"Developed" States

Following the climate conference in Copenhagen, I have noticed a large number of uses of the terms "developed" and "developing" nations. However, this is a very poor choice of words.

If we are to say that western countries are "developed," we suggest that the have finished developing - that their infrastructure needs no improvement, that their technological discoveries have peaked, that medicine is at its pinnacle and that the government maximizes efficiency and fairness. This is certainly untrue. There is an enormity of work to be done on our roads, hospitals, government, electric grid, water and sewage systems, and many other areas.

We are far from "developed." To say we are "more developed" would be a significantly more accurate term, but we are in no way done developing.

Two Classes

Often, people group society into three socio-economic classes: upper, middle, and lower. Politicians go on about helping "middle-class Americans," and people always try to describe themselves as "ordinary middle-class people." However, out of political correctness, the lower class is many times referred to as the working class. This brings up a huge flaw in the three class system.

While one might try to differentiate between the poorest people and those with a moderately large income, this is a misguided division. Both the lower and middle classes are tied to work for wages in order to sustain themselves, while much of the upper class simply owns the companies that the wage earners work for.

For this reason, I am inclined to suggest that in reality there are two classes: the wage earning working class and the non-wage earning owning class. Of course this sounds much like Marx's proletariat and bourgeoisie, and perhaps this is a simple confirmation of his theories, but I believe it is a necessary reevaluation of our current society. The gap between traditional lower and middle class people is diminutive in comparison to the gap between upper and middle class. Furthermore, the gap between middle and lower class people is more one of income level, whereas the gap between upper and middle is one of means of income. At least in my mind, it makes more sense to group people based on how they earn their income, rather than how much they earn.

The Law of Non-Coercion

Recently, I was talking with a friend of mine about economics and politics. This friend happens to have views fairly similar to mine, so I tend to find it somewhat refreshing to hear his opinion on things. However, in this particular conversation, something I had never heard of came up: the law of non-coercion.

As my friend defined it, this law states that no one can force anyone to do anything. He also said that it was the basis of an anarchist society, and while I had to disagree with him on the definition of anarchy (I would call his anarchy more of a minimalist government), I was very intrigued by law itself. It is an effective description of the basis of my personal belief that basic living necessities should be considered a human right. If everyone had unquestioned, unhindered access to food, health care, and a place to sleep, they couldn't really be forced to do anything. Yes, in order to enjoy any of life's luxuries the would have to do something useful, but just to simply live safely they would need only to refrain from intentionally endangering others.

In this law of non-coercion we have the basis of an effective socialized economy. People still must work to have certain luxuries, but people do not work out of fear of hunger or sickness. This gives workers an enormity of new freedom - if they want to quit, they can, if they want to protest, they can, and they don't have to worry about themselves or their families truly suffering because of it. However, people will still be motivated to work as long as they want things like electronics, cars, their choice of housing, the most fashionable clothes, expensive delicacies, or any of the finer things in life.