“Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn’t even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”
That quote is from Heraclitus.1 Now, I’m not a great scholar of ancient Greek philosophers, so you may want to take my humble opinion with a pinch of salt, but what a dick, he really did come out with a load of pump. Still, this quote suits my needs right now and I think we can apply the spirit of it to society in general, though the warriors are a lot rarer than one in every 100. Perhaps more like one in every 10,000. Perhaps. Just accept they’re rare.
Most of us, in terms of advancing our societies, are really just making up the numbers. We don’t have the vision or the entrepreneurial drive to move society forward in new directions. Society relies on us to function and I’m going to try to persuade you that we all have essential roles.
However, it’s the warriors2 who make the difference. Without them, we’d probably still be living in primitive settlements and starting fires by rubbing a couple of sticks together. The warriors have made the advances across the millennia that have got us to where we are today. They’re the ones who have had fantastic visions and developed the technologies that we all now rely on.
We should celebrate the warriors and be grateful for them, and the fighters too. These people are rare and most of us will spend our lives barely being noticed, while these people shine like beacons in the night.
We can’t all be Elon Musk or Oprah Winfrey or Steve Jobs or Sara Blakely. These are just some of recent history’s warriors, people with a special kind of vision and the strength and patience to keep pushing to make their beliefs reality.
And while we’re hearing the bad news, we can’t all be real fighters either.
Don’t worry though, there’s nothing wrong with being one of the targets or even one of those who shouldn’t even be here. These are the roles most of us have in life and we should be happy with it.
As long as we’re all treated fairly for contributing to the societies that we live in.
A Nurse, A Politician and a Belgian Walk Into A Bar
“Ouch!”
“Ouch!”
“Au!”
It was an iron bar.
I’m here all week folks! Right, that’s enough fun for now. Who’s more important, a nurse or a politician? Forget about the Belgian for now. What Belgian? Nevermind.3
Nurses and politicians have very different roles in society, so how do we assess their importance?
In the UK there are only 650 MPs in parliament at any one time and they represent all of the people.
That feels pretty important, doesn’t it?
There are about 360,000 National Health nurses and midwives.
Sure, they’re all doing an important job, but it’s not like the responsibility a politician has.
Is it?
Well, another way to compare their importance would be to imagine a world where neither existed.
Whose absence would you notice first?
Assuming you’re fit and healthy, a lack of nurses isn’t going to be an issue, is it?
But no politicians running the country, wouldn’t that be a fast track to disaster?
Well, let’s say there’s a sudden weird temporal interruption in the space/time continuum that just affects the Houses of Parliament in London. I don’t really know what that means, but the result is there are no politicians to debate new laws and no government running the UK.
And let’s also say this occurred shortly after the annual budget was approved.
So, assuming there were no major emergencies, such as France taking advantage and declaring war or Spain annexing Gibraltar, the Civil Service could just be left to get on with the mechanics of keeping the country running for the best part of a year.
That doesn’t sound too unreasonable and most people probably wouldn’t notice any major difference. And if you’re thinking that doesn’t sound realistic, you should have a chat with a Belgian.
The lengthy negotiations that followed the 2010 general election in Belgium, meant the country spent 589 days without an elected government.4 That probable world record was further extended following the 2019 election, with the country enjoying 652 days without an elected government. In fairness, Belgium’s federal structure may mean they were better set up than some other countries to cope with these extended periods, but I think it demonstrates that, as long as there are no big emergencies, societies can cope fine for long periods without the government intervening.
Do you feel as sure about countries coping with no nurses?
So, this time our weird phenomenon transports all of the UK’s 360,000 nurses and midwives into another dimension.
How long do you think things will carry on running smoothly in the UK?
24 hours?
Or do you think that after just a day with no nurses, things might already be looking a bit flaky?
How do you think things would be by the end of the second day?
After a week?
Let’s just skip forward 50 weeks. After nearly a year with no nurses, what kind of state do you think British society would be in?
How many additional deaths will have occurred?
How much poorer will the country be? It won’t just have been the number of workers missing through bad health, but workers taking time off to care for sick family members.
It’s not too much of a stretch to say that the UK could last a year with no central government, with the average British citizen barely noticing any difference.
But with no nurses, every single person in the UK would be affected.
In June 2022, the Cavell Nurses’ Trust released data from a survey of UK nurses.5 We should note that they may not be completely impartial and the survey relies on responses from just 2,500 nurses and health workers, but it gives us some insight.
- 14% had used food banks to feed themselves and their family
- 30% reported difficulty paying for food
- 28% struggled to heat their home
Doesn’t that concern you?
These are essential professionals within society and yet many are struggling to afford the basics of daily life.
I’ve never heard of a politician using a food bank, except for a photo opportunity to show how caring they are. Why should some nurses be in that situation?
We all have different roles in society and while it may feel natural to consider some people as more important than others, the fact is society only functions if all the necessary roles are covered.
On that level, everyone, whatever their role, is equally important.
I chose nurses to illustrate this as I had access to that survey, but it applies to every job.
Imagine a year without garbage collectors. City streets would be unpassable and swarms of rats would sweep majestically across the filth like antelopes roaming across the plains of the Serengeti.
Or a year without fruit or veg pickers in the fields. Some produce won’t be available at all and those things that are imported will be more expensive.
Assuming there isn’t a year of no supermarket workers with no-one stocking the shelves, of course.
Capitalism = Communism
The idea that capitalism shares anything with communism will strike most as an absurd joke, but there’s one key aspect that both share.
Both systems appear to work on paper, but both fail in practice because their key concepts ignore the way that human nature affects the way that they work in the real world.
Have you ever daydreamed about owning a brand new, top-of-the-range Ferrari? Why? Because you want to drive fast? Because you want the thrill of the noise of the powerful engine as you change gears, racing along a precipitous mountain pass?
When I used to watch Magnum P.I. (the real one, where Higgins had a moustache and a flat chest6) as a kid, I dreamed of owning a 328GTS when I grew up. Not because I felt a need for speed or because I had a thing for racing along mountain passes.
No, I wanted to drive a Ferrari because whenever I arrived somewhere, I wanted people to look at me, see my Ferrari and know I was better than them.
That’s status. We all, well most of us at some point at least, desire status.
We don’t dream of living in a big house because we love doing housework and want to spend every free moment vacuuming or dusting enormous crystal chandeliers. We dream of living in a big house because it will tell everyone that we’re special, better than them.
We don’t dream of wearing huge diamonds because our crystal healing guru tells us they’ll bring us health and long life. We dream of wearing huge diamonds because it tells those around us that we are wopp-off better than them.
That’s why communism has never worked out.
It sounds like a lovely idea with everyone working together and sharing everything as each person needs, but it always turns out that even those at the top of communist societies need more, such as big houses, limousines and super yachts. They love the idea of communism as long as everyone realises that they’re better than them. Status doesn’t really fit in with communism.
I said that capitalism also fails because of human nature and it’s the pursuit of status that’s the issue here too. Sure, saying capitalism is a failed system is a bold statement that plenty will disagree with and scoff at, but when essential members of society are working and contributing to society, yet having difficulty paying for food or heating their homes, that doesn’t feel like a huge success to me. Are you happy with how that’s worked out? Particularly when the wealthiest are getting even wealthier.
As we saw with communism, in capitalist societies the craving for status means that people put their desires before the real needs of others.
In the UK 2021/22, 22% of the population was classified as living in relative poverty.7 That equates to 14.4 million people out of about 65 million people. The UK had the 6th largest economy in 2021 and moved back to the 5th largest in 2022, yet the British parliament’s own research states that 14.4 million Britons were living in poverty.
If capitalism hasn’t failed completely, it’s certainly failed more than 20% of the British people.
The picture in the US looks brighter, with just 11.4% of the people living in the world’s richest country classed as living in poverty8, meaning 37.9 million people. Don’t assume we can directly compare these figures as the definition of poverty may differ.
That’s not important though, what we need to focus on is the fact that in two rich liberal democracies, wealth inequality means that significant parts of their populations are living in poverty.
I say capitalism = communism because, despite their immense fundamental differences, they ultimately result in similar outcomes. A small super-wealthy class at the top and a substantial underclass at the bottom of society, with the space between filled by a range of economic classes.
