The Tao Te Ching (Daodejing) is the second most translated book in the world today.  Let’s take a look at a handful of translations of a particular part of Chapter 57 and see if we can determine what is being expressed:

Beck: The more restrictions there are, the poorer the people.

Chan: The more taboos and prohibitions there are in the world, The poorer the people will be.

Hansen: The more the social world has to elude, the more the people are impoverished.

Legge: In the kingdom the multiplication of prohibitive enactments increases the poverty of the people.

Mitchell: The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.

Ta-Kao: The more restrictions and avoidances are in the empire, The poorer become the people.

This is not an opposition to all law.  Certainly a society will have to take measures to protect the populace from harm.  Those who cause physical injury to others and pose any threat to continue causing harm must surely be removed from the opportunity to continue.  Laws create an authority to do this.  An authority granted by the people to further their ability to live together in harmony.

Our society today, however, goes far beyond this, to an absurd extreme.  Our prisons are overflowing.  Why is that?  Are there so many dangerous people today?  Put in a DVD and read the initial legal threat.  If you copy this, if you play it in a public place, you are breaking the law and you are subject to massive fines and five years imprisonment.  We send people to prison for theft of “intellectual property”.  In 2001, a Federal Prisoner cost taxpayers an average of $22, 632.  That’s $113,160 just to punish someone for “stealing” something that, if purchased, would have cost $20.  Let’s also not forget that health care for prisoners increases  in cost about 10% annually.

In 1998, the U.S. “nonviolent prisoner population, alone, is larger than the combined populations of Wyoming and Alaska.”

The majority of the non-violent prisoners are being held because of drug use/possession.  Consider this.  In 2007, According to the American Corrections Association, the average daily cost per state prison inmate per day in the US is $67.55.  State prisons held 253,300 inmates for drug offenses in 2007. That means states spent approximately $17,110,415 per day to imprison drug offenders, or $6,245,301,475 per year.

Six billion dollars a year of taxpayer money to keep non-violent criminals locked up.  The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world at 754 persons in prison or jail per 100,000 (as of 2008).  Another interesting fact:  in 2002, bout 10.4% of all black males in the United States between the ages of 25 and 29 were sentenced and in prison, compared to 2.4% of Hispanic males and 1.3% of white males.

Six billion dollars a year could go a long way towards helping the population.  Providing more training and opportunity for adults, education for children, etc.  Not to mention you have millions of people who have felony imprisonment on their records, even further limiting their opportunities when they are released.

We have reached a level of litigation where the average American breaks numerous laws every day.  From simple traffic laws such as speeding, to even more serious crimes like copyright infringement and illegal gambling (office sports pools are quite common).  There are laws governing ideas and general concepts now.  One doesn’t need to actually be innovative if they can work the system to gain a general patent on something.  They need only sit back and wait for someone to do something somewhat similar to what their patent describes.  Or better yet, get your patent then go out and find people who are already doing things which you might be able to link to your general patent.

These “laws” amount to nothing more than extortion. Instead of promoting ideas, ideas are being “locked up” behind patents and copyrights.  The opportunities for the populace are being limited to those who understand the laws more.

Year after year, billions of dollars are  spent to enforce growing restrictions on what we can do and say, cranking out new felons by the thousands and depositing them into society with less opportunities which translates to more dependencies.

All under the guise of protecting the people.

I often wonder why people say “you shouldn’t judge”.  Is it just one of those politically correct things people say so others think of them as more socially enlightened?

Everyone makes judgments about others.  If you claim you don’t, you are only deceiving yourself and others who are deceiving themselves in a similar fashion.

Even animals make judgments.  Is the approaching person going to be dangerous, will they pet me, or can I eat them?  Making judgments of others is essential to functioning in a society.

Is the person knocking on my door acting suspicious?  Do they feel dangerous?  Is that salesperson honest?  We make personal judgments about what someone is like on so many levels the moment we meet them.  This collection of dispositions is affectionately known as a “first impression”.  We base this on how they dress, how they are groomed, how they speak, their body language, what we know of their background, etc.

The more we learn about someone, the more refined our judgments become.  Eventually, we may judge someone as not only safe, but also having many interesting aspects in common with us.  This particular collection of judgments is given the title “friend”.

I judge people.  I make judgments about people based not only on them, but by their friends and associates.  If you regularly hang out with a gang of quantum physicists, I am going to decide you’re into physics.

If I find out later that you hang out with this radical band of cutting edge physics geeks simply because you’re attracted to one of them, and you really have no passions for theoretical math after all, then I will modify my prior judgments accordingly.

And that’s where the real issue comes into play.  Some of us are unwilling to change our judgments as needed and cling to inaccurate or just outright false perceptions.

So next time you hear someone say “don’t judge”, you can tell yourself “don’t stop judging”.

Today we often associate greed with big corporations and business execs with yearly bonuses greater than many people earn in a lifetime.  According to research, the top 1% of Americans account for 43% of financial wealth and the bottom 80% account for only 7% of financial wealth.  On a larger scale, 1% of the population controls about 40% of the world’s net worth.  The bottom 50% of the entire world’s population accounts for only 1.1% of the total global wealth.

