Aging and Temperment

I have been noticing in myself and others lately that as we age we tend to get more "crotchety"...as in irritable, annoyed, and less tolerant. Any one else noticing this?

We have all observed some elderly people who seem bitter or angry towards the world...spouting off at someone in the street, dressing down a service person, or correcting bad behavior or grammar. "Sonny...when I was your age...". Unfortunately, I have heard my own tendencies of late with being a bit more ornery or condescending with people than I used to be. I'm just not as tolerant, patient, or understanding of "people" I once was. I am more choosy about people I want to be around or the activities I want to participate in. I find myself more opinionated (if that were possible)...and probably less tolerant or accepting of those who don't share my views. Maybe for me it is a conscious acknowledgment that I have fewer days left in this life and I am less interested in spending them doing things or being around people I don't particularly like or admire. I am morphing from a formerly objective person into someone much more subjective based on my past experiences and reactions to them. The main question at this point may be...is this good or bad?

As I grow older I find myself envious of the generally carefree attitude of the youth around me. Most of them seem to live only for today with little thought or concern for tomorrow. I used to live that way. Most of them have energy and vitality that doesn't seem directed in any particular direction that I can see. But I guess I used to have that kind of energy. Many youth today seem to live hard and fast, looking for the good times and not too interested in suffering for a cause...good or bad. I supposed I have done my share of that in my youth also.

I am at an age where I notice the rudeness and lack of etiquette in many of the younger people I see. A lot less "please" and "thank you" than I remember from my generation. Instead of "sir", it is often "hey man"...or "dude". When I try to jump into athletic activities with my 25 year old mindset and 54 year old body...my body now refuses to keep up. I find myself talking to myself more often...and often not in the most positive manner when I can't do what I used to physically.

I find myself reading the obituaries more often...almost daily in fact. I am getting concerned at the higher percentage of the deceased who are my age or younger. I find myself comparing what they have accomplished or what people say or observed about them with my perceived self. What will people say of me...and do I care?

I also remember observing my grandparents in their waning days...the slow loss of their faculties, their loss of independent living, their sadness or outright depression as they faced their inevitable ending of life as they knew it. I wonder how I will be when I come to that point in life. Will I be strong? Will I be bitter? Will I fight or be a wimp? I guess most of us don't really know until we get there.

Ah..."how morbid" you may be saying as you read this. Yet, I have the feeling that how I reason about these things now will directly impact my temperament when I get to those junctures in life. I really don't want to be helpless and hopeless when I am at the end of my time here. I want to always see the glass half full versus half empty. I do feel that if I died tonight I would have no regrets about how I've lived or spent my time...yet...there is so much more I have dreamed and strive to accomplish. I don't know if I will ever get "there". Maybe that will be the key to my longevity without living remorsefully...always pursuing "getting there". I hope so anyways.

Meanwhile, as I age I hope to keep my perspective and relevancy to the lives around me. May I not lose my patience when people around me don't measure up to my ideas of times and schedules or life's priorities. May I continue to live up to my own expectations without projecting them on to others. I hope I can remain flexible to the opportunities and events life brings my way...and may I remain discerning of how to best spend my remaining days without bitterness or short temperaments. Perhaps that hope is best summarized in the famous serenity prayer..."God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference."

Civil Disobedience

During my recent vacation back home to the USA, I did a lot of reflecting from news and views I encountered from various friends and family. I wrote back in April about "Angry Americans" and was wondering what the comparison would be on this most recent trip. While a number of people in my circle were doing just fine (mostly those who were self employed in somewhat recession proof businesses), I heard a lot of pain from recent unemployed friends. Three people I talked to were losing their homes.

I realize that we can't blame government for everything that happens to us...and as I have always said, "people usually have the government they deserve and voted for" (I probably stole that from some famous person I know not who). Yet, we now find our system, not only in the USA but worldwide, controlled by huge governments tied to huge corporate concerns who in my view have a majority control on how things go forward. Most of us "little people" have given up hope on affecting change and are just "going along for the ride".

That brings up the questions of what is the purpose and role of government in our lives, and when is it right to abolish or go against it? Believe it or not, the best responses I can find are from a famous American writer/philosopher over 170 years ago, Henry David Thoreau, who I hadn't read since my late teen years. As I was reviewing his writing on the subject today it amazed me at how relevant it is now. Since so many of us read so little anymore, I take the liberty of sharing some excerpts from his writings on Government and Civil Disobedience here in shorter form... (you can find full text at THIS LINK)

I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe— "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient...

Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way...

But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it...

But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?— in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislation? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward...

The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others— as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders— serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few— as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men— serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay,"...

He who gives himself entirely to his fellow-men appears to them useless and selfish; but he who gives himself partially to them is pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist...

All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail...

The broadest and most prevalent error requires the most disinterested virtue to sustain it. The slight reproach to which the virtue of patriotism is commonly liable, the noble are most likely to incur. Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform...

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse...

Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already...

Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood...

But the rich man— not to make any invidious comparison— is always sold to the institution which makes him rich. Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue; for money comes between a man and his objects, and obtains them for him; and it was certainly no great virtue to obtain it...

When I converse with the freest of my neighbors, I perceive that, whatever they may say about the magnitude and seriousness of the question, and their regard for the public tranquillity, the long and the short of the matter is, that they cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences to their property and families of disobedience to it. For my own part, I should not like to think that I ever rely on the protection of the State. But, if I deny the authority of the State when it presents its tax-bill, it will soon take and waste all my property, and so harass me and my children without end. This is hard. This makes it impossible for a man to live honestly, and at the same time comfortably, in outward respects...

Thus the State never intentionally confronts a man's sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest. What force has a multitude? They only can force me who obey a higher law than I. They force me to become like themselves. I do not hear of men being forced to have this way or that by masses of men. What sort of life were that to live? When I meet a government which says to me, "Your money or your life," why should I be in haste to give it my money? It may be in a great strait, and not know what to do: I cannot help that. It must help itself; do as I do...

I do not care to trace the course of my (tax) dollar, if I could, till it buys a man or a musket to shoot one with- the dollar is innocent— but I am concerned to trace the effects of my allegiance. In fact, I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will still make what use and get what advantage of her I can, as is usual in such cases...

I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation. I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors. I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them. Indeed, I have reason to suspect myself on this head; and each year, as the tax-gatherer comes round, I find myself disposed to review the acts and position of the general and State governments, and the spirit of the people, to discover a pretext for conformity...

However, the government does not concern me much, and I shall bestow the fewest possible thoughts on it. It is not many moments that I live under a government, even in this world. If a man is thought-free, fancy-free, imagination-free, that which is not never for a long time appearing to be to him, unwise rulers or reformers cannot fatally interrupt him...

Statesmen and legislators, standing so completely within the institution, never distinctly and nakedly behold it. They speak of moving society, but have no resting-place without it. They may be men of a certain experience and discrimination, and have no doubt invented ingenious and even useful systems, for which we sincerely thank them; but all their wit and usefulness lie within certain not very wide limits. They are wont to forget that the world is not governed by policy and expediency...

No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire...

Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufactures and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations...

The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to— for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well— is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual...

There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State...which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; ... A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.

Henry Thoreau, 1849

Canto or Owen?

Three days into my post vacation diet, I was impacted today by this OP-ED piece in the NYTimes by Roger Cohen titled "The Meaning of Life". This cute little anecdote raises many great questions to consider including the core one...what is more important, quality or quantity in a lifetime? Being rationalizing human beings, I'm sure there are as many sides to that answer as there are individuals...yet I think we make daily decisions in life based on how we think or feel, even subconsciously, about that question.

I have always thought that with humans and our destinies, everything starts with the BRAIN. The way we think and even feel is determined by how we reason and then act. Like monkeys, humans are great imitators throughout our lives spending most of our waking moments thinking and acting like those around us. We have grown up trained to please others in our circle and society in general. We like to be liked. Beginning with our parents, we were programmed to "behave" in certain ways based on reward systems. If we wanted to be held, we cried until we were held. If we were hungry, we cried until we were fed. In response, we were often denied what we wanted based on our individual behavior...and very few of us accomplished getting what we wanted independently. We usually had to please someone...whether it was our family, church, employer, government or school. Our brains and feelings have been conditioned to be controlled by external forces that are very hard to overcome.

I am much more interested in watching humans than animals. Sure, animals can be interesting and beautiful to watch especially in their natural habitat...but observing humans and being able to understand what they say (at least word wise if not their reasoning) is much more challenging and entertaining than watching animals of other species. I know this will over generalize my observations a bit, but I think Canto and Owen represent two major categories of humans that I observe in every day life.