You may recall that scratchy doodle from earlier. Consider the band at the bottom of the pyramid. That’s the foundation and it has the full weight of the pyramid bearing down on it. Remove the foundations from a building and, if we’re lucky, it just pitches over a few degrees and becomes a tourist attraction. If we’re unlucky, it becomes a brief health hazard and then a long-term pile of rubble.
What do you think would happen to society if we removed the bottom half of society? Remember, we saw earlier that the poorest half of Americans possess just 2.5% of the wealth, so in that regard, getting rid of them would have almost zero effect in terms of the nation’s wealth.
Practically though, the effect would be devastating. The service industries would disappear overnight, with no-one to staff shops, restaurants or leisure facilities. Garbage won’t get collected. Fields of produce will go unharvested. Homes and offices will go uncleaned. Professional childcare will largely disappear. Maybe society won’t lose all the nurses, but if just the 30% who struggle to pay for food disappear, the effect will be seismic.
Society needs all its levels to operate. Those at the top need to wake up to that fact and understand that it’s in their interest to support a less unequal system that treats those at the bottom better. And note I say less unequal, not equal.
Equity, Not Equality
That doodle above is a simple illustration of the difference between equality and equity. It’s not my idea, I’ve copied it from a cartoon I saw once and I’ve no idea if that was the original source. Imagine the three people of different heights are trying to watch a sports event on the other side of the fence. In the first part of the doodle, each person has a box to stand on, making them equal, but the shortest person still can’t see over the fence.
The second part of the doodle illustrates the idea of equity. This time the tallest person gives their box to the shortest person, who now has two boxes. This time all three can see over the fence.
We all have the same basic requirements. Enough food to stay nourished and healthy, somewhere comfortable and safe to live, access to healthcare when required, etc.
Yet we live in societies where some people struggle to find a basic place to live or to feed their families three times a day, while others own two or more homes and dine on caviar and gold-leaf coated burgers.
In Norway, everyone’s tax records are published online. It must make evading tax a more stressful experience, knowing that your neighbours could easily see you paid next-to-no tax while parking a brand-new Bentley on the driveway.
Considering our yearning for status though, there must be another side effect of this system. A big tax bill demonstrates someone’s success more clearly than anything.
Can’t societies leverage this in a positive way for all? Surely it can’t be beyond human creativity to make a big tax bill a positive status symbol.
Doing good to others often comes with the personal benefit of feeling good inside. Maybe that’s one of the motivations for the Australian tax authorities including a breakdown on personal income tax receipts that lists how the taxes have been spent.9 Of course, it also helps taxpayers see whether the current government is prioritising the things they believe are most important too.
However, the effect that a tax payment may have on others is too far removed from the actual act of paying for most and a more obvious motivation is going to be needed.
Most societies have some system of civil awards to recognise people who have done outstanding things for society. Granted, plenty appear to get dished out to the wealthy and political cronies, but it’s a great idea beyond that.
Why not publicly recognise those who contribute the most to society through the taxes they pay, annually and across lifetimes? Let them add some impressive acronyms after their name to show their level of giving. Maybe a fancy badge or medal to wear when they’re dressed up for a fancy social event. And like free gifts in cereal packets which reward those who eat the most cereal, let them collect more and higher status awards over time.
People crave status. Don’t those who give the most to society deserve it?
A Societal Contract
Have you ever dreamed of smearing your naked body in goose fat, before rolling around in a kids’ paddling pool filled with pink sequins and then running, free as the wind, through your local shopping mall while duetting “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” with the Big Mouth Billy Bass you’re clutching tight to your slippery torso and randomly stealing bags of shopping from those you pass?
No?
Nah, me neither.
Obviously.
Let me change tack a little. So imagine you’re walking along the street and see a car parked untidily outside someone’s home or a shop with the door ajar and the keys in the ignition. Maybe the engine is still running.
What stops you from jumping in the car and driving off?10
Clearly, you didn’t steal the car because society has laws that say we shouldn’t steal and if we do, we will face punishment if we get caught.
Laws may sometimes feel like a drag, but societies can’t function without them.
