You have the key point right, IMO: human nature, specifically the avarice concomitant of it, is the reason a number of systems don't work more closely to their ideal conception than they do.
- Want more than the other guy and want to keep it --> capitalism
- Want enough and don't care about having more than enough --> socialism
Greed is the undoing of both those systems, but the way in which it does so differs.
I think there is another factor besides greed not being said. That factor is power, power in the sense you can tip the scales in your favor. In capitalism this should not happen, and is one of the main things to guard against . In socialism those scales are already being tipped by nature. In respects to capitalism and socialism, this creates a manufactured and false sense of supply and demand.
It also depends on your definition of greed. Is greed simply wanting more than what you have? If that's the case, I don't see anything wrong with that. Or is greed doing something morally wrong or unfair to obtain more? If that's your definition, then yes it is wrong.
Avarice is more than merely wanting additional "whatever." It's the combination of (1) wanting more than is necessary to sustain oneself and those for whom one is responsible, (2) acting to get it, (3) obtaining it, (4) refusing to share that thing with others, especially in the face of their palpable and observed desperate need for it, and (5) treating/viewing the whole matter of wanting, obtaining and keeping hold of those things as a zero-sum matter. It is, then, both the act of wanting "whatever" and the attitudes/thoughts one adopts in obtaining and retaining that which one wants.
I realize that many people want a simple, perhaps binary, way of determining in advance and in the abstract what deeds and thoughts are and are not greedy, unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. I don't think there is such a clear and simple way to assess every instance that may be manifestations of one's greed. I think the only way to make that determination is to apply the principles given in both Christian and non-Christian modes of thought:
- Christian --> Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
- Native American --> Walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him.
- Confucianism --> What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.
- Sikhism --> Precious like jewels are the minds of all. To hurt them is not at all good. If thou desirest thy Beloved, then hurt thou not anyone's heart.
- Buddhism --> Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I.
- Islam --> Woe to those who, when they have to receive by measure from men, they demand exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due.
- Taoism --> Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
- Wicca --> That that which ye deem harmful unto thyself, the very same shall ye be forbidden from doing unto another.
- Ancient Egyptian --> Do to the doer to make him do. That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.
Those are just a few examples, but the same axiomatic principle exists in numerous segments of human culture. Which one opts to apply matters not for, at the end of the day, there is no substantive difference among them.
Lastly, you mentioned power. Power itself isn't the problem. Power accrues to oneself as a result of one's actions and luck/circumstance. Merely having power isn't the problem. How one exercises power can be a problem or not a problem.
For example, if one uses one's power to both obtain a resource and also to deny others from obtaining enough of that same resource to sate themselves too, yet there is enough of the resource that none need be unsated, it is one's greed, not one's power, that is the problem. The only reason those who are denied see one's power as the problem is because they are innately aware they cannot, in what they consider a timely enough manner and perhaps not at all, alter one's greedy attitude, but they may be able to erode or remove one's power to exercise one's greedy intentions.
P.S./Edit:
If you desire to learn of an illustration of greed in non-human nature, read this:
Wolverines Give Insight into the Evolution of Greed .
Wolverines are expert hunters, rarely preyed upon, and comfortably at the top of their food web. Because their food sources are all in common with many other predators, they have become fierce competitors. Wolverines are known to chase other scavengers away from a carcass and they have no shame in stealing a hard earned kill from a smaller wolverine or even a different animal entirely.
They are voracious eaters, which gave rise to their various names in other languages such as “glutton” (in French), “gluttonous badger” (in Romanian), and “fat belly” (in Finnish). In fact, the scientific name of the wolverine is Gulo gulo, from the Latin word for gluttony. Although wolverines sound rather like playground bullies, this is all pretty standard food competition. Where does the greed come in? Well, after a wolverine has eaten all it can whether from its own kill or find, or something it has stolen from some unfortunate shlemazl, it will actually spray the leftover food with its marking scent.
This might not seem so weird and biologists once thought that the wolverines were simply marking the food to protect its next meal of leftovers. However, this doesn’t seem to be the case. The wolverines rarely return to their leftovers. Sure, the distinctive wolverine scent alone is probably enough to dissuade many animals, but it turns out that the spray of wolverines, unlike that of skunks, is highly acidic. By spraying noxious carboxylic acids onto the leftover food, the wolverines actually accelerate the spoiling process.
