Why Society?

When you join a society at birth you are automatically contracted into the system. This gives you the advantages of the system so long as you stick within your contracted obligations to that society. At the moment there is no option not to be a member as the world is already owned by a limited number of entities, so in some ways we are always trying to obtain things that are owned by a previous generation or generations. If you trace it back you’ll probably find that ownership was taken, stolen, or given by someone who it didn’t really belong to in the first place. Some societies didn’t have this right of ownership of things like land or resources, the view being ‘how can you claim ownership of something that belongs to everyone as a whole?’ You can’t unless you steal it and then through generations legitimise that theft. So, stolen good eventually belonging to the last person who bought them. But with this obligation comes the obligation of the society to look out for your interests and give you an advantage over it not being there, and degenerating into a free for all. Some people have characteristics whereby they can’t easily return the benefit for a number of reasons, so there is always going to be an overhead that must be maintained. Or, they just get thrown to the dogs. ‘Law of the jungle,’ but this also means that anything should also belong to those who have enough power to take it from anyone else. Live by those rules, die by those rules.

We have laws to try to maintain this balance and religions to try and organise it so the nobler ideas are ones to aim for. We aim for fairness, not giving advantages to one group, but also not taking away unfairly advantages of another by doing so in an ‘all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others’ way. Once you start by preselecting anything, then you lose the balance and the right to ask anybody to stick to the contract.

But it is a contract, the person sticking by it having an advantage for sticking to the rules. If it only benefits one side or one group then there is no advantage of not sticking to it. An unfair contract is no contract. You can quote rights, morals and ethics to the cows come home, but unless the rules are stuck to by all parties then the contract is rubbish and nobody has a duty to stick to it. Only the fools and idiots, the bird in the gilded cage, but still a cage, and those too scared of the consequences of not doing so. The obligation of right and wrong is subjective to the hypocrite on either side. ‘You follow the rules as this is the right thing to do, but I don’t have to do that unless I choose to.’

The religious may follow the idea of good and bad, being good, while bad is always and continually being done to them, but many follow a creed blindly, the people running it deciding what is good and bad, not the noble idea being followed or its members actually thinking about it. The church of various creeds having some of the worst records of moral turpitude and bias for its hierarchies. ‘Do as I say, not as I do, as that is wrong.’

So, we have the problem of the legal system where the more money you have the more equal you are. The legal system is taken as the gold or vengeful god system that must be obeyed, even when it is patently unfair. Why, ‘because it is’ shout the judges and lawyers who benefit immensely and prosper from it. ‘Without law there would be chaos’ being the unthinking mantra repeated over and over again by the devout believer, but the truer words would be ‘without justice or fairness there would be chaos.’ If it is unfair change it, ‘being shouted,’ but if the vested interest in control won’t allow it to be brought up then the social contract is broken. What has to be considered is not right and wrong but the consequences of scrapping things or destroying the system completely. ‘Is what we will end up with worse that we have?’ the main question. Morals apply to both sides, but if only one side is expected to stick to those morals, the other side having free rein to ignore them, then again the obligation to stick to that social contract is gone.

So, we have people on benefits who obtain money from society. Some are out of work, some are in between work, some will never work, some can’t work, some won’t work. On the opposing side we have people who have prospered in the system, some not doing any work, but consider themselves having got there with no help at all from society. So, if they had been dropped on an island with no help anywhere they would have prospered and have what they currently have. Quite delusional. Without an existing society in its present form and born when and where they were they would probably be nowhere, so societies existence has allowed them to prosper within it, not instead of it. Therefore, a portion of that success is an obligation to the society they live in. You can dispute what fair portion that is, but many evade that moral obligation through technicalities in tax schemes. Tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is not, but not paying what you should is moral evasion and both are equally guilty of this, just one needs a lot more effort by clever legal teams, to trick the system into accepting less. Having extra money from tricking the welfare system is exactly the same as tricking society by not paying the fees of societies social contract, except the government and legal system comes down heavily on those who aren’t as good as getting away with this. Welfare rarely has a big legal team who get paid to help you do it, you see.

A single tax welch on the social contract could run into millions, a single welfare welch on the social contract could run into thousands, but there are a lot more of them and subject to closer scrutiny. There is a lot of complicity by vested interests in this, large sums of money going to political parties to basically pay favours if they come into power, so the equivalent of ‘backhanders’ to give or remove legislation to the givers advantage, lobbying being the equivalent of continually pestering to do a lot of this. ‘You do what we want or we will make sure your time is uncomfortable,’ the wealthiest being able to afford proxies to do this without any effort on their behalf.

As a last point, there are work shy, people who do not want to do anything but command benefits from it. Sadly, the conservative party has a majority who think this is the way most workers are. Unions have the opposing view, where that people in charge do not work but command vast fees.

The fact is, most people want to work as this gives them a sense of self-worth. It’s the amounts that cause the problem, many people think they are worth many times what they are, although a number of people in charge have a massively elevated version on average of this.

A middle person in levels of experience and income is the nurse. So many people have qualifications that are above and below this in their various fields, but a vital part of society is in the nursing profession, but knowledge doesn’t just consist of medical stuff. But that said, you rarely hear ‘I’m ill and need help, call me an accountant, management, or investment consultant’ in a time of need. So, using this as a basis of a median, a nurse unit can give an estimation of importance and payment. Currently at 13/04/2022 a median of about £27,000 for the UK, the average worker getting £39,000.

So, to see and index of how you are valued in society, divide what you get by 27,000. If you are 22 or under divide by 22,000. With two working people that should be 44-54,000. A family of four adults 22 or over 108,000, or 2 above and 2 below, around 98,000.

So, an investment consultant who earns a million a year has a financial value to society of 37 trained nurses, but an actual value of probably less than 1, their own estimation of self-worth commanding the difference. The US rates a median nurse value of £63,000 depending on state with an average worker getting about £34,000.

I’ve used a middle standard in nurses as the units, an average for the comparison being the best for the kind of money that is actually out there.

Funny that the UK values a nurse at 70% of an average worker whereas the US values one at 185%.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.