gardens and more pigs. But in order to put on a huge feast he depended upon others to help him and their gifts of pork would eventually be returned in reciprocal feasts. It was far more complicated than I can describe here, but the basic point is that a man with a name did not become personally wealthy, did not live in a mansion or eat better than others, or so on. His reward was having a name that was known throughout the territory. Similar exchanges took place on the Northwest Coast of America where chiefs would “Potlatch.” That is, they would amass huge amounts of blankets, decorated cedar boxes, and other gifts to present to other groups. All would share in one way or another in this ongoing process. The Chief did not become materially wealthy but wealthy in name and fame. He did not acquire a yacht or mansion or anything much that others did not also have. He was responsible for the movement of goods and organizing such festivals and became much respected. How different from our modern form in which individuals accumulate property through the exploitation of others and the environment, but are not required or even expected to pass it on except to their heirs. If a Kwakiutl chief managed to accumulate so many blankets or other goods they became too numerous to conveniently handle he was presented with a “Copper.” This was a shaped piece of native copper that stood for a certain amount of wealth. It had little or no intrinsic value but was symbolic of his success.

We should have similar symbols of great success that could be given to individuals in lieu of their second or third billion while they in turn would be expected to serve the common good by distributing and redistributing their excess wealth. But, as we cannot even get them to pay their fair share of taxes I guess this would be pretty unlikely.