I once heard a brilliant insight from a very unexpected source: Mark Cuban. Growing up as an athlete and sports fan, Mark Cuban was always the energetic and idiosyncratic owner of the Dallas Mavericks. I was an adult before I realized he had an entire business career outside of the NBA, which had afforded him the opportunity to own an NBA team.
I am not a disciple of Mark Cuban. I couldn’t care less about the world of business, and I think reality TV is one of the signs of the apocalypse. So I never watch Shark Tank. And candidly, I don’t know enough about him to be a fan or a critic. However, I am greatly appreciative of something he articulated a few years ago that gave language to something I’d been mulling over for some time.
In an interview, Cuban was asked a business question, and his response was:
The question itself was about paid family leave, to which Cuban gave a nuanced answer. A decision on paid family leave is always a risk to someone, in Cuban’s analysis. If a company pays employees on family leave, it is a financial risk because they may end up paying double for the same work, which is a difficult cost for some companies to bear (though it can also be a competitive hiring advantage). However, if a company chooses not to offer paid family leave, thereby not accepting the risk, the risk does not disappear. The risk is simply relocated to the employee, the family, and/or the society as a whole.
This line, “The risk never leaves the system,” is a mantra of sorts for Cuban, a foundational philosophical assumption that guides his thinking in all his business decisions. I believe this logic can (and should) be applied to nearly every area of life, especially the political arena. And if we could learn to apply it, we would have much more productive political conversations.
For the purposes of illustration, let’s once again talk about Capitalism and Communism. Even when we talk about systems as broad and significant as Capitalism and Communism, we are not talking about a right system and a wrong system, or a morally good and a morally bad system. We are talking about two systems of human governance, which place their risks at different ends of the spectrum.
The danger of Communism, in the simplest terms, is that people on the lower end of society will choose not to contribute to society. If everyone is rewarded the same way materially, what is the incentive to work hard and contribute to the betterment of the community? Put another way, the danger of Communism is that some people will exploit the system for their personal benefit, to the detriment of the larger society.
What then is the danger of Capitalism? The danger of true laissez-faire Capitalism is that people at the upper end of the society will use the wealth and capital they possess to create more wealth and capital for themselves while making them increasingly inaccessible to others. If unregulated, this would create cycles of poverty and privilege leading to ever-increasing income inequality. Put another way, the danger of Capitalism is that some people will exploit the system for their personal benefit, to the detriment of the larger society.
In other words, Communism and Capitalism contain the same risks. The risks are simply located in different places within the system. One is ripe for exploitation from the bottom. The other is ripe for exploitation from the top. Neither system eliminates the dangers. They simply dictate differently who experiences the dangers more acutely.
To put this into more religious language, we could simply say that both systems have the same problem: Sin! Capitalism and Communism, for all the rhetoric presenting them as diametrically opposed, are ultimately plagued by the same issue, namely that human beings are self-centered, self-interested, and prone to prioritize their own needs over others. Capitalism and Communism simply seek to limit this reality in different ways. Democratic Capitalism seeks to limit self-interest by limiting the power of government. Communist Socialism seeks to limit self-interest by limiting the power of the individual.
Thus, when we talk about different theories of government, we are essentially talking about the best methods of arranging society in light of human sin and self-interest. This is a very important conversation (one of the most important in the world!), and without a doubt, some answers will prove better than others. BUT, we are not talking about things that are holy or God-ordained. (Again, the only form of government affirmed by Scripture is a Benevolent Monarchy, specifically with Jesus at its head.)
If this logic applies to such broad and influential systems as Capitalism and Communism, it clearly applies to the less extreme dichotomies within our own society as well. So often Conservatives and Liberals villainize one another with religious fervor, but neither is on the moral high ground they imagine. They are both simply just placing the risks inherent to the system in different places. Neither eliminates them.
For the sake of discussion, let’s use the healthcare debate in our country as a means of illustrating this concept. Increasingly, liberals are advocating for a single-payer universal healthcare system. Conservatives on the other hand decry “socialized healthcare” and continue to advocate for a private model that relies on insurance companies and market forces. The former has the benefit of providing healthcare for all members of society, but it contains the risk that people on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum will benefit from the system more than they will contribute to it. The latter has the benefit of ensuring that people benefit from the system in a way that is commensurate with what they contribute, but it contains the risk that the healthcare system will become oriented toward those at the upper end of the socio-economic spectrum and inaccessible to others.
Of course the issue of healthcare can’t be discussed without also talking about tax rates, budget deficits, quality of care, and moral imperatives, but even these reductive statements illustrate the point. Healthcare is a complex issue, and it is not a conversation about obvious moral absolutes. It is ultimately a conversation about what risks we choose to accept as a society. Which risks do we find more bearable: the risk that benefits and contribution could sometimes be disparate or the risk that some people could be excluded from the system?
I am not an expert in politics or psychology, but it feels like acknowledging and internalizing this reality might be a prerequisite for productive conversation in our culture. Half a century ago, CS Lewis wrote in an essay:
In other words, every human government is an imperfect placeholder. They are meant to hold us together the best they can as we await the full coming of God’s Kingdom (a final form of “government” presided over by objective truth and wisdom with abundance for all). That is all they are. Human governments are, in a sense, necessary evils as we wait for the solution. They are not the solution itself.
Perhaps if we actually acknowledge the limitations of our political structures, systems, and ideologies (rather than talking about them like they are humanity’s final, divinely sanctioned solution), we will once again be able to come to the table for honest, productive conversation.