Canto to me represents the type of people who are controlled, driven and disciplined in every aspect of their life. Many of these are "type A" individuals who are lean and mean machines, racing strongly for their goals and trying to reach their leadership or financial potential. Many of these are in the military or police ranks, submitting themselves to authorities to pursue the order and support the controls they have grown up submitting to. Some "Cantos" are sports stars, models or famous actors who strive and compete to perform or look better than the rest in order to gain fame and notoriety. Yet, as life has revealed it, fame is fleeting and some of the saddest people on the planet are people who hit their peek of performance or acceptance in their 20s or 30s. Alas, we have "Cantos" who turn into Michael Jacksons, Marilyn Monroes, or O.J. Simpsons just to name a few...people who lose their ways or never can deal with the true results of achieving fame and fortune. Sure, there are good examples of "Canto"...many disciplined leaders or "stars" who are well adjusted, live positive private lives, and do good in society. My point is, just being a "Canto" does not equate to a solid center on the "meaning of life" or being "happy".

Owen on the other hand can represent a variety of other human types. They are a bit more "laid back" in life. The good "Owens" tend to be thinkers, philosophers, writers, musicians, artists..."right brain" oriented people. Life for these types are more about emotions, pleasure and living in the moment. They are usually not as driven to please others and more about self pleasure. Carried to an extreme of course these "Owens" can be very self destructive. They can become so addicted to life's pleasures that any semblance of character will disappear in order to achieve instant gratification. The results of that imbalance in perspective can bring much pain and displeasure as a consequence whether it be bad health, lack of financial discipline in order to sustain a free life or an extreme "Owen" can end up in a penitentiary as a result of their self destructiveness affecting the safety of those around them. I see the "Owen" mentality in the masses of people who want government or "others" to take care of them while a "Canto" is more likely to be self sufficient and independent.

For me, the best case scenario is a balance between these two extremes. I think balance is key in most every aspect in life and so difficult to achieve. It is as if we humans have some genetic drive to one extreme side or the other...yet I believe in most of us lies a little bit of both Canto and Owen. Some of us cover up our "Owenistic", pleasure seeking side in favor of adhering to strict upbringings or "towing the line" of traditions and social pressures. Others of us give into total depravity of pleasure from the Owen side and make no plans nor give attention to our tomorrows.

The key observation for me today is that very few of us live in a cage or without some control on our environments. These guys are in a forced study, we are not. Most of us are free to decide whether we work out or eat, study or goof off, consume or not consume. As the wisest man once said..."there is a time and a purpose for everything under the sun...". My goal is to live a balance between Canto and Owen...indulge myself everyday with something pleasurable, but also make a conscious decision everyday to discipline myself towards a future goal. Some people say "be all things to all people". I say "be all things to yourself"...a key difference.

Ok...who are you...Canto or Owen? :)

Colombia/USA trade agreement

After reading THIS ARTICLE from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs on the Free Trade Agreement between Colombia and the USA in The Panama News, I am more convinced than ever that it is in both country's interests to get a trade deal done. I have commented in earlier blogs that there is no such thing as a REAL free trade agreement as all modern day agreements contain too many caveats and line items to truly be called "free" trade. That being the case, I still overall prefer some level of trade between countries as an alternative to gun running and military interventions. Countries that don't trade together usually end up fighting each other or at least supporting opposite sides in conflicts. The quickest way to peace and prosperity is fair and equitable trade between countries.

As this article points out, the USA is at a place economically like no other time before where they need to export and sell goods and services. That seems the only out for all the debt the USA has in its system, from governmental to corporate to personal. Therefore it is expedient that the country's representatives push forward as many trade agreements as possible. Panama, Costa Rica and Colombia have all ratified agreements brokered over 2-4 years ago which STILL have not been passed by the USA Congress. This is a travesty of politicizing these trade agreements based on special interests in the USA. Most of the representatives holding up this legislation are about protectionism of USA jobs and markets...which is the LAST thing the USA needs to get themselves out of the debt spiral. I would encourage every reasoning citizen who understands this to contact their representatives in government and tell them to quit politicizing our economic relationships. Just the Colombia agreement alone could bring a swing in our international balance sheets of between 4-5 Billion per year. Instead of GIVING Colombia $3 Billion per year to fight the unwinnable war on drugs, the USA could receive $1-2 Billion in payments for goods that are otherwise going to other countries such as China, Korea, Russia, etc. Then let Colombia pay its own way into controlling drugs and improving its regular economy. Again, the military option is not working and controlled, balanced trade is a much better answer to market other products and opportunities for the people of Colombia...and elsewhere.

