- Published on Thursday, 06 September 2012 23:28
- Written by Super User
By CHARLIE ALLO
Is there a tendency to ascribe a term with a negative connotation to people or groups without understanding the full meaning of the term?
One may consider the term “greed” or “greedy” a word that deserves more scrutiny than it’s receiving in today’s political lexicon.
There are many definitions for greed, the following is but one of them: “Excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves.”
The problem is that the evaluation is a subjective one; meaning that there is no clear and concise definition that one can apply objectively. Greed is frequently applied to those seeking wealth, power, and status, but one must ask if these ultimate goals, in and of themselves, are being applied in a truly negative manner.
If one were to take the acquisition of wealth beyond what appears to be needed, it would soon become clear that the amount would depend on at least two factors, the individual’s environment and his/her ability to plan for potential disruptions that may have an impact on a person’s ability to sustain one’s self in a reasonable fashion.
Individuals are not the same, so it is irrational to think that we are all going to exhibit the same behavior; any effort to move the individual into a mold that calls for more conformity than necessary to support a functional society is going to be met with resistance. A person may seek power for any number of reasons, not all of which are bad.
One person may seek power to create an environment that will enable individuals to experience a higher degree of self-actualization, while another person may use their power to subjugate individuals; the former goal is more likely to lead to a dynamic functional society. Throughout man’s history there have been too many examples of the acquisition of power being used to subjugate the masses to the will of a select few, this approach always ends in failure.
Our society has reached a stage that it is, once again, demonizing businesses as the culprit for most of society’s problems; had we not had this growth the citizenry would not have had the standard of living it has today. The Nation’s businesses are the life blood of our country, they are responsible for the middle class, to put it more correctly, they create conditions for vertical transitions in the economic scale within our society. This is not to suggest that our capitalistic system has operated under pure capitalistic principles; the system still has far too many shortcomings to suggest that it’s operating as it should, but most of the deficiencies are the result of government’s action within this arena. Government is very adept at placing the blame on some faction outside itself, but when it does this one has to question why we continue to allow the growth of this segment of our society when it is so ineffectual. It would appear that government is not the answer to our problems, but the architect of many of those problems.
What little growth the country is experiencing is due, to a high degree, to the actions within states that are taking a position that is counter to what the Federal government is advocating. One would be hard pressed to assign a reason for this administration’s actions, but one would have to conclude that it’s completely inept or is intentionally trying to destroy the Nation’s economy. The other problem one has is trying to understand why so many representatives of one party would fall on one side of this problem; it’s hard to believe that the solutions to our economic problems should be coming from one party in our government. It’s time elected officials took off their party hats and got down to resolving the problems the nation is facing, if they fail to address these problems the electorate should have no doubt as to where the problem is; the problem is resting on the laps of our elected officials.