Rule 1

1. Always ask of any proposed change or innovation: What will this do to our community? How will this affect our common wealth.


Robert L. Fielding: I think we should talk first about what the word ‘wealth’ means and then the meaning of the phrase ‘our common wealth’, don’t you?

Bert Thornley: Yes, I do. First, I think we should widen our definition of the meaning of ‘wealth’; if we do not, we are liable to make some fundamental errors.

RLF: As well as leaving out some fundamental notions.

BT: Right. Let’s think about what we generally mean when we speak of wealth. What do we mean?

RLF: I think we are generally referring to having a lot of money – the wealthy being rich in money.

BT: You say that as if you think you can be rich in ways other than financially. Do you think you can be wealthy without being rich in money?

RLF: I would say that for most people, being wealthy means being rich – well off, loaded – all those ways of saying rich. Wealth equals having lots of money.

BT: And so it is for countries as well as for individuals. A wealthy country is defined as such by the amount of money it has.

RFL: And by how much an individual in that country can usually earn every year – GDP per capita.

BT: With those countries in which the GDP per capita is highest being thought of as the wealthiest countries – USA, UK, UAE, Japan – what are termed Western countries.

RLF: And yet that number – GDP per capita might hide a multitude of cases of people living in poverty.

BT: As it is with countries, so it is with communities, with groups, families and individuals.

RLF: How can that be? How can a feature of a nation state be applied to a community, a group or family, or an individual?

BT: I am not comparing those entities per se, but rather am saying that the word ‘wealthy’ applied to those same entities – the nation, the community, the group or family or the individual is a misnomer – a red herring, if you prefer – in our ways of thinking about how people live.

Yet, despite this sort of blanket meaning of wealth, we each aspire to it as though it is the Holy Grail, if you like, held up to all as the most divine state – to have lots of money – without really knowing what such a life with money may actually be like.

RLF: Exactly right. We imagine it is like saying to the hungry, lots and lots of food with solve all your problems, when, in actual fact, what we should mean is that some food will solve one of your problems, albeit, at the moment, your most pressing one.

BT: And thinking about wealth using that analogy – of giving the hungry lots and lots of food..

RLF: Overfeeding, if you like.

BT: That’s good, by overfeeding the hungry, we remove, at a stroke, all of the problems of that hungry person, but all we do by overfeeding him, is to give him a different set of problems. By overfeeding him – overcompensating for his hunger, if you will, we make him overweight, with all the attendant problems that go with that condition.

RLF: So, what is really beneficial for him is enough food, rather than too much.

BT: And, as food is perishable, if we give him too much of it, a lot will be wasted.

RLF: And worse, will go uneaten by those who are still hungry. And although the first grace is to eat, as someone once said, overeating brings on its many ill effects.

BT: Do you think we can learn anything about we can learn anything about the distribution of wealth from this?

RLF: Yes, we can, but, alternative theories of how wealth should be distributed are at the heart of politics.

BT: And you are in trouble right away as soon as you use the words, ‘should be distributed’.

RLF: Why?

BT: Because when we talk about how things should be, we usually mean how we think they should be.

RLF: And what is the matter with saying that?

BT: The problem is that my way – my ‘should’ may not be the same as yours. It is in the deciding whose way prevails, that we account ourselves democratic.

RLF: And democracy is the Holy Grail of politics, is it not?

BT: It certainly is, and yet there is a problem with that concept.

RLF: What is it?

BT: It is this; that many, many varied systems of governance attribute the adjective democratic to their systems.

RLF: How so?

BT: One may think of one party states.

RLF: Yes, well what of them? Surely they are not democratic, are they?

BT: Their proponents and adherents would tell you that they are.

RLF: How can that possibly be right? How can a state in which there is no choice of ruling party possibly call itself democratic? What choice do people have in such a system?

BT: But just suppose that all in are accord with the tenets and ideals of that one party, would you still quibble at it being called democratic?

We might look at what we think are outwardly democratic states and yet question whether they are really democratic.

RLF: How can you question a system in which every adult citizen gets the chance to vote for the party of their choice?

BT: Well, to begin with; what if no one party fits one person’s ideal choice? What then? Is such a system of governance democratic or not?

RLF: But political parties seek to appeal to the majority of voters, don’t they?

BT: Certainly, and to do otherwise would be probably to commit political suicide at the polls, wouldn’t it?

But although a party might appeal to a majority of voters, it still might not appeal to a minority.

RLF: But what can they do but appeal to the majority?

BT: Would you say that if you were always in that minority?

RLF: I see what you mean – most probably not.

BT: If you were always discriminated against at the polls on the grounds that you were not a member of the majority, and the majority always elected a government to enact laws that favoured that same majority, even at the expense of the minority of which you were a member – would you still call such a system democratic?

RLF: I most certainly would not.

BT: Then what would you call it?

RLF: A system that tyrannized the minority, in the name of the majority.

BT: Exactly, and you would be right.

RLF: Then how can we proceed? There are always going to be majorities and minorities, aren’t there? How can any system hope to govern fairly, under those conditions?

BT: By not infringing the rights of individuals in that minority, by making rights trump cards, to be used to defeat or remove the effects of decisions that were instrumental in demeaning the rights of minorities. We call specific systems democratic ones despite their infringing upon people’s human and civil rights.

RLF: Point taken. Let us return to the distribution of wealth. As we stated earlier, it is the possibility of someone calling the shots, as it were, in saying who should get what that we generally object to as free men.

We in the West have come to regard the ‘fairness’ of the free market as the best arbiter of who gets what – who becomes wealthy and who doesn’t.

BT: And are you then saying that allowing the distribution of wealth to be dictated by liberal free market economics is fairer?

RLF: That is the general feeling, yes.

BT: And who, may I ask, are this system’s most ardent advocates – the wealthy, or those less so?

RLF: Generally the more affluent in society are in favour of fee market economics.

BT: And these are the same people that are the chief beneficiaries of such a system, aren't they?

RLF: Yes, they are.

BT: So it’s really no accident that the system they opt for favours them, is it?

RLF: No, it isn’t. But we should return to the vexed question - What is wealth? – shouldn’t we?

BT: Yes, let’s do that. We said that if we didn’t, we would get bogged down in discussions that took us way from the more important ones, didn’t we?

RLF: Yes, we did, so let’s return to the subject at hand. Is wealth not the abundance of money? What else could the word refer to?

BT: We usually think in terms of money when we speak of wealth and the wealthy, but I think we are wrong, or at least not wholly right.

RLF: You will have to elaborate – illustrate what you mean, won’t you?

BT: Yes, I will. First a question: What is the most important thing in life?

RLF: I would have to say happiness, and health, of course.

BT: And which would you put first, health or happiness?

RLF: I would say that health should come first.

BT: Why do you say that?

RLF: Because if you are not healthy, it is probable that you are not entirely happy either, whereas if you are healthy, you have a fair chance of being happy, other things being equal, as we say.

BT: So health is number one, is it?

RLF: I should say so, yes.

BT: And then happiness?

RLF: Yes.

BT: And where would you place wealth – having an abundance of money? Would you put it third, after health and happiness?

RLF: That’s a good question.

Robert L. Fielding