To summarize, the wolverines have consumed all they can fit into their stomachs, and then they try to spoil any leftovers so that other predators and scavengers can’t eat them. This fits part of our description of greed. It’s not just about acquiring things; it’s about having more than others have.
I don't think that #4 is an overt problem in America, refusing to give it away to others in need. Sure there are some bad apples, but
The people of America are the most charitable people there has ever been on the face of this earth, by a mile. No other civilization is able to hold a candle to our charitable nature. Now why is that? Socialism hasn't comparatively been a strong force in America at all. And those on the right do not see the government as the most effective vector to deliver charity. Yes there are places where it is needed, but simply throwing more money at a government that is intent on growing itself, that doesn't have a NEED to become the most effective vessel and deliverer of charity, is not the answer. Not only is it not the answer, but it also gives government a powerful bargaining chip to continue to grow itself, with or without the peoples best interest in mind.
You can think that and I will respect that you do. You may even be correct; however, your comments don't illustrate that you are correct.
Red:
That may be so. Even granting that it is so does not establish that American magnanimity at an individual, local, regional or national level is sufficient to meet the standard in #4. The measure of sufficiency is given by the people who need one's munificence, not by its benefactors.
Let's say (1) I have X and my neighbor has twice the quantity of X, and (2) that you, my neighbor, and I each need 25% of X to be sated, and (3) you are unable on your own to obtain 25% of X. I may give you nothing and my neighbor may give you 10% of X. You remain unsated, yet my neighbor has given more than anyone else, and my neighbor and I both have more than enough to be sated. That my neighbor has been more charitable than anyone else doesn't mean s/he's not greedy, nor does it mean s/he's less greedy than I. It just means s/he's more generous than I, but the fact remains that s/he and I are both greedy.
There are also things my neighbor and I could be in addition to greedy:
- We could also be lazy...too lazy to notice that you remain unsated.
- We could be envious of one another and by it focus on one another's states rather than on your state of desperation.
- We could also be gluttonous.
As you can tell, I'm working my way through "the seven deadly sins." There's a reason for that; they don't function in isolation.
It is indeed true that the American people are by far the most charitable, sure there are variables to account for, but overall it is telling. It is true that the charitable nature of the individual may or even often does not provide for the need of those without. My point was that
capitalism does [not] eliminate the charitable nature of people (which is how it is commonly characterized) but it encourages it.
My other point was, is that
there is not much of an alternative to emerge if government is in control of "charity". There is not much incentive for government to be the best at charity. It becomes "this is just the way we do things." The incentive is actually to grow itself requiring more tax payer dollars, and not necessarily in an effective way.
The incentive is that people will want more and more things provided for them, those people are votes, so we will expand and provide it to them. And what usually happens when one of these providing programs fail to provide, they say the problem lies with the fact that they do not have enough money. Look at FEMA, the VA, department of education, etc.
When a school fails its students in some way, it usually asks for more money, when they don't receive that money, or have their budgets get cut,
instead of cutting down on [waste, excess and questionable redundancies], they cut down on [the wrong things] and the students suffer from that. They then say see, we told you we needed more money.
And my last point was that
having the government in charge of "charity" also gives them a very strong bargaining chip with the citizens. It provides them with a powerful carrot and stick. You can have more of this if you vote for me, or if you vote for this guy, he's going to take away what we have been giving you.
Red:
My edit in this statement is a reflection of my belief that you've made an omission typo. I'm calling attention to my edit because what I believe is the omitted word is critical to the sentence's meaning. If I've misunderstood your intent, please disregard my "red" comments.
I agree that capitalism does not eliminate humanity's charitable nature. I do not experientially know of anything that preponderantly demonstrates that capitalism encourages munificence; therefore I disagree (at the moment) with your assertion in that regard. If you can credibly make the case that it does, or point me to someone's scholarly paper that does make the case, I'm amenable to seeing it. I don't promise to concur, but I am willing to be open minded about it. I have no need or desire to be right, nor have I one that you be right or wrong. Right now, I don't know; I know only what I believe, and I know I'm no expert on the matter of capitalism's encouraging charity; however, there's no question in my mind that by it's great ability to produce great wealth, it certainly enables great charity. Enablement and encouragement aren't, however, the same.