I am not a disciple of Mark Cuban. I couldn’t care less about the world of business, and I think reality TV is one of the signs of the apocalypse. So I never watch Shark Tank. And candidly, I don’t know enough about him to be a fan or a critic. However, I am greatly appreciative of something he articulated a few years ago that gave language to something I’d been mulling over for some time.
In an interview, Cuban was asked a business question, and his response was:
I'm a big believer that the risk never leaves the system. Remember that line; you will hear it from me a lot. Just because the employer chooses not to accept the cost or risk doesn't mean the risk and cost no longer exist. They have just pushed the risk on to everyone else.
The question itself was about paid family leave, to which Cuban gave a nuanced answer. A decision on paid family leave is always a risk to someone, in Cuban’s analysis. If a company pays employees on family leave, it is a financial risk because they may end up paying double for the same work, which is a difficult cost for some companies to bear (though it can also be a competitive hiring advantage). However, if a company chooses not to offer paid family leave, thereby not accepting the risk, the risk does not disappear. The risk is simply relocated to the employee, the family, and/or the society as a whole.
This line, “The risk never leaves the system,” is a mantra of sorts for Cuban, a foundational philosophical assumption that guides his thinking in all his business decisions. I believe this logic can (and should) be applied to nearly every area of life, especially the political arena. And if we could learn to apply it, we would have much more productive political conversations.
For the purposes of illustration, let’s once again talk about Capitalism and Communism. Even when we talk about systems as broad and significant as Capitalism and Communism, we are not talking about a right system and a wrong system, or a morally good and a morally bad system. We are talking about two systems of human governance, which place their risks at different ends of the spectrum.
The danger of Communism, in the simplest terms, is that people on the lower end of society will choose not to contribute to society. If everyone is rewarded the same way materially, what is the incentive to work hard and contribute to the betterment of the community? Put another way, the danger of Communism is that some people will exploit the system for their personal benefit, to the detriment of the larger society.
What then is the danger of Capitalism? The danger of true laissez-faire Capitalism is that people at the upper end of the society will use the wealth and capital they possess to create more wealth and capital for themselves while making them increasingly inaccessible to others. If unregulated, this would create cycles of poverty and privilege leading to ever-increasing income inequality. Put another way, the danger of Capitalism is that some people will exploit the system for their personal benefit, to the detriment of the larger society.
In other words, Communism and Capitalism contain the same risks. The risks are simply located in different places within the system. One is ripe for exploitation from the bottom. The other is ripe for exploitation from the top. Neither system eliminates the dangers. They simply dictate differently who experiences the dangers more acutely.
To put this into more religious language, we could simply say that both systems have the same problem: Sin! Capitalism and Communism, for all the rhetoric presenting them as diametrically opposed, are ultimately plagued by the same issue, namely that human beings are self-centered, self-interested, and prone to prioritize their own needs over others. Capitalism and Communism simply seek to limit this reality in different ways. Democratic Capitalism seeks to limit self-interest by limiting the power of government. Communist Socialism seeks to limit self-interest by limiting the power of the individual.
Thus, when we talk about different theories of government, we are essentially talking about the best methods of arranging society in light of human sin and self-interest. This is a very important conversation (one of the most important in the world!), and without a doubt, some answers will prove better than others. BUT, we are not talking about things that are holy or God-ordained. (Again, the only form of government affirmed by Scripture is a Benevolent Monarchy, specifically with Jesus at its head.)
If this logic applies to such broad and influential systems as Capitalism and Communism, it clearly applies to the less extreme dichotomies within our own society as well. So often Conservatives and Liberals villainize one another with religious fervor, but neither is on the moral high ground they imagine. They are both simply just placing the risks inherent to the system in different places. Neither eliminates them.
For the sake of discussion, let’s use the healthcare debate in our country as a means of illustrating this concept. Increasingly, liberals are advocating for a single-payer universal healthcare system. Conservatives on the other hand decry “socialized healthcare” and continue to advocate for a private model that relies on insurance companies and market forces. The former has the benefit of providing healthcare for all members of society, but it contains the risk that people on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum will benefit from the system more than they will contribute to it. The latter has the benefit of ensuring that people benefit from the system in a way that is commensurate with what they contribute, but it contains the risk that the healthcare system will become oriented toward those at the upper end of the socio-economic spectrum and inaccessible to others.
Of course the issue of healthcare can’t be discussed without also talking about tax rates, budget deficits, quality of care, and moral imperatives, but even these reductive statements illustrate the point. Healthcare is a complex issue, and it is not a conversation about obvious moral absolutes. It is ultimately a conversation about what risks we choose to accept as a society. Which risks do we find more bearable: the risk that benefits and contribution could sometimes be disparate or the risk that some people could be excluded from the system?
I am not an expert in politics or psychology, but it feels like acknowledging and internalizing this reality might be a prerequisite for productive conversation in our culture. Half a century ago, CS Lewis wrote in an essay:
I believe in God, but I detest theocracy. For every government consists of mere men and is, strictly viewed, a makeshift; if it adds to its commands,”Thus saith the Lord,” it lies and it lies dangerously.
In other words, every human government is an imperfect placeholder. They are meant to hold us together the best they can as we await the full coming of God’s Kingdom (a final form of “government” presided over by objective truth and wisdom with abundance for all). That is all they are. Human governments are, in a sense, necessary evils as we wait for the solution. They are not the solution itself.
Perhaps if we actually acknowledge the limitations of our political structures, systems, and ideologies (rather than talking about them like they are humanity’s final, divinely sanctioned solution), we will once again be able to come to the table for honest, productive conversation.
Comments
Post a Comment