These extremes do demonstrate just how imbalanced things are. Presented with finite resources, finite wealth and growing population, it doesn’t make sense that our advanced 21st century civilization would even consider such conditions, much less tolerate them.

On a smaller level, we recognize greed and generally frown upon it.  I am reminded of a character from a popular television show.  He and many others survived a plane crash on a remote island.  As people tried to recover supplies and items of value to everyone’s benefit, this guy hordes things for himself: things he doesn’t even need and will not even have use for (such as pregnancy tests) and then demands others give what little they have to him in exchange when they need it.

Most people look upon these actions with disgust.  We don’t like a greedy person.  When things are personal, on a more intimate level, we naturally gravitate towards balancing wealth for the better of all.  Bu somewhere along the way to the large scale, we loose that intimacy and what was once considered greed, is now given glorification.  We call it the “American Dream” here, or perhaps “free market”.  Those who can pay the most, get the most.  Those who have the most, can get more.

We don’t like those actions when it’s a guy on an island.  Why are we defensive of the same principles on a national or global scale?  And the more pressing question is, are we any different than the corporate executives or that guy on the island?

Almost everyone who has purchased a lottery ticket wants more than they need.  How many computers do you own?  How many televisions?  Can you think of how many things you own, but really never use?  I’m not opposed to having good things.  I’m just asking you to take a look at yourself and decide something.

I’ve heard it said that those people in the top 1% are no different than us.  What makes them think they are so special?  Why should the island guy get to horde all the stuff?  Stuff he took from others in the first place!  If they are no different than us…then we are no different than them.

Maybe our goal should be to be different.

Many of those in the top 1% got there because of their own efforts.  At one time they were one of us, and now they are one of them.  It’s that desire for excess, a desire most of us can find within ourselves without much effort, that causes so much suffering.

Change won’t happen from the top down.  It won’t come from a political party.  It won’t come from philanthropic corporate efforts.  It begins with each individual recognizing that greed takes away more than it gives.  Pouring water into a full cup is wasteful.  Things we have in excess don’t benefit us.

The “dream” needs to change.

I’ve added a new social feature to the blog.  Members can now share thoughts, make friends, and maintain a profile here.  I’m obviously not trying to replace Facebook, but I do see value in additional opportunities for people with similar interests to communicate with each other.  This is also a first step to providing more interactive options for the readers.

The world is composed of actions and reactions.  Every action is paired with a reaction of some sort.  In a physics sense, these are equal, the action force is met with equal reaction force.  On a perceptual level, one event can have widespread reaction.  For example, if you drop a pebble into the center of  a still lake,  the ripples extend far beyond the point where the pebble fell.  Scientifically, we know the force creating the ripples is the same as the force of the falling rock.  Visually, we see the ripples as being much more far reaching than the impact area.

Socially, an action can create reactions greater than itself.  A single world leader can make an important speech and cause millions of others to react.

In our ego driven culture, social reaction is considered negative compared to social action.  American writer and political activist Rita Mae Brown wrote, “A life of reaction is a life of slavery, intellectually and spiritually. One must fight for a life of action, not reaction.”

Our society is often focused on control.  We seek to conquer our environments and each other through containment and control.  We genetically enhance food.  We build dams and reservoirs.  We create skin creams to counter the effects of aging.  Every aspect of our lives is influenced by actions.  Actions equal control.  So what is reaction?  Lack of control?  Submission to the will of others?  Reaction is certainly yin and action is yang, but they need each other.  One is not less desirable than the other in all circumstances.

Let’s imagine a busy commute to work.  An aggressive driver cuts in front of you instead of waiting in the long line of vehicles heading to exit from the expressway, as you have waited.  You can get angry.  Your reaction could be to also drive aggressively, honk your horn,  make sure no one else cuts in front of you, etc.  Or you could be as the water when the pebble came falling down.  You can let the driver merge and go on as you would have before he came along.  The water makes way for the pebble then returns to its previous state.  It doesn’t try to affect the pebble in a retaliatory manner nor change how it will react to the next pebble.  The pebble does not change the water.

The only way you are giving control to someone is if your reaction causes you to change.

Of course, change, like almost everything else isn’t absolute in being a positive or a negative thing.   There is no harm in reacting to and adjusting for the will of others, especially if reacting doesn’t require you to change in a negative manner. The wisdom is found in knowing the difference between action and reaction and knowing when to change and when not to change.

So how do we know the difference?  Is the farmer harvesting his crops an action or just a reaction to the crops having matured?  Was the aggressive driver cutting in front of you because they just like to be that way or were they reacting to some other event that transpired earlier?

In physics, there are some that argue that all actions are actually reactions to a single event that set the universe in motion.  Socially, an action is something we do with a conscious desire and a consideration of how the action will affect us and others.  Reactions are generally more direct responses to actions.

Obviously there is not a black and white, cut and dried test to say socially, one thing is an action and another thing is a reaction all of the time.  However it may be insightful for us to occasionally reflect on our activities and consider how we live.  Do we act when we should react?  How do we react?

We may find that we can react to our own actions, and make a positive change.