The idea of money and how we have assigned value to pieces of paper is something that I have always wondered about. I remember being very young and not understanding how something like a piece of paper that could so easily be destroyed, ripped, or damaged represent a monetary value that holds such a high place in our society. Once, little toddler me decided it would be funny to try and take a pair of scissors to my dad's wallet. No damage was done, my mom caught me before I could cut up any bills. But, this was the day that I learned that not all paper is created equal.
Not me, fyi
A few weeks ago we touched on Locke's explanation of money and how it plays into the Social Contract. It was refreshing to know that I am not the only person who questions accepted norms such as putting monetary value on paper and coins. Despite the seemingly arbitrary function of using paper money, it is necessary in order to uphold this Social Contract of ours.
I agree with Locke when he says that inequality doesn't exist before money is brought into the equation. It is the basis on which we form our society and its structure. For many, it is how they determine where to live, raise families, and who to associate themselves with. Money separates us and connects us all at the same time. This may be a cynical way of looking at our capitalistic and materialistic way of life, however I see it as just realistic.
How else would we be able to claim rights to things? History has shown that utopic communities where everything is everyone's just doesn't work. In the movie Wanderlust with Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston, the plot pokes fun at the idea of people living together in a commune and the abandonment of conformity and society. In the end (sorry if I'm spoiling it for you, it's not that hard to predict) modern living prevails for Paul and Jennifer's characters.
As much as I wish we could abandon all sense of conformity and structure and live without the constraints of money, I don't see another way our world could operate. We, as humans, have been placing value on objects throughout history. It's how we prioritize the necessities and luxuries of life, i.e. food and shelter vs that new iPhone or unnecessary pair of shoes.
Being on a quite liberal campus such as the beautiful University of Michigan, weed isn't exactly brushed under the rug. As I randomly roam the streets, whether in between classes or various night life activities, that "good-good" aroma catches the nostrils at least four times a week. If I were to ask some of my MSU "friends" what they were to think about the AA, they may reply (this is actually a quote), "you're all a bunch of stuck-up hippie stoners." What I replied, however, may not be blogger-friendly but let's just say we better win this Saturday or I am going to be in quite the predicament. Ignoring the week of Hash Bash, where the laws are even more relaxed for the sake of celebrating the fight on cannabis restrictions and to remember the cultural activist John Sinclair, Ann Arbor isn't all too out of place in the grand scheme of things.
Starting to slowly connect this to Locke, however, I bring up the mary j to state the general observation: We all know "that guy" who smokes some kush and instantly becomes modern day Socrates, or Sigmund Freud, or Tupac. After a few hits of the J, this weed user simply gets it. They instantly land in someone else's shoes. They know the pain of the oppressed (and all the solutions to stop it). This plant enables the now-philosopher to not only eat incredible amounts of junk food, but also to see through the clutter towards the final path of what it means to be "freeeee man" and to have "world peace bro"(reread in your best stoner voice).
PsYcHeDeLiC mAn! or Mr. John Locke?
Finally, time for the good ol' Locke. This man, even if his ideas and theories have shaped the nation we are in today, speaks from a hypocritical outlook. Locke states very bold claims on why people enter a state of nature, why people agree to leave, and many things in between. Being of rich family stock, earning a master's degree and attending Oxford for medical practices, and working very high-class jobs, a state of nature is a very alien idea for Mr. John. His life of being on the top of the food chain is very far from "a state of equality" where men are "born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties" where they "should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection." He even adds in the fact all men are generally good. Tell that to the hell-on-earth Somalians fighting for their life's in their state of nature. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying the guy isn't right on some of these matters. There is a reason he is being discussed in the first place in basically all political science classes ever. What I am saying, however, is why does this guy know anything about the state of nature? He is an upperclass rich dude, not some peasant who has to struggle for life on a day to day basis. Nowadays, we blast people of the top class trying to connect to those of lower socio-economic status (Romney anyone?). Do it a few centuries ago, however, and we have a philosophical genius on our hands. And no, I am not saying Romney is trying to redefine some theory of the status of life through his policies (come on now, really?). Anyway, what I am getting at is modern times is all about experts in the field saying things about, well, their field. We wouldn't trust a doctor of medicine projecting the stock market, and we wouldn't have random peeps diagnosing hospital patients.
