Is Being Rich Being Evil?

1911 Poster from “Industrial Worker”

There was a recent suggestion from Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to tax the first $10 million by 70 percent, a suggestion that received favorable polls as broken down by the New York Post. Now, while she makes the argument that the taxes were much higher in the 1950s and '60s, I was still taken aback by such an idea. I used to think that the rich were full of greedy people that hoard their wealth, and would also think "What could you possibly do with all that money?" But after some pondering and listening to arguments for both sides, I realized that the rich are not the enemy.

Every time there is talk about the rich, there also seems to be the talk of the dispossessed people that come as a result of capitalism and an unfair power hierarchy of which only benefits those at the top. And while this may be superficially correct, looking deeper into the situation proves this not to be the case. While many see those at the top as those privileged by unfair advantages, in truth, it is the majority of the people that have placed them there. As Jordan Peterson (of which I have mentioned in previous blogs) points out, there is no such thing as a hierarchy based on power distributions and instead, the hierarchy is based on competence. He then goes to mention why hierarchies are established, to which he attributes value being the foundational reason. As people, we value certain things above others, and this creates a hierarchy of priority. And when someone is able to produce that value efficiently, we reward them by placing them higher in the said hierarchy because they are competent enough to give us the things we prioritize. Once I opened my eyes to this idea, I no longer saw the ultra-rich people as an enemy of the people, but instead as a competent benefactor of our values.

However, the question of what someone could possibly do with so much money (take for instance Jeff Bezos who had a net worth of $150 billion) is still unanswered. It is obvious that a lot of that money comes from investments and not actual cash, but regardless, there is still a lot of money at hand, which could be used for better purposes. For instance, Bill Gates has funneled a lot of money for research and education and promises to give a lot of it away after death, and this is the kind of thing that I believe is necessary. This idea is best articulated in Andrew Carnegie's "The Gospel of Wealth" where he argues that the rich should use their money in philanthropic endeavors and those who are stingy with their money should be taxed heavily and have a lot of their estates reduced after death. Now, while he may have had some rather harsh views on why certain people were poor, the philanthropic idea is something that should not be overlooked. I am very much of the mindset that the wealthy should use their large mass of wealth for the greater good, and I now see why Ocasio-Cortez would like to tax them at such a high rate because then the government could use the added money for public goods. The only problem that I see with this is the fact that the people are not necessarily doing something out of the goodness of their heart, plus there needs to be cautious as economics shows that having a high enough tax rate results in more loss than gain.

Religion: Blessing or Plague?

Religions Courtesy of Wikipedia 

Born and raised in a somewhat Catholic household, I am a byproduct of religion. By "somewhat" I mean that I was baptized, went through my First Communion and my Confirmation, and went to church every so often. But besides this, it seemed as though that religion was something that we did outside of our home and not necessarily something that defined us. Nonetheless, as I grew older, I began to form my own opinions, and while I went through my Confirmation class, I saw myself questioning a lot of things from my religion such as the fact that someone can live a sinful life only to be forgiven when they repent as they die. However, it would be wrong for me to say that the bible teachings that I went through did not affect me, in fact, some of my core principles are founded upon these teachings. And while this is a positive good that comes from religion, I am under the impression that some of the things wrong with the world also come from religion.

While religion can be a source of good, there are times where it can also be a source of conflict and ignorance. Most of this ignorance comes from the fact that "All religions have their accepted dogma, or articles of belief, that followers must accept without question [which] can lead to inflexibility and intolerance in the face of other beliefs." When people are inflexible and unable to see the perspective of others, there is a lack of understanding from this ignorance that then leads to conflict amongst people. And these articles of belief that must be followed can then lead to an inability for social progress and acceptance of other people who do not share the belief, or even worse if they disagree with it. Religion in this sense is yet another way to bring people apart when it should instead be bringing people together, and this is where I have the biggest of problems with religion. When there are people who claim to be religious and all-loving only to do morally questionable things is something that has always bothered me. In essence, people's hypocrisy is what bothers me. These are the people who are constantly going to church and put on a veil of religious good, but at home, they are alcoholics, wife-beaters, etc. And I don't want to paint with a broad brush here, obviously, the majority of people are not like this, the amount of people who are is still alarming and bothersome. 

Furthermore, there have been many atrocities in the name of religion. And while "only 123 [wars] have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all the wars" there have been other atrocities such as genocide against the Indigenous Americans, and the present conflict in the Middle East between Israel (a Jewish country) and Muslim countries that have taken the lives of many. Then there are extremists, who use violent means in order to grow their followership and push forward their interpretation of the religion. 

As I mentioned in "The Attack on Discourse" there is no real communication between people of different ideas and there is instead a polarization amongst them. This also applies to how people look at those with a different religion. Instead of trying to understand and learn their religion, they would rather ostracize or avoid interaction with people of other religions which only adds to hostility and conflict amongst people. For me, religion is just another method of dividing people alongside race and ethnicity and just adds to the ever compounding reasons to stay within a bubble. And while religion can also be unifying to those who are within the religion, it does so at the expense of those who are not. 

Gender: Is it Black and White?

The Gender Spectrum courtesy of shameproofparenting

There is a growing discussion on gender and sexual identity, and for me, this was always perplexing. I had always seen the world through the gender binary lens that perhaps a lot of us have, and grew up thinking there were standards as to how it is a man and woman are supposed to behave. For me personally, growing up in a Mexican household, we are taught this "machismo" idea which calls for the man to hold their ground no matter the circumstances. It was seen as effeminate for us to cry or show vulnerability, and many of the things we went through had to be endured. But, as I grew older and began thinking for myself, I saw this as a detrimental way of thinking. As a human being, I am supposed to feel emotions and there are going to be things that elicit an emotional response. This newfound way of thinking has pushed me away from this toxic idea of masculinity, of which I believe is a growing concern that society faces now.

There is also a growing consensus that gender no longer includes only male and female, or at least how they are to be perceived. But, society does not seem to know the words that should be involved in the discussion, and much rather make their own assumptions and definitions. Gender, as it is defined here, is divided into three parts: body, identity, and expression. The explanation for "body" describes it as how society identifies what is male and female, so essentially the definition of sex. Sex is biological and includes the genitalia and hormones associated with either male or female. This then brings into question people who are intersex, where a person is born with both reproductive organs or has a shared anatomy between the sexes. In these cases, gender identity, or how people view themselves, plays a big role.

Gender identity seems to be the great divider in many of the discussions that society has. People can choose to view themselves as the typical male and female counterparts, or can choose to be non-binary or agender (not associated with any gender). I find difficult to come to terms with the last two because it does not add to the conversation. It seems as though people choose not to pick any gender for the sake of not picking a gender, considering that a person is going to behave in certain ways that, although stereotypical, are still in line with the male or female roles. This is the gender schema theory which is society's definition of the roles of both genders in society. This notion of not being associated with either gender is a little misleading because although some people can possess attributes from both sides (like a spectrum) there are things that are going to define what is typical of a male and what is typical of a female, and simply not wanting to give it a name adds little to the conversation.

This then leads us to gender expression, which is how people choose to show their gender. Although gender schema theory denotes how male and female are supposed to behave and look based on society, people may choose to express themselves however they would like, which includes wearing things generally associated with the other gender. Gender expression does not necessarily define gender identity, and this is the part that many seem to confuse. A person's gender identity is separate from their gender expression and it is mostly here where I think the spectrum is a lot more clear to see. How a person wants others to see them should not be scrutinized or discriminated against, as it is an expression. Here in the United States, this is protected under the First Amendment, and how a person chooses to present themselves should not be a defining aspect of there gender identity. How they express their gender is how they feel comfortable, and it should not be grounded in how they view themselves internally. A biological male who identifies as a male can express effeminate qualities, but this does not mean that they are female and vice versa.

So, while many argue that gender is a spectrum, I would argue that it is really the expression of gender that is more like a spectrum. Nonetheless, such grounds should not be the basis to judge someone, and instead of judging people on how they express their gender, it should be their character that ultimately defines who they are.