If I buy a box of eggs from Tesco, but will not pay more than £1.20 for half a dozen, who is to blame if the eggs were from hens living in battery farms?
The hen, the farmer's hen keeper, the farmer, the intermediary, Tesco management and shareholders or me? All are to blame, but, without a buyer, nothing in that set of transactions woild have occurred. So I am ultimately to blame and have to alter my actions. Blaming the farmer or Tesco is pointless and will not achieve better conditions. Only a decision to pay £1.90 for a box of well cared for hens's eggs will have the effect I want.
So in a monarchy, who is to blame, the all powerful monarch who commands that x is done, the prime minister, the minister for the issue x, the governor of the prison, the senior guard who is a specialist in special techniques, the junior guard, or the prisoner upside down with his feet being attacked? Without the starting point, nothing else would happen.
So I am equivalent to a monarch with respect to the harsh living conditions of a battery hen. What do you think? Do I have more influence over my world than a monarch?
Oh, what an interesting and excellent point. I do believe that the way systems are set up do have influence and often it is those who are in power who force things to go a certain way - HOWEVER - each and every consumer votes with their dollar. Where you spend your money, what you choose to support is probably the most powerful vote that there is for an individual to cast in a capitalist society. I'm not sure how I equate it on the buyer vs monarch scale. I think we all have to take responsibility, in the end.
ReplyDeleteOr rather, the most effective way to change such a system would be for everyone to take responsibility for their actions and the resultant consequences. Chance can of course be forced and/or encouraged from either end as well.