They’re a key part of the societal contract. For clarity, there is no such thing as a societal contract, that we all sign. However, it is implied by the way our societies are run and we’re all opted into it, whether we want to or not.
Of course, we benefit from that contract too. Our neighbours know they can’t smash open our back door while we’re out and steal our flat-screen TV.
So we can acquire possessions and know that society should have our back if our back door does get forced. In reality, we may never see our things again if someone did steal them, but these laws should mean that most in society will act honestly.
This doesn’t come for free though.
Every single one of us who benefits from the safeguards of the societal contract has to pay our fair share to ensure society is maintained.
For most of us, we’re taxed at source and even if we didn’t benefit from the security of society, we have no choice. Our fair share, as decided by the government, is taken regardless.
However, the richest in our societies don’t always pay their fair share. Even though we can argue that they derive even greater benefit from the protection society gives them.
Think about it, if someone breaks into your home, takes all your possessions and then empties your bank account, how much have you lost?
And if the same thing happened to a multi-millionaire or multi-billionaire, how much could they have potentially lost? Facing a home invasion from a crazed trigger-happy armed gang and no protection from the law of society, it’s not hard to imagine them giving all of their fortune to protect themselves and their loved ones.
What if Elon Musk’s head of security wakes up one morning and wonders why they’re not in charge? After all, they’re the one with the private army under their control.
And so as Fifi la Trixibelle, Richard (because it was always hilarious when Elon called him Dick) and x-Kjahsj8993-sp0t, Elon’s erstwhile favourite chihuahuas, drag Elon’s bloodied and bullet-riddled corpse across the front lawn in a gloriously fun game of Tug-n-Chew, Musk’s erstwhile head of security settles into their new role as head of Tesla and SpaceX.
How long they’ll get to enjoy their new position of power in a society that doesn’t protect anyone against murder is anyone’s guess.
I imagine that sooner or later, their head of security is going to wake up one morning and wonder why they’re not in charge. After all, they’re the one with the army under their control.
Considering the relative jeopardy that the richest would face, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that their fair share of the bill to support society should be significantly more than yours, does it? They’re getting far greater value from the societal contract than we are.
So why don’t we have a physical societal contract?
Do you remember the first time you paid tax? If you haven’t yet, just imagine the situation. For most of us, we take a job with the tax being taken automatically before we see it. It’s a simple one-way transaction.
How would you feel if, before that very first time that you had to pay tax, you were presented with a copy of a societal contract?
A simple document that just highlights the fact that all members of society have an essential role to fulfil, whether their job is paying them the minimum wage or an obscene amount of money. Pretty much describing many of the thoughts I’ve shared in this chapter.
And before you pay your first tax bill, you have to sign this contract.
Does that feel too onerous? Unreasonable?
I’m guessing that when you’re starting out, you’re more likely to be a low-earner, so will be more likely to benefit from a society in which the most privileged and wealthy members recognise the value of those below them and are committed to a system that ensures all members of society can afford the essentials for a civilised and rewarding existence.
And each year, when you receive the receipt of all your tax payments for the year, it will be accompanied by the societal contract you signed before your very first payment.
Maybe you’ll be working the same job at minimum wage and you’ll recognise the good fortune of being a member of a society that values its members equally. It doesn’t reward them equally, but because each person is equally valuable within the society, you know you will always be able to afford all the essentials for you and your family.
Alternatively, perhaps you’ve enjoyed a career on a constant upward trajectory. Then it may serve as a reminder of how the contract was a benefit to you in the past and will serve as a reassurance that your children or grandchildren will also enjoy the same support from society if they need it.
Life’s complex and rarely easy 100% of the time. However greater equity is achieved, isn’t it easier if we’re all in it together?
The Sovereign Individual
If you just answered “no”, you may be drawn to the concept of the Sovereign Individual.
Ever seen Mad Max, pretty well any zombie movie or post-apocalyptic disaster film, such as Apocalypse Clown11?
They’re probably not an unreasonable representation of what life could look like without the protection of structured societies. Everyone for themselves.
You may have heard of the idea of the Sovereign Individual. A few years ago there seemed to be a wave of people claiming the status of Sovereign Individual and insisting that the laws of society don’t apply to them. Apparently, there are even people online selling packs to the overly credulous, to use like get-out-of-jail-free cards should the police ever try to charge them with a crime.
