Maslow's hierarchy is not magical but it describes the needs of human beings, and by extension of communities and nations. In a rational world, we might use it as a foundation for our national economic policy.
A nation guided by the hierarchy might or might not have a high numerical GNP but it would have real wealth and prosperity. If we assume that the function of an economy is to serve people, that is a reasonable goal.
But like any other system, an economy based on Maslow's hierarchy would have to cope with the problem generally known as "the tragedy of the commons".
Traditional English villages had a field called the "commons" where villagers were free to graze sheep or cattle. The capacity of the field was obviously limited but there was no way to limit the grazing rights of any individual citizen.
If the field was over-grazed all would lose, but if any one villager reduced the number of his animals on the field he would lose personally. Because each individual stood to gain more by grazing as many animals as possible for as long as the field lasted, most commons were over-grazed and ruined.
In the modern version of the same problem it makes sense for me to buy imported goods rather than Canadian if the imports are cheaper, and if I will buy imports it makes sense for a merchant to sell them. We both know that our decision will put Canadians out of work but we think that we, personally, will gain more than we will lose.
A lawyer may know that the lawsuit he prepares is unjust and that it may cause harm to the economy, but he also knows that he will be well paid for his work. A union leader may know that his members will lose more than they can gain by a strike, but he also knows that he will profit from it. A politician may know that by selling his influence he harms the country, but he also knows that he can make a great deal of money.
This kind of self interest is not surprising because all the roles we speak of here are male roles, even if they are sometimes filled by women. The one thing that nearly all male animals have in common is that they don't cooperate with each other.
A pride of lions usually consists of one male, several females and some cubs fathered by the male. When another male takes over the pride he kills all the old male's cubs. When a male cub grows up, it is driven out of the pride.
Small herds of grazing animals consist of one herd bull, his females and their young. Younger bulls may be tolerated in some herds, but only on condition that they don't act like bulls.
But human males co-operate. We can only guess at the reason but we can be fairly certain of our guesses. Over time all types of behavior appear, and the ones that work best survive because the people who adopt that type of behavior survive and breed. They don't have to understand what they are doing; they just do it and live or die by their actions.
Some time so far back in history that they were not even recognizable as early apes, let alone men, our ancestors learned to co-operate. Like some other animals they learned that if they travelled in groups they were less vulnerable to predators. Probably later they learned that if they hunted in groups, they could become predators themselves. Other animals did the same.
But then our ancestors began to walk upright and that created problems as well as opportunities. A pregnant lioness can still hunt and a pregnant antelope can still run, but a woman in the last stages of pregnancy is nearly helpless.
Like all mammals' our abdominal muscles run from side to side. They will support a fetus very well if a pregnant female walks on all fours, but not if she walks upright.
Because of that a woman in the late stages of pregnancy can't follow or help with the hunt, and if she is left alone in a den or cave she can't defend herself or her young.
That forces human males to co-operate because a woman in the late stages of pregnancy can't help her man hunt or fight. One human male might rule a group of women but he could not protect them alone, and a lone man with primitive weapons is not much of a hunter.
So human males had to learn to work together, as the males of no other species do, but while they live and work together they still compete.
At the tribal level we compete with other males for mates and for prestige and position within the tribe. When we co-operate with the men of our own tribe it may be in competition against males of other tribes for territory, hunting rights or other advantages.
Most of the competition is formalized now but the roots are still there. When I meet a man of my own tribe I see a potential rival, and when I meet one from another tribe I see a potential enemy.
I don't consciously think that way because I am "civilized" but under the veneer of civilization I still have instincts. I can control them, but they are a force to be reckoned with.
The civilization that helps me control my instincts is supported by a network of traditions and laws that have evolved over thousands of years and are still changing. The balance is changing too, from rule by tradition to rule by law.
Families don't need law because they are ruled by common interest. They have a genetic bond, and all members of a family are concerned with the welfare of the whole family. Among clans or extended families some members will rank higher than others, but all will be taken care of. Anyone who is not part of the family is an outsider, and he is protected only by his own strength and by the threat that his family may retaliate if he is harmed.
Bonds between members of a tribe are weaker than the bonds within a family but most of the members of a small tribe are relatives and\or friends, and each person still feels personal responsibility toward every other person in the tribe.
At this level they are ruled by custom or tradition, which is derived from the way members of the family treated each other. Custom, tradition or religion may also protect strangers but the males of the village still see each other as potential rivals, and a strange male as a potential enemy.