While in the USA these past weeks, my Colombian wife and I caught President Uribe's speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center on CSpan after his recent meeting with President Obama. Fortunately CSpan has provided a online video of that session HERE and is the best source from the "horses mouth" of what is at stake in USA/Colombia relations internationally. My basic summary of his viewpoint was that during his administration Colombia has seen huge improvements on their control of terrorism, the FARC, drug irradiation, and even reduction in violence against unionists that seems to be the main criticism from US congressmen who have held up ratifying the trade agreement. He rightly pointed out that Colombia has been the longest and closest friend politically to the USA in all of South America. It also represents the 2nd largest economy and GNP growth in South America after Brazil. For the USA to get snitty or high and mighty over their affairs at this time is just pure gibberish and wanton when more than ever the USA needs trade and friends in Latin America.

From what I read, it seems Obama is supportive of getting these trade agreements ratified, yet it is mainly congressmen of his own party who are holding things up. Meanwhile, from my closeup view in this region having lived in Panama for 4 years and numerous visits to Colombia, the USA stands to gain or lose a lot in both of these countries if they do not open up trade. There are plenty of other trading partners standing in the wings or actively trading with these countries. It is my contention that if the USA loses the trading wars during the current globalization of markets, they will lose every other aspect of conflict or influence throughout the world over time. If the USA loses its economic prowess, it loses everything and will quickly be overrun by other ideologies such as Islam, Secularism and find itself more and more under autocratic rule. That's not the America I grew up in nor wish to see.

Bankruptcy...the new Sales Technique

During my recent USA trip which included Detroit and various Michigan locations, it was quite obvious the impact of the current economic times, especially in the automotive sector. I am quite sure the government bailouts of the industry are not the way to go. Our government has now cleared the way to socialize the losses in Corporate America while privatizing the profits. Investors are OUT, socialized money is IN. Individual greed is OUT, big government and institutional funding is IN. In my mind this will allow huge coverups of both losses and gains. You will have to go many layers to rediscover the money trails in these new companies.

The biggest question to me is how it can be legal for companies like Chrysler and General Motors to file bankruptcy one day and reopen the next as a new debt free enterprise. The American taxpayers just invested billions in bailout monies of the old companies...and now those same companies are out of business and new corps have been established with mixed controlling interests of an Italian automaker, the labor unions and the US government. What happened to all the stock and bond holders in the old companies? Do they get pieces of the new companies? I would hope so, but I don't know so.

Then today I see the news related to the Chicago Cubs (Tribune Corp) filing bankruptcy in order to foster a sale of the team. So this seems to set the precedent that any business or company that gets "under water" in it's balance sheet can simply file bankruptcy to get out from under its debt and transfer all the good assets to a new entity...with the same brand name even. How is that legal or constitutional? And where will that freight train end? There are so many companies and businesses that are in the same condition...how can our economic system sustain so many failures? Is this the new way to establish market and valuation floors?

This program sounds good for new investors, including the new social bailout fund of the US government based on our tax dollars. But what about the wipe outs and devastation to all previous investors who can't now afford to invest at floor level? Their investment has been "written off", and now the same "leaders" that brought you General Motors, Chrysler, and AIG are still running the new shows...debt free. And once again AIG looks to pay out over $250 MILLION more in "bonuses" for the under producers. How do I sign up for that bonus program?

Personally I prefer the Ford model of running and doing business. They were the only company of the big 3 to invest BILLIONS in retooling and environmentally enhanced car technology over the past 5 years. They also put "rainy day" money in reserves and kicked the ass of both Chrysler and GM in sales in recent years. Oh...by the way...their stock is trading at $5.64 per share at this moment from a low of $1.01 just a few months ago. Wish I had money from my busted technology stocks to have caught that rise. I worry a bit about their competitiveness against the newly debt free Chrysler and GM corporations...but seeing as how those new companies are largely still in the same hands as before, Ford probably has nothing to worry about. I'd still buy it at today's price versus invest in any of the other two companies. Believe me, the future is about management and global market understanding. Ford still has the edge there even if the other two companies got a free "restart".