The original concept came from a book titled The Sovereign Individual. I’ve not read the book, just a few short summaries, so this is a practical example of being careful who you listen to. Am I a trustworthy source?
Your choice.
Anyway, from what I understand, the book did a quite remarkable job of seeing a world of crypto-currencies. One of the advantages that they saw in these new forms of money was the difficulty governments would have in taxing citizens.
Currently, most governments have direct control over their currency, but crypto-currencies would change that dramatically.
Remove the ability of governments to tax the income of the workers at source and suddenly the workers enjoy one of the great benefits enjoyed by the wealthiest in society. The ability to choose what income they report and in turn, what tax to pay.
Sounds great?
Personally, I’d always choose the security and protections of a cohesive society, but is it fair that everyone should have to comply with the norms and laws of society?
Shouldn’t people have the right to make and live by their own set of rules? That’s certainly what believers in the idea of the Sovereign Individual claim is their right.
Could it really work though?
Maybe.
Why not allow anyone who so wishes declare that their house and garden is a sovereign nation and so not subject to the laws of the nation that surrounds it? Yay, they don’t have to pay any taxes anymore.
As long as they clearly state their independence at their driveway entrance, if you choose to enter and then get robbed, raped or murdered there, more fool you. You chose to pop around to Gary and Tracey’s to borrow a cup of sugar.
Of course, the complication comes when a Sovereign Individual has to interact with the surrounding nation.
They may be able to produce their own energy and find their own water supply in their back garden.
If not though, they’ll have to buy these in and as they won’t be subject to the laws that mean they can sued for non-payment of debts, I imagine most suppliers will want to hold a substantial deposit or perhaps insist on pre-pay meters.
Hopefully, our Sovereign Individuals will also be able to get waste and sewage services arranged at an acceptable cost.
Moving on, should Sovereign Individuals be allowed to step outside their new nations? Seems a bit petty to say no, doesn’t it?
Of course, there have to be conditions.
While they may be free to rape and pillage to their heart’s content in their own home, once in our society, they would have to follow the same rules as the rest.
That’s no different to going on holiday to another country, is it? Every country has its own laws and if we choose to holiday in another country, obviously we’re going to risk being punished if we break any of those laws.
Of course, while in our society, they’d be using facilities paid for by the rest of us. Sidewalks, street lighting, refuse collection and public toilets for example.
I guess they’d need to pay a daily rate whenever they choose to enter our society, as they won’t be paying any taxes. Clearly, we don’t want to pay for them – it’s bad enough that the wealthiest in society think that’s acceptable.
If they want to drive a car on our roads, clearly they’d need to join some pay-as-you-go scheme. Roads aren’t cheap to build and they need regular maintenance. It’s only right that Sovereign Individuals will have to pay us if they want to use our roads.
I’m sure if we put our heads to it, we’d find we’ve barely scratched the surface of things Sovereign Individuals would have to pay us for while spending time in our society.
Of course, it works both ways and they’d be free to charge anyone entering their house, er, I mean independent nation, for the use of any of their services.
Obviously, freedom doesn’t come for free.
But this is such a fundamental desire for some people, clearly it would be worth the cost for them to achieve their heartfelt dream of becoming a Sovereign Individual.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus ↩︎
- Blimey, I don’t remember The Warriors looking quite so camp back in the day and fortunately warriors today don’t have to wear vegan leather waistcoats and little else – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAn_PrquNIY ↩︎
- Obviously a tenuous link – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jvSjuREKMM ↩︎
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%932011_Belgian_government_formation ↩︎
- https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/charities/rcn-congress-2022-survey-reveals-financial-hardships-of-nurses-09-06-2022/ ↩︎
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmfgjvZq6pE ↩︎
- https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07096/ ↩︎
- https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/poverty-awareness-month.html ↩︎
- https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/your-tax-return/check-the-progress-of-your-return-and-refund/tax-receipt ↩︎
- Clearly I’m making an assumption about your character here, so if, by any chance you do steal the car, for the purpose of this chapter, pretend you just walked by ↩︎
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-QtWrtDYJk ↩︎