At some stage decisions about who or what is right or wrong are delegated to a chieftain, priest or judge. Because he has significant prestige his decisions become law.
Each new judge may have authority of his own but in practice each one will serve as an apprentice judge for a long time and, as an apprentice, he will respect the wisdom of his elders. Eventually he becomes an elder himself but, after years of deferring to the decisions of his elders, he may not find it easy to change.
If the judges of today were raised to respect the judges of their day the idea of "precedent" will develop. As the weight of decisions builds up we have a body of common law which still rules most cases in England and, to a lesser extent, other parts of the world. The common law is derived from tradition but where tradition is enforced by the people as a whole, law is enforced by rulers.
That's an important difference because as a citizen I must seek the approval of my family and friends and, by extension, other members of my culture, but I may not seek the approval of my rulers. If I am one of a conquered race -- an English Saxon, perhaps, in the days after the Norman conquest -- I may hate my rulers and while I may toady to them I may also try to kill them if I get the chance.
In a large society I have no ties of family or long friendship with most of the other members of my society, and in a mixed-race society I may see some of them as positively alien. If my rulers belong to another race or another religion, I may see them as oppressors.
Even when the rulers are members of my own race or tribe I may resent them, because they take part of my living and they themselves live much better than I do. In a so-called democracy I may resent both my elected representatives and hired civil servants, because I see them wasting my money and paying themselves more out of my work than I make myself.
So even with common law there is a major distinction between rule by tradition and rule by law. Tradition is what my family and friends expect and, as a member of society, I must comply. Law is what my rulers expect and if I don't respect my rulers I will not respect their laws, however wise and just they may be.
When law replaces custom the concepts of "right" and "not right" are replaced by "legal" and "not legal." That's an important difference because while I may feel bound to avoid behavior which is "not right" I feel only the need to avoid getting caught at behavior that is "not legal". That feeling will be reinforced when, as is often the case, I see members of the elite getting away with behavior that I know is "not right" and that may be "not legal".
And when people are "caught" and "punished" for crime, the punishment is highly selective. In Toronto in 1997 the average take in an armed robbery in Toronto was $3,000, and the average sentence for a convicted armed robber was five years. The average take in a fraud was $17,000, but, according to Metro Toronto Police fraud squad officer Wolfgang Lott, quoted in the {Sunday Sun}, May 18/97, most people convicted of fraud got no sentence.
The disparity is obvious and so is the reason. Fraud is the kind of crime a lawyer might commit. Crimes are tried in a court run by lawyers, presided over by a judge who is also a lawyer. They are all more likely to be the perpetrators than the victims of fraud and, while it may be a crime, they can empathize with the perpetrator of a fraud. Lawyers are more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of armed robbery, and they fear it.
Lawyers would probably offer a different rationale. They might say that armed robbery represents a greater threat to society than fraud.
That may be, if you consider only the sectors of society that are more vulnerable to armed robbery than to fraud. On the other hand fraud is more likely than armed robbery to victimize people who can not afford the loss and, because we know that the law winks at fraud, it brings the law into disrepute.
Lawyers themselves say the rule of law is preferable to the rule of tradition and well they might, because the difference is very profitable for them. We all know what is "right" and "wrong" and when rule is by tradition, there is little room for argument. If you take something that is not yours, or if you take unfair advantage of someone, you are "wrong".
But "legal" and "not legal" are something else. Under the rule of law our courts are not interested in "justice", only in "the law". In this system a lawyer who can find a loop-hole can literally help his client get away with murder. In civil litigation the only safe assumption is that, whatever the facts, the richer man will win.
People who abuse the law and the lawyers who help them do it both know that they harm society but, like the English villagers who grazed too many cattle and sheep on the commons, they believe that they as individuals will gain more than they will lose.
And in any individual case that is probably correct. In a society of people who work for the common good, the individual who works only for himself will profit. Unfortunately the rule of law favors a society in which most people work for private profit at any cost.
This is not an argument for socialism because we have ample proof that socialism does not work. It could lead to an argument for social responsibility but I won't follow it here because at this point am trying to analyze a problem, not solve it.
If we all worked for the common good any political or economic system would work, and most people around the world would be well fed and well housed.
The tragedy of the commons is an old problem and it is well known, but it has never been solved on a large scale. I don't think I can solve it either, but I can make some suggestions for a more rational approach to national policy.
on to TOWARD A RATIONAL ECONOMY
back to Summary Page