"beware of the undertow"

Sometimes when I would go to the beach, there would be a sign warning swimmers of dangerous conditions, "beware of the undertow." What is undertow ans why is it dangerous? Webster defines undertow as, "an underlying current, force, or tendency that is in opposition to what is apparent."


The danger is that undertow will take you in a direction that is different than the direction you think you are going. In fact, a direction that is dangerous. Undertow takes you out to sea when the waves appear to be taking you toward the shore. Have you ever been in undertow and felt what that is like?

There are many forces at work in nature that have a similar characteristic. Its not apparent or visible to normal sight, and it can take you somewhere that is different than what you think, maybe even to somewhere that is dangerous.

You may have heard, "all nature seeks equilibrium." You see the force of equilibrium especially in economics and ecology. In human behavior it is the force of equilibrium that holds relationships together. This force is deep seated in the nature of humans and their institutions. This force is called "social exchange." Social exchange is a theory claiming that people naturally give in order to receive and when they receive, they return in order to keep the relationship in balance. Social exchange is essentially reciprocity based in the human obsession with justice.

Where is the danger?

People submit themselves to institutions in order to receive some goods or services from the institution. Social exchange explains why employees stay with their employer and employers seek to keep their employees through reward systems. When employees believe the reward is insufficient exchange for their labor, they leave. When employers believe the compensation for the employee is too much of an exchange, the employer eliminates the employee.

You might say, "this seems reasonable to me, where's the danger?" Good question. Danger is likely not apparent because this looks normal on the surface, like the waves taking everything toward shore.

Let's look beneath the surface to the nature of the exchange. One party, the employees, receive goodies from the institution they cannot produce for themselves. What do they give in return? They give control to the institution. The institution is willing to give goodies to people as long as the people do what the institution wants. If this balance satisfies both parties, then the relationship remains intact.

The danger is that the institution may slowly and subtly grab control to the point that the people cannot get back their liberty. If you are old enough, you have likely heard the old Tennessee Williams' song, "I owe my soul to the company store." This is a recognition that often organizations "enslave" workers because the employees believe they cannot live without the goodies provided by the company.

The same thing happens with government. The public looks to government for goods and services. In return government desires to control aspects the public's life. Over time, does the relationship evolve into the public being in bondage, so to speak, to government? History has shown this occurs time and time again. The public wakes up one day and they have gone out to sea, not toward the shore.

Social exchange is an undertow. It is a force at work in relationships. It is not apparent relationships of fair exchange take one party to a greater and greater sense of obligation to the other party. As long as institutions, like companies and government, value control where they provide benefits of product and services to others, the end game of the members of the institution is a loss of freedom.

"Beware of the undertow." When things look attractive on the surface, it's possible you may find yourself far out to sea and not safely on the shore. Certainly worth pondering .....

Is your vote a moral choice?

There is so much emotion around voting based on which candidate is on the right side of morality. This issue basically has two parts. One is judgments about the individual candidates themselves and the other is the policies advocated by the people who seek public office.

Unfortunately, most of the voter's attention is focused on being against the person they don't like. In other words, its much easier and more convenient to criticize and reject the person you don't want than to ponder the effect of that person in their governing practices, AND the basis for rejecting them is more likely about their character or morality. The idea that you vote for the person you like personally more than for any policy reason has been captured in the question, "which candidate would you prefer to have a beer with?"

More recently candidates can easily be rejected based on their political correctness or sexual mistakes of the past. Elections ultimately become voting AGAINST the candidate you dislike more than voting FOR the one you believe will govern in a way that is best for society.  Because elections are essentially a choice between 2 candidates, people on each side try to "justify" their vote by deeming the one they are against as immoral or otherwise unworthy.

Beyond fondness for and moral consideration about individual candidates, it has also become customary to judge political views you hold as right (aligned with truth) and those you oppose as wrong or immoral. This is a more complex and interesting topic. More liberal progressive advocates believe income inequality, closed borders, lack of access to education and healthcare by the poor, war, anti-abortion as a restriction on women's reproductive rights, and demographic privilege are immoral. Their view is increasingly seen as Biblical. They believe a moral people (represented by their government) are only JUST when they provide all citizens with what they need (and maybe want) regardless of their ability to pay for it. The idea of "deserve" means the govt grants people God given rights to certain benefits just because they are human. This leads to more of a socialistic view of the economic and political system. Govt control is the best producer and distributor of goods and services to society. Often this is expressed by pointing to the immoral nature of capitalism based on greed of those who game the system. 

The opposing view, also often biblically based, is that the most moral thing a society can do is to grow prosperity, which ultimately produces the least amount of poverty and neglect. Here, personal liberty, such as right to life and religious freedom, and free markets are God given rights that provide incentives to take personal responsibility for actions and to innovate so that BOTH the risk taker and society can gain from new and improved products and services. Justice is not guaranteeing equal outcomes but a system of people getting what they deserve based on what they do. Privilege is immoral because it is seen more as sloughing and entitlement. Conservative political people see government control as a constraint on prosperity and personal freedom. This view is seen by many as the moral imperative of society and becomes the basis for choosing their candidate.

While each side touts their view as moral and the opposing view as immoral, there is a chance that the choice is not a moral one at all. The choice is maybe JUST one of civics and economics. What if an election was society simply choosing whether they prefer to give up some prosperity for more safety or whether they wish to give up some safety to provide opportunity for higher levels of prosperity.

These are the choices every country makes at every election.

The trade-offs between the human's deep seated desires for safety and liberty is a very REAL choice in elections, but its not a moral choice. I ponder the time when public discourse debates the competing biases and not camouflage the debate in which candidate has the moral high ground ....