Blue:
I don't think it requisite that government be in charge of charity, but it certainly can be, and it can be efficient and effective as such. Ideally, I'd just as soon government have no role is the distribution of charity, but in the non-ideal world in which I live, left to our own devices absent government intervention, we private individuals and entities don't willfully exhibit enough charity to ensure that nobody must endure critical insufficiencies of critical resources. In light of that reality, government is the only entity able and willing to take on the challenge of ensuring people are not starved, homeless, uneducated and naked.
Green:
Okay, for the most part. I think governments motivation to be the best at anything is largely driven by fiduciary duty.
As one who's mentored young folks for the past 20+ years, I give what anyone would consider a lot in terms of money, time and intangible content, both emotional and intellectual. I can do it efficiently enough and with no "red tape," as it were. What I give at any moment depends on what I have most available to give at that time.
For example, when I have time, I give lots of it and tangible resources, but when I have little time, I give mostly tangible resources. At all times, I try to be cognizant that physical resources may not be the thing most needed at that moment, regardless of what I have at that moment to give. When what my mentorees need is my time, I don't give them physical resources, and vice versa.
The difference between my giving of my own various resources -- time, money, material, etc. -- is that the resources given are mine to give. I'm not being entrusted to distribute resources others have given to me expecting that I'll do so on their behalf. There's no fiduciary duty.
Pink:
In my own charitable giving experiences I have not observed that. Indeed, not one of my mentorees has come to me asking me to aid them in doing things except when they simply cannot accomplish them and need help -- help with a homework problem, help understanding something they read or saw, help attending/participating in an event, help paying college application fees, etc. The few who've graduated from college reach out to me for things like references and to wish me a happy birthday or merry Christmas, or just to chat; they aren't looking for me to keep "holding their hand" or provide for X, Y and Z as I did when they were younger.
For example, I invited one of my mentorees and his mother to join me at my daughter's wedding overseas. Neither of them has approached me about providing them with another vacation. Time will tell whether they do or not, I suppose, but I doubt they will.
Are there folks who will abuse a benefactor's bounty? Of course there are. That's still, IMO, no reason to deny all those would and will not. The concept of taking that stance is comparable to suggesting that one bad apple spoils the tree from which it grows and soil that nourishes the tree. That is preposterous and one would be hard pressed to convince me otherwise.
Orange:
They do indeed do that. I don't think that every problem needs money to be solved, but it does take money to overcome many of them. Moreover, I think that too often and too many of us think of money as a suitable surrogate of that for which it is not. My remarks above about my mentoring offer a high level illustration of that.
Purple:
As my preceding remarks allude, I realize that poorly implemented means can prevent one from achieving noble ends.
Brown:
Well, until we get to a point that government doesn't have to collect, maintain, and distribute the majority of charitable resources, that's unlikely to change. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Assuming we agree that our fellow citizens' insufficient access to and possession of critical resources is something we find unacceptable, it will not be until private concerns show themselves willing to, capable of, and in fact effecting that end without government intervention, what alternative is there? The role government is forced to play has a direct impact on the extent of it's influence on the beneficiaries of societal largesse.
For example, I have no problem helping a person in, say, Denver, get food, shelter and education, but I'm not in Denver, so that person is SOL if they must rely on me for that. If the government uses my specific tax dollar to feed, house and educate that person, s/he doesn't see me as their "savior," but they do see the government thus. They also do not see a Denver resident as their benefactor. That the recipients of charity have that perspective is an unavoidable consequence of the folks in Denver (and/or myself) not making it unnecessary for the government to be that person's savior, as it were.
Do you think my several now grown mentorees see me or the government as the source of their rising out of the desperation they knew as children? I'm sure they don't, even though the government make possible the roof over their head and the overwhelming majority of meals they consumed. By the same token, if you think I didn't have a great sum of influence over the ways they perceived things, you'd be grossly naive. The question isn't whether I had such influence, but rather what I did with it. The fact is I didn't do anything with it, at least nothing that benefitted me beyond my feeling good from helping someone realize their own potential.
