Death by Shopping
Since “Black Friday”, the death toll for this Christmas shopping season stands at three. One Wal-Mart employee trampled to death and two shootings in a Toys-R-Us. In other parts of the world people die for religious zeal or providing basic necessities like food for themselves and their families. In Europe they kill themselves over their enthusiasm for soccer and here in the USA, we die over televisions and toys.
Of course the likelihood that one will die while Christmas shopping is very small. You're much more likely to be killed driving to and from the stores. But driving is a risk we all take willingly, we all know that every time we get behind the wheel and venture out among our fellow drivers there is the chance that something bad may happen. Usually, if something bad happens, however, it is not due to malicious intent, which is why we call them accidents. Sure, someone may have been distracted on their cell phone or with their fast food but that is negligent stupidity, not malicious intent. Most “accidental” deaths in this country fit into this category.
What happened in these stores is another animal entirely. It is more like a “feeding frenzy” among sharks. One shark, out in the open, isn’t usually dangerous. Put a group of them together and mix a little blood in the water and you’ve got an entirely different situation. People are the same way. Starving people sometimes do things they would not normally do to get food. When a ship is going down we like to think it’s “women and children first” but that is not always the case. The will to survive is a very basic drive in people and for all our morality and civilization, for all our “evolution”, when push comes to shove we revert to survival of the fittest.
What does this have to do with shopping? Nothing and everything. In socialist western society the risk of starving or dying of exposure has been effectively removed. In the US most people on welfare live better than the average European. If basic needs were really a problem in this country, you would never see an overweight poor person. Since the risk of death due to exposure and starvation have been removed, all our basic needs are met, we should all live as civilized people in harmony, right? Isn’t that the promise of socialism? If everyone is equal and has the same basic stuff, everyone will be happy. No envy, no need.
A long time ago I read a study about risky behavior in various civilizations. The basic conclusion of the study was that if risk and uncertainty were removed from a society they would find ways of inventing and introducing their own. The examples they gave were among pacific islanders who lived in what many explorers described as utopian settings. In their settings there was plenty of food and the climate was far from harsh. The environmental risks were negligible. In order to introduce risk and uncertainty, one tribe had a “medicine man” who would occasionally kill someone for no reason. It also concluded that because of the idyllic nature of New Zealand, the Kiwis were among the greatest risk takers in the world.
We do the same thing. We go to amusement parks or jump out of perfectly good airplanes to fool ourselves into believing we are risking our lives because it “makes us feel alive”. We need risk and challenge in life to make us “feel alive”. Every living thing on this planet wants to survive and thrive, it is only we who have the ability to feel satisfaction by doing so. What socialism does, however, by removing the risk of failure is to cheapen the reward of success. What satisfaction is there in winning a game that is fixed? What incentive is there to try if those who do nothing receive the same reward? Yet within us is that desire for the satisfaction of accomplishment that only comes by taking genuine risk or overcoming real challenge. If neither our physical or social environment provide that, we have to provide it for ourselves. What was once a desire to provide food for survival now becomes focused on the acquisition of frivolous consumer goods. The intensity our ancestors once brought to the hunt is now directed at 32” TVs and the intense competition for survival once felt from enemy clans and tribes is now directed at our fellow citizens. The difference between hunting the mammoth and hunting for a bargain is that of degree and not substance. That being true, it is no wonder that the veneer of our civilization is sometimes torn away in these situations and people are injured or killed, they “act like animals” as one witness said. If we continue down this path of removing all risk in society by “bailing out” failure and forcing people to live safe, orderly, boring lives, we will continue to invent ways to introduce risk and stress whether through outlandish behavior (Hollywood crowd, professional athletes), neurosis, fighting at sporting events or killing people over toys. Liberty is a natural and healthy state and an essential part of liberty is the freedom to succeed or fail on one’s own initiative. When our initiative and sense of accomplishment is curtailed or restricted and the freedom of action is severely regulated, basic human drives are being tampered with and the results are never good.
Of course the likelihood that one will die while Christmas shopping is very small. You're much more likely to be killed driving to and from the stores. But driving is a risk we all take willingly, we all know that every time we get behind the wheel and venture out among our fellow drivers there is the chance that something bad may happen. Usually, if something bad happens, however, it is not due to malicious intent, which is why we call them accidents. Sure, someone may have been distracted on their cell phone or with their fast food but that is negligent stupidity, not malicious intent. Most “accidental” deaths in this country fit into this category.
What happened in these stores is another animal entirely. It is more like a “feeding frenzy” among sharks. One shark, out in the open, isn’t usually dangerous. Put a group of them together and mix a little blood in the water and you’ve got an entirely different situation. People are the same way. Starving people sometimes do things they would not normally do to get food. When a ship is going down we like to think it’s “women and children first” but that is not always the case. The will to survive is a very basic drive in people and for all our morality and civilization, for all our “evolution”, when push comes to shove we revert to survival of the fittest.
What does this have to do with shopping? Nothing and everything. In socialist western society the risk of starving or dying of exposure has been effectively removed. In the US most people on welfare live better than the average European. If basic needs were really a problem in this country, you would never see an overweight poor person. Since the risk of death due to exposure and starvation have been removed, all our basic needs are met, we should all live as civilized people in harmony, right? Isn’t that the promise of socialism? If everyone is equal and has the same basic stuff, everyone will be happy. No envy, no need.
A long time ago I read a study about risky behavior in various civilizations. The basic conclusion of the study was that if risk and uncertainty were removed from a society they would find ways of inventing and introducing their own. The examples they gave were among pacific islanders who lived in what many explorers described as utopian settings. In their settings there was plenty of food and the climate was far from harsh. The environmental risks were negligible. In order to introduce risk and uncertainty, one tribe had a “medicine man” who would occasionally kill someone for no reason. It also concluded that because of the idyllic nature of New Zealand, the Kiwis were among the greatest risk takers in the world.
We do the same thing. We go to amusement parks or jump out of perfectly good airplanes to fool ourselves into believing we are risking our lives because it “makes us feel alive”. We need risk and challenge in life to make us “feel alive”. Every living thing on this planet wants to survive and thrive, it is only we who have the ability to feel satisfaction by doing so. What socialism does, however, by removing the risk of failure is to cheapen the reward of success. What satisfaction is there in winning a game that is fixed? What incentive is there to try if those who do nothing receive the same reward? Yet within us is that desire for the satisfaction of accomplishment that only comes by taking genuine risk or overcoming real challenge. If neither our physical or social environment provide that, we have to provide it for ourselves. What was once a desire to provide food for survival now becomes focused on the acquisition of frivolous consumer goods. The intensity our ancestors once brought to the hunt is now directed at 32” TVs and the intense competition for survival once felt from enemy clans and tribes is now directed at our fellow citizens. The difference between hunting the mammoth and hunting for a bargain is that of degree and not substance. That being true, it is no wonder that the veneer of our civilization is sometimes torn away in these situations and people are injured or killed, they “act like animals” as one witness said. If we continue down this path of removing all risk in society by “bailing out” failure and forcing people to live safe, orderly, boring lives, we will continue to invent ways to introduce risk and stress whether through outlandish behavior (Hollywood crowd, professional athletes), neurosis, fighting at sporting events or killing people over toys. Liberty is a natural and healthy state and an essential part of liberty is the freedom to succeed or fail on one’s own initiative. When our initiative and sense of accomplishment is curtailed or restricted and the freedom of action is severely regulated, basic human drives are being tampered with and the results are never good.
Comments