The Jessaverse | Change and Exchange

Last night I finished reading Tom Friedman’s paean to globalisation, The Lexus and the Olive Tree.

It was less harsh than I expected, although the American jingoism was rather annoying, as well as the seeming praise of Reagan and Thatcher. The commentary on France and Western Europe wasn’t that great at all, either. But for the most part, I was in favour of what Friedman wrote. He made some excellent points about the fact that in order to be relevant in modern society, you must be part of the information age, and that you must be plugged in to the “Electronic Herd” and make sure to balance your capital with the human and environmental elements in your country. I enjoyed reading the book, and I usually don’t find myself that interested in books that discuss economics, but I was surprisingly fascinated this time.

I agree with Friedman that globalisation is mostly a positive force in our society, but I have reservations about unbridled capitalism. (And so does Friedman, apparently.) I am far from being a socialist; I am someone who agrees with the capital system. I’m too individualistic to support a collectivist society, and too sympathetic to support a Darwinian capitalism. (That’s what prevents me from being a Republican, a Green, a Libertarian, or a Communist.) I don’t approve of multi-national companies abusing their workers abroad. Abuse of human beings is wrong, whether it increases profit or not. I don’t think that we should necessarily focus on keeping the jobs in America; rather, we should focus on keeping the jobs safe. I think that we should work to improve labour conditions in the countries from which we import. Happy workers tend to work harder and be more satisfied than tortured workers anyway. Slavery and mistreatment are always inexcusable.

I believe in balancing people and profits. I think that we should have a small welfare state for those who truly cannot make it on their own, but it should not be extensive so that it becomes a pure “nanny state.” As an example of an individual choice/government balance, I’ll use health care. With medical care, I don’t completely agree with the Democrats’ plan of universal health care as presented. I don’t think the government should choose the doctor that you have to visit, but I also think that people who couldn’t otherwise have good health care should be able to see a decent doctor of their choice. Hence, I support the use of medical vouchers. A medical voucher would be issued for a certain amount of money based on the person’s family size, needs, and socioeconomic status. You would be able to see any doctor that you wanted and that the government could afford to pay for.

It’s quite funny, but eugenics is an idea about which I am not completely decided. Although I do not believe in the euthanasia of those who are already living (I don’t believe in killing, except in self-defense), I do approve of genetic research to prevent ailments such as mental retardation, blindness, deafness, and such degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, AT THE MOMENT. It’s a controversial view to have, but I think it is necessary to allow future generations to have the best life possible. I’m not like Adolf Hitler, wanting to euthanise people because they are not perfect. But I DO believe that genetic engineering can be a positive thing if applied properly. I don’t think that people should all be identical, or have the same type of neurology. In fact, I have my own ‘issues’ that might induce a radical eugenicist to even euthanise me! Of course, that’s looking at human life in a logical point of view, rather than an emotional point of view. I’m still undecided about this issue, and it’s taken me a lot of deliberation for me even to reach this point.