Ariel, Interrupted

We Call This Progress

Progress In the USA

Unless one is completely self-sustained, it is impossible to escape even the most desolate reaches of the current business-modeled society that now defines our industrialized, and soon-to-be-technologized life. We do not shun nor shame those for their lack of sustainability for specialization, for it permits for the unimaginable growth in recent history, but has also driven people to cast aside the domestic shackles of skill-versatility for the liberation of expertise-honing. This then fosters the inter-relationship needed between a group of similar, not congruent, persons to collaborate in order to utilize all skills possessed to fulfill some need or want, then receive compensation.

The definition of business’s purpose is within the dissection of the interrelationship and moral pretenses: most are influenced by the self-created social importance of these institutions, whether that creates within the individual a sense of responsibility — either maternal or paternal, to the individuals that serve below them thereby creating a pseudo- family unit; or, others reason a warped sense of responsibility to the arbitrary fractions of human-constructed monetary system and justify exploits to the maximum by affirming the end- goal: to share the wealth with those down the line. I do not imply that all who concern themselves with the latter are anymore capable of malice than the previous, for they are simply two approaches to a long-standing social system — for it is the individual’s self- reasoning that determines their employment of basic human decency.

Why should we keep these long-standing institutions if even with a basic history education a number of travesties can be recalled being committed against the alienable rights given to fellow persons and the surrounding environment, including both plant and animal (and I also imagine fungi) populations?

The nature of the question addresses the context which businesses are regulated, for to ask why to keep businesses around would be to challenge the notions of humans dedicating their self-aware lives to a movement, concept, building or challenge where they mold the situation to reflect more accurately what they intended, which is an activity so inherently human that with no outside influence has led us to the current history.

It could be argued that this self-molding is the true definition of business — the prolonged and dedicated desire to create something or shift people’s positions to more similarly align, all the while getting paid for efforts made that prove just and desired. The payment section may be as inherent to the trading of goods and services as much the products themselves as they were the inception of incentive to trade, after the prolonged realization of the inadequacies of barter and the need for a common base for trade, to provide two persons who have excess of one and wish to replace that excess with needs then lacking.

This does not explain the world of exuberant excess that now categorizes the current “business” state of affairs, for this we must revisit animal nature: the uncertainty of future events causes for a hoarding similar to the squirrels before winter and the dogs that will eat themselves to death if not contained, or in Tolstoy’s “How Much Land Does a Man Require?” — a yard too much.

Tolstoy’s story of Pahom, the man who wanted too much, is a man no different then those that populate a crowded city street. We are encouraged to jump, run, sprint and ask for more until our fill, but somehow the waistline girdle of self-restraint has been swapped for its elastic counterpart, and the rhetoric changed from “enough is enough” to include a conspicuous addition of now “enough is never enough.”

Is it always, as with Pahom, that these most lethal of self-betterment endeavors inseminate within a mental reasoning as nurturing as the womb itself?

Is the difference between those wanting to provide and those wanting too much the simple blurring of motive — the departure of wanting to provide well for others selfishly, rather than wanting to provide for yourself selflessly?

By stating the precautions to the overtly selfish I do not wish to offend Madame Rand and by no means wish to “conjure… a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of mindless whims of any immediate moment” — for her virtue of selfishness has some underlying truth, especially regarding taking a serious temperament in the proactive measures one takes to ensure self-contentment and that self-betterment within the moderated realm should be an opportunity open to all.

The misstep occurs either when that self-betterment grows beyond the reach of common reason, to include a divine responsibility on one to provide for all causing distortion of self-reason and disenfranchisement of those being supported; adversely a true selflessness is the disillusionment of driving self-motives until the individual is completely lost to a larger body conglomerate of needs and public-averaged, group-motives.

The commonplace of business thrive where these two synergize.

Under the circumstances of moderation the individuals contributing are equally regarded as such: self-driving, self-interested individuals that align themselves amongst others of either beneficial expertise or social accommodation to collaborate for a mutual purpose, where the product of such efforts should not solely result in the acquisition of monetary growth but in the completion of the needed good or service either being created or delivered — the compensation should serve as crunch to support continued growth or life: live to work, not work to live.

It should be considered here the notion of education as business: the education service is one grossly skewed on both regards mentioned previously — the higher- education plagued by the greed and the basic education space doomed to martyrdom.

Dissatisfaction in this realm stems from the disagreement of its categorization: it is argued that the classification of schools as business allows for exuberance to sit in attendance as elaborate business structures mask and plot for self-betterment of the stationed elite, having lost scope of true purpose; while the opposition argues that it is these media-spectacled endeavors that produce the means so widely enjoyed by the members of the community at large. The issue challenges the definition of business —simplicity represented by the exchange of good or service for some object of compensation — thereby causing this definition to evolve to the distinctions laid out through the argument; a manipulation of the definition affecting the ultimate purpose.

If the underlying purpose of business is the undefined, untethered anomaly of growth — how does a paid education not justify as a business?

Dissect education: the gains of education are quantified on a metric of varying scales: some use test scores, others job placement, others still completely denounce the institution as an anxiety-riddled, environment that breeds overly competitive, under-taught persons. These more radical representatives argue that the educational process is not one to be monetized and therefore has no need for any other metric than observed understanding of the material — if this were to be the generally accepted notion of education then it would classify out of the business-sector, however every industry has these kind of purist idealists but in practice is not what is practiced.

The incentive is needed to proceed, if not then to survive. The system cannot function without the incentive grounded in the principles put forth by Ayn Rand’s Virtue of Selfishness and yet constrained by Leo Tolstoy’s How Much Land Does A Man Need? — The

compromise being moderated ambition: an ambition that can reach to its furthest extent but is realized and affected by the considerations of others— whether dictated by law or intuition regarding common morality.

Breeches to the system, we are assured happen seldomly — but happen by way of an individual’s sole decision, making the only witness biased. These breeches undermine the understood purpose of business — to grow within the pubic sphere, as no actions happen in vacuum. The business purpose may be to grow but it needs the support provided by the public through funding and deliverance of laborers and consumers to help businesses grow to heights redefined constantly.

Thereby an addition constraint to ambition — the respective growth of the public sphere.

March 9, 2017

About Author

Ariel Gauraa is excited for me to write a small biography about myself -- I imagine my professors share her level of excitement at the thought I might turn in my homework on time. As for both I think I will sip another beer and hope a security breach on the server will crash the system and give me more time to think of something funny to describe me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *