The American Way of Life

As my client manager often puts it, if someone wants to live in a carboard box in America, he can. The concept of individual liberty is hard to digest for some nations. Coming from another democracy (India), I can understand. Not so for most countries, where they believe government intervention to "protect" the "dignity" of human life, religion, and culture. Again, coming from India, I understand them to. Since India is a multi-cultural, multi-lingual, secular democracy where all religions are given equal respect by the constitution.

In America, individuals are at liberty to have the most of life. Those who wish to be patriotic, conservative, liberal, or even lethargic, they can have it all. Those with enterprise can become as rich as they can make it happen. Those who want can binge and gamble to death. The economy is consumer-driven. It thrives on individual freedom. Supply generating demand of something different all the time.

If you want meditation, yoga, ayurveda, it's fine. And if you want allopathy, workouts, and quick-fix surgeries, most welcome! Want to drive cars even if it kills the air you breathe, feel free! And if you are those environmentally-conscious, there is a bus or train stop; maybe a mile away, but there is one!

And, most importantly, society values individual freedom. And this is the part which is slightly different in India. Legislature, execute, and judiciary all thrive at being moral police also in India. Can't blame them; the majority population want them to. But that, is a different topic.

If you go by the spirit of the American way of life, some of the most vexing questions posing society do have easy, even if not-easily-acceptable answers:

- We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcome: The way America is the greatest superpower is because it's economy is closest to the law of nature. Government interventions like higher-taxation to help the  lowest class, will be a step back. I'm not talking right or wrong here, only facts. And I'm saying maybe it is ok to not be first, if the price is the health and basic necessities of your citizens.

- Abortion: The individual has the right of giving birth.

- Gay marriage: The couples involved have the right

- Gun ownership: The individual has the right to own it.

- Monopolies and too-big-to-fail: The marketplace will take care of itself. Government should not intervene.

I'm not taking sides above. This is just an extrapolation of the natural behaviors in terms of the current way of  life. If this should change, social views of the majority must also change, enough to modify current laws!

Pumped-up and Fizz Out!

I contemplate on how the developed society works. On why people eat food from outside all the time, and home-kitchens are more for specials with guests / traditional fests. On why, inspite of being natural vegetarians, humans chug in huge chunks of meat, caffeine and sometimes even energy drinks in a day. On why popping-in supplements and pills is okay if it makes you look and feel "better". And I see why, but also ask why not?

On average we live 70years of what I can say productive lives, after which much of it is truly retired for most, where they cannot contribute. Even of these 70, most people are employed to contribute to the mainstream from the ages of 22 to around 60, say 40 years. A diet of meat and caffeine keeps us aggressive, alert and arguably, more productive, than one that lacks it. On average, if you just look at an 8hr workday, a person on such a diet is likely to contribute more. But more if work involves physical labor (laborers) or motivating people (leaders).

As we move to move higher intellect / spiritual roles, a calm environment makes the most difference. Spiked nerves or aggressive/muscular physiques are not really their need or domain, and even works against the balance needed. Most roles in society, I'd say falls in this category: Scientists, medical doctors, scholars and researchers, planners, administrators, even modern IT developers.

But if you feed a soldier on vegetables, you will most likely not get the best out of him.

But controlling diet based on your love, work and leanings, should truly be a personal choice. Although idealistic, a government or spiritual head should not coerce these. Each individual should understand the good and bad effects of his diet on the role he plays for moving society forward, and "eat" accordingly!

To Recast Recycling

Even today I saw a notice at work that prescription drugs can be dropped off at one location in town, and I sighed. Who has the time in this busy era to keep segrgating garbage at home, and then drive down to this location  just to drop off drugs. If recycling has to really work, then incentives are a must.

And for recycling has to scale up, then we need government / private enterprise to segregate garbage for optimum recycling / safe disposal as applicable. The model used in India, albeit incomplete, is in the right direction. There we see garbage collectors sorting through trash and picking out plastic and other recyclable items. They hand it over to collection centers to earn their living.
This model is also accepted in the US although the incentive is yet not good enough by US standards.

A time has to come where, anywhere in the world, a business enterprise is made with sorting and segregating trash, ensuring recycling of all that can be, and safe disposal of that which cannot. Mere individual effort, though laudable, will not make the cut, pun intended.

Free-Market or Regulation?

A topic that constantly churns in mind is what is better, the free-market of economic policy or balanced regulation. With the passing away of former British PM Margaret Thatcher, attributed as the "savior" of the British economy by championing free-market and supply-side economics, this debate again springs to mind.

There is now enough empirical data that no economy can blossom without a dose of free-market principles that encourage competition. The rainbow of innovation is only possible upon the promise of the pot of gold at the end of it. Bluntly put, socialist and communist policies do not have even the carrot-at-the-end-of-the-stick incentive.

But outright capitalism is also like swinging the pendulum to the other extreme. The biggest danger is business monopolies and behemoths influencing and lobbying government to adopt policies that benefit a select few and is against public good. In the 2008 financial crisis we also saw how market greed created a glut that caused a global recession.

A balance is a must. "Optimum" taxation is required so that the poorest, thus so for whatever reason, do not die hungry or are denied emergency medical treatment. But beyond that, tax code must be kept gracious, such that most exemptions prove needless. Retirement should not be a given. So pension/social security, etc schemes should be curtailed. But when a person retires his medical and food expense should at least be supported. The rest, have to be through provident fund/ 401k savings. Apart from basic services like education, defence, environment and administration, transparent free enterprise, indeed, would be the best course forward!

The question of Euthanasia

The freedom to live must come with that to die. A person, who after due deliberation and after considering all parameters of impact to self and others chooses to die, he must be allowed to. Not less the study done on near-death experience that death by natural causes is a beautiful experience, and that through unnatural causes including suicide is indeed, painful.

Euthanasia though comes down to weighing options. Beautifully analogized in Sanjay Leela Bhansali's film Guzaarish, a person disabled and helpless might feel as suffocated as one shut immobilized in a closed container. Who are those  to judge, who haven't experienced it.

We can make such a person aware of how much he is loved, and would be missed, by family and friends. He can be made to realize how still, he can contribute to society and make life more wholesome. He can be shown examples of others worse off, who have made the most of it, become role models and immortalized their memory and name. If even after that the person chooses death over the suffering each minute, and we know that it is not a hasty decision, then we must facilitate it. Obviously , if he wants to wear a suicide vest to damage other life and property, it cannot be allowed. He cannot be allowed to physically impact the lives of others around.

Civil society does exert it's power of killing anti-social elements who choose to harm others even at the cost of their own lives. This we do in defense of live and to maintain order. We even choose to put to death such elements who have been captured, which I do not agree with.

If we choose the guiding principle followed in permitting Euthanasia, put such guilty elements to life-sentence in solitary confinement with no exposure to natural elements, and with minimum food and water to survive at worst. If they want to be executed that bear this, so be it.

In summary, death for self should be allowed, and be permitted upon the individual's choice after empathizing with his options.