In her book Systems of Survival, Jane Jacobs described two modes of organization in human culture. She divided moral perceptions into two categories—hunters and traders, Big Government and Big Business. The first she called the “Guardian Moral Syndrome” and it contained 15 precepts, like “Shun Trading,” “Adhere to Tradition” and “Obedience above Honesty.” This system arose primarily to satisfy the needs of organizing and managing territories. It became the way for warriors, governments, and religions. The second was the Commercial Moral Syndrome and also has of 15 principles like, “Shun Force,” “Compete” and “Respect Contracts.” This came into being to support human activities concerning trade and the production of goods. She did not overtly condemn the principles of either, maintaining that both were necessary in the modern world.
“Like the other animals, we find and pick up what we can use, and appropriate territories. But unlike the other animals, we also trade and produce for trade. Because we possess these two radically ways of dealing with our needs, we also have two radically different systems of morals and values – both systems valid and necessary.”According to Jacobs severe problems and conflicts occur mainly when the precepts appropriate to one syndrome are applied to the other, for instance Guardian principles like loyalty and honor mixed with Commerce principles like competitiveness and trading for profit resulting in the Mafia.
Ben Franklin used an almost identical analysis in the quote I offered on March 1st:
“There seem to be but three ways for a nation to acquire wealth. The first is by War as the Romans did, in plundering their conquered neighbors. The second by Commerce which is generally cheating. The third by Agriculture, the only honest way. “Franklin instinctively opted for a suite of morals distinct from the two which he considered dominant. He saw a third way and as an 18th century American it was natural for him to see this as characterized by Agriculture. In the utopian views of Jefferson, Franklin, and others America should be founded on the strength of the small, the yeoman farmer owning his fields, the local militia which dissolved itself after the conflict, “no foreign entanglements” (Geo. Washington’s farewell address). On one hand, Commerce (though not corporations, yet) had reared its ugly head, on the other, the “Way of Rome” as personified by British Imperialism, was universally condemned. (The military was not at all glorified after the Revolutionary War—Washington and some other generals in order to salve their self respect had to form a semi-secret organization, The Society of the Cinncinnati). The dangers described by Jane Jacobs of combining the morals of the two modes were not in evidence in Franklin’s time. As far as health care becoming a business prospect, in those days it would have been impossible to conceive of health as connected with commerce. The few pitiful remedies doctors had, although paid for, were offered more in a spirit of caring and ministry to the sick (after all, if you were seriously ill at that time you usually died).
Aren’t most of us involved in trying to find a Third Way? We instinctively cleave to candidates offering “change”, we feel reflexive horror at the grasping practices of mega-corporations who, to use just one example, try to monopolize pure water supplies in the developing world, we shake our heads in disgust at governmental attempts to enforce national unity-think whether it be the Patriot Act, Israel bulldozing houses, or Putin’s thugs murdering journalists.
A recent conversation brought up the case of our close friend who is undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. Each time they give her the poison they must remove white blood cells to save and re-inject later. There is a evidently a high-tech machine to extract the white cells from the blood. Each time they do this for her, the bill sent to the insurance company (the request for wealth transfer from one conglomerate to another using the patient as an excuse) is $5000. I am sure that the non-profit hospital has a staff of accountants hard at work determining the costs of each and every Q-tip and these consummate calculators have figured out that this machine, probably costing several million dollars, has a lifetime of X years, divided by N number of patients per year and therefore each time it is used it “costs” $5000. No profit is involved in their calculation--that would be contrary to their mission statement. But everyone agrees, for some reason, on their right, even their duty, to balance their books.
What if the books were balanced by a “third way”? What if the cost of the machine was offset by the lives it would save? If a human life is worth an infinite amount, the pro-rated cost of the machine cannot affect the amount charged to the “consumer”. Nothing would be consumed; the machine would then be priceless and the hospital would be feel free to charge a more reasonable amount, or nothing, per use. I am not going to try to develop this train of thought any further now. I will finish by saying that I see a huge conflict, maybe a Jacobean one, in the sight of non-profit hospitals owned and run by religious organizations being managed by bean-counters who must balance their bottom line with dollars, not lives.