I still say, with all the upcoming copycat bankruptcy filings, the economic impact that will have on North America is still anybody's guess...but I believe it will only prolong the "bottoming out" of our highly leveraged economic system. Still, if I am selling a company or business today that is heavily in debt, I am looking for the same right of "restart" the automotive, financial and sports companies are getting. Its only fair...

Communitarianism

I have decided to start a separate blog based on my "comment conversation" from my recent blog on Government Morality and Ethics. I think my brilliant young friend from Australia who comes from more socialist leanings than I do has put me on to my new favorite concept of government..."Communitarianism". Lets see how some of the rest of you react to this new form of government compared to what we have known in our lifetimes.

Actually, I'm not so sure it is such a "new" form of government as I think it would be simply reverting back to the beginnings of the human race and how everyone grew and prospered in simpler times. If you study evolution or even Creationism...you start with genealogies of families or "clans" who developed in various specific areas of the world. Before there was such a thing as "nation states", there were clans or families. These clans then slowly grew into "tribes" of people sharing space and community in a joint effort to protect each other and share common values as a race or culture. These tended to be tightly knit groups of families who worked together, traded together, and protected each other. There was a strong sense of identity and belonging in these smaller tribes of people that gave pride and order to their lives.

I think this sense of family or clan is the soul that is missing in our current world order. Especially with the rise of the industrial societies, we have become totally focused on work, production, profit and consumerism that goes with it to the demise of our sense of belonging or responsibility to our families. If we lose the connection of family, it seems quite logical to me that we lose our sense of community or belonging at all levels.

One of the attractions for me to Latin culture over my past 30 years of exposure to it has been the sense of strong family ties and traditions. Latins fight and argue amongst each other with the best of them, but at the end of the day they will defend each other against "outsiders" to the end of time. If you go to the malls or town plazas, you notice younger and older family members communicating arm in arm and a level of respect and communication between generations that is somewhat lost in many first world cultures. Many of these people are poor as hades, but they are rich in friends and family connections...something that I feel is being lost in many consumerism driven cultures. Unfortunately it is changing bit by bit everywhere based on new media role models for youth cultures. But I digress...the main point here is that communitarianism starts with strong family ties and multi generational understanding.

Communitarianism is different from socialism in my mind. In a family or "community" you have a sense of belonging and mutual responsibility. Parents or the elderly tend to show the way for the younger members and while they are usually willing to give help, loans, etc...it is usually tied to a sense of responsibility to repay or at least report back on how the money is being used and is bettering the life of the younger borrower. Most social systems I know of tend to reward all equally no matter their lifestyles or "use of communal assets". "Redistribution" of assets is looked at more as a "right" than a "gift" or loan. The sense of entitlement without real merit always baffles me in a society such as a socialistic one.

Personally I believe that the best answer to our current global economic and political problems is "Communitarianism". Many individuals who suddenly find themselves without jobs, money and even housing or food are going to have to rely more on family...and yes, the social systems that exist at various levels to support the broken. Yet, I predict that the current global crisis is going to bust many of the worlds social systems and when this happens people are going to be forced back to their families and people that know them...in community. Micro economies always move faster to change and improve on business objectives than macro ones. It is faster and easier to get PRIVATE loans or support from people that know you than to get "public" support...at least for responsible people. These times are forcing more people of "like minds" to band together to pursue objectives or find solutions to their dilemmas. In the long run, this may have the positive impact of reconnecting individuals to community and a sense of responsibility for their actions and productivity within that community. I at least hope it does.

Communitarianism beats Capitalism as its not just focused on money or material goods. Communitarianism beats Socialism because it is not an one-sided, unhealthy, expensive relationship between government and the governed in a huge dance of co-dependency. Obviously it beats out totalitarianism and communism as it does not depend on some dictator to control everything and tell the people what they can do when and where. It is a system that is free yet responsible, productive yet humane, and brings up everyone to a common level more quickly than any other system I can think of. The best thing is this is an easy movement to join. Simply figure out in your immediate environment who you can help, and who can help you help others. If the strong can assist the weak in a strong sense of community, all of our quality of living and security will be enhanced within that community.

This system can help better governments, companies, small businesses, and even family relationships.