How does this all tie in, you may be wondering? Well, "that guy" is a dude smoking pot who pretends to know everything about anything, even if he hasn't the slightest bit of experience in his subjected field, and Locke is a rich guy holed up in Amsterdam (liberal in more ways than freedom of press, mind you) writing about, essentially speaking, a life he never has to worry about living. If I really wanted to know about life in a state of nature, wouldn't I consult some guy from war torn, government broken Somalia? I mean, look at the place:
a loving state of nature, eh?
My final point is this: I like people to preach from a podium of experience. If they haven't lived in a scenario, how can they tell us the infrastructure of the damn thing? Locke, in the bluntest of ways, stumbled upon a theory that fits. Who knows how many other countless old white dudes tried to write about the same topic and aren't given a second thought today. Locke just happened to be that one-in-a-ton "guy" who's blabbering mouth landed them somewhere. For all we know, the next Locke could be at our very own Hash Bash this coming year, lighting up right under our noses.
Who knew Locke and Hobbes were
still being brought up in the 21st century, outside of Polisci 101 I
mean. While watching the new show “Revolution” on NBC I realized the two
separate groups portrayed in the show follow the beliefs of both Hobbes and
Locke.
For those of you who don’t know or simply
don’t have time for TV, “Revolution” shows the U.S. after a mysterious power
outage. Everything that ran on any form of electricity, from cell phones to
computers suddenly went off and never turned back on. We meet the main
characters fifteen years after the “black out,” or loss of power. The United
States doesn’t exist anymore. Instead the U.S. has been broken up into multiple
republics, run by absolute dictators (sound familiar yet?) The one we are most
familiar with at this point in the called the Monroe Republic. Sebastian Monroe
has control of the majority of all firearms, as rare as they are now, and his
militia enforces anything and everything Monroe deems “necessary.” When people
see the militia coming, they hide if they can or they do whatever it is they
ask, because they fear the militia more than they want to protect what is
theirs. (Please tell me this is starting to ring bells!)
If it hasn’t, let me lay it out for
you. In Hobbes’ The
Leviathan, Hobbes believes that when a government goes into effect, it
is because one man gains all of the weapons and power; everyone else follows him purely out of fear. Monroe follows this definition to a T, in
“Revolution.” He does not allow civilians to own firearms, giving him military
superiority over the majority of the population. There is, however, a rebel
group trying to fight against Monroe, which The
Leviathan does not mention about government. This rebellion is trying to
bring back the government of the United States of America, as opposed to the
Monroe Republic. But there is also another story to this show besides the
government.
The audience mostly follows the
story of a young woman named Charlie as she tries to find her brother, who was
taken by the militia. Their father is believed to have known how and why the
black out occurred and even how to turn the “lights” back on. When the militia
comes to get their father, he is accidently shot and the militia takes
Charlie’s brother, Danny, instead. As Charlie intends to search for Danny by
herself, but two other people from her small community choose to go with her.
This is something neither of them has to do. They are not related to Danny, in
no way are they responsible for him and they are not to blame for Danny being
taken. Regardless, they still choose to go with Charlie, even against Charlie’s
own will. (Hmmm…people working together…familiar much?) Charlie goes in search
of her uncle, Miles, at her father’s suggestion and he also agrees to help her
get Danny back, even though he has never met Danny or Charlie, he agrees to
help them on the bases of their family ties and nothing else. Charlie is not
threatening him. She is not bribing him. All she can do is ask, beg, Miles to
come with her.
I will admit that this does take
Locke farther than what he wrote in his Treatise.
In The
Second Treatise, Locke says we should be part of communities only if it
does not cause harm to ourselves. In “Revolution,” it is obvious those helping
Charlie are risking harm to themselves and I don’t want to spoil this series
for anyone, but you do see harm come to these individuals as their quest
continues.
In closing, I think it’s
interesting how today in the 21st century, when a writer decides to
write about a situation that is, basically, post apocalyptic, society is thrown
back into a state of nature similar to the one described by Hobbes and Locke
written centuries ago. Those who were or are involved in the government, or
even society in the big cities, in this state of nature support Hobbes’ idea
that you cannot trust anyone. While those who have no experience with the
Republic, or have stayed in more rural areas, have a more “Locketian” view of
human kind being inherently good. For example Charlie regularly convinces
Miles to not kill individuals working for the militia. By no means do I know if
the writer was inspired or drew on the Locke’s and Hobbes’ writings, but the
similarities are awesome, surprising, and worth discussing.
Feel free to watch the series and comment. Come on, there's only four episodes so far.
