What’s In It For Me?

So the princess says, “It’s not over yet” and the smuggler says, “It is for me sweetheart. I’m not in this for you and I’m certainly not in it for your revolution. I’m in it for the money. I expect to get well paid.” She retorts, “If money is all you love, then that’s what you will receive”, she then throws an aside to the farm boy, “Your friend’s quite a mercenary. I wonder if he cares about anything or anybody.”

This scene from Star Wars is supposed to paint Han Solo as a bit of a rogue, but let’s clarify this. Han Solo runs a business providing transportation services of goods and occasionally people. He gets hired to transport some folk who turn out to be wanted fugitives. In the course of events his ship is taken by the military, which he liberates from impound, as well as rescuing this princess, which was never part of the original deal. When all is said and done he expresses his expectation to get paid for his troubles. After all, it’s his business. What does he get? A guilt trip and some emotional blackmail from some rich, idealist bureaucrat who probably never did a day’s work in her life. Does that seem right to you?

And yet today if you were to ask a favour of someone and they answered “What’s in it for me?” You might think of them as being selfish. It’s just is not the done thing. How unfortunate that is.

You see, all human relationships are based on trade. Despite what people wish to be true, we are all motivated by incentives. In other words, “What’s in it for me?” The straw man in this is that money or material gain is the only incentive. This is not true. Incentives can be the good feelings you get from giving money to a beggar because now you feel as if you are a good person, even though this is one of the worst things that you can do for him.

Let’s go back to Princess Leia. Han Solo has troubles. Like every other person he needs to take care of the base of the pyramid in Mazlow’s hierarchy of need: food, shelter, and clothing. So like everyone else he needs to figure out how to satisfy those needs. This is the primary purpose of existence for everyone who has ever lived. Without these things we will most surely die.

Solo decides that the best way to take care of these needs is to start his own transport business. This creates more needs. He has to maintain the equipment required for the business, pay employees, and cover other operational costs. Failure to do so will result in no profits and therefore no food, shelter, clothing, and eventually no business.

Another aspect is that Solo lives in a fascist imperial state, which means that goods are heavily taxed and businesses over-regulated. This is an impediment to his work, but also creates smuggling opportunities. The problem here is that he is now forced to do business with criminals. During one of his jobs he was forced to eject his cargo when the police were on to him, which resulted in a loss to his employer who now seeks compensation that Solo cannot afford. To make matters worse, since all this activity is illegal, his employer cannot go through legal channels and instead places a bounty on Han Solo which could mean his death.

Then there is Princess Leia, the foster daughter of a long-term senator and one of the most powerful men in the galaxy, not to mention that she is a member of the Imperial Senate herself, despite her youth.

When it comes to Mazlow’s hierarchy of need, that base of food, shelter, and clothing had been provided for her by her parents since birth and from there she moved into a high paying political job, so money was never really a concern for her, thus leaving her free to focus of the higher parts of Mazlow’s need hierarchy, psychological needs and self-actualization.

It is easy for a person living in a state of relative comfort to forget that things must be paid for. Sure, they pay for things, but there is never the pinch of saving-up for something or doing without something else to get it. You want, you hand over pieces of paper of which you have plenty, and now you have.

We are meant to see Han Solo as a rogue, scoundrel, or mercenary for expecting payment for what should be his heroic duty for the higher purpose, but in truth Princess Leia is demonstrating her disrespect and disregard for Han Solo by not offering ready compensation. In essence, she is treating him as a slave. If anyone is a scoundrel it is Princess Leia.

Oscar Wilde said, “We think we can have our visions for nothing. We cannot. Even the finest and most self-sacrificing visions have to paid for. Strangely enough, that is what makes them fine.”

You may think that your high and lofty goals or moral superiority gives you a golden credit card to all the goods and services that you require free of charge, but who are you to demand the sacrifice of others to achieve your purposes? I was going to call such an attitude childish, but sometimes even children know better.

A Scottish traveller through 19^th Century America noticed how the children played. A common phrase he heard was “Wanna trade?” It has been said that America was largely a rural agrarian nation, but more to the point it was a nation of traders. This concept is emphasised in both versions of the film True Grit, but more so in the remake.

There is the scene where we see Mattie Ross’s horse trading skills and negotiation, but also little scenes, such as when after her father died the landlady offers to sell her an old flour sack to put his belongings in for a nickel. Modern audiences would expect her to just give her the bag. After all, here is a young girl whose father was just murdered. But Mattie gets it. She knows the rules. Things must be paid for and she invokes this later to get her way with her hired gun. Once he took her money she became his boss. Those are the rules.

I am reminded of the story of the outlaw Curly Bill Brocious. During a gunfight with town marshals a horse in the livery was killed in the crossfire. The following day a messenger from Bill paid compensation to the livery owner for his loss. Today, try getting a parent to pay for an item in a shop broken by their child.

All human relationships are based on trade. Our ancestors understood this. Coming to the table with nothing to offer was seen as an insult, but today the reverse is true. We are morally expected to give something for nothing but that only leads to being taken advantage of more in the future.

Ever see the cliché in Westerns when men refer to each other as “partner”? Let’s think about this for a moment. Now, I do not know if this is historically accurate but using the term fits with the culture of the time. A partner is someone that you are in business with towards mutual advantage. This could be a trading partner or someone in a joint venture. The term signifies the concept of relationships based on trade. Calling people “partner” was assuming either an active or potential trade relationship existed.

So what changed? I believe the problem lies in free money. I apologise for not knowing the correct term in economics, if one even exists, however the concept is that easy credit, insurance, and government hand-outs collectively represent free money. Of course none of it is really free. Money earned through personal production is replaced by money given to be paid back over time, either though monthly instalments, insurance premiums, taxation, or inflation. This creates a vicious cycle. The more free money available; the more things cost, and the more things cost; the greater the need for free money.

On a psychological and social level, free money creates the illusion of wealth. So, like Princess, Leia we are free to focus on the higher levels of the hierarchy of need but we forget the basic facts of human existence and this leads to problems. We forget where real money comes from and therefore disrespect and disregard its source.

The source of money is human production and human production is the result of an individual’s time, energy, and skill. So to devalue money is to devalue human production. It is to take a person’s time, energy, and skill for granted.

Here is an example, which is absolutely hilarious by the way, called Missing Missy. If I read this right, David Thorn is a graphic designer. This is his job. This girl Shannon asks him to do her a favour which involves putting all his paying work aside to serve her purposes. He decides to teach her a lesson which I do not think she quite learned.

We see this often. If we have a friend in some sort of profession that we need the services of, we call on them for a friendly favour in full expectation that since this person is a friend, but more likely an acquaintance, that they will happily render their services for nothing. Nothing is brought to the negotiating table save the automatic expectation of help. The person may even feel guilty saying no because asking, “What’s in it for me?” is just so base, unhelpful, and unkind. What the person asking the favour is really saying is that their need is more important than their “friend’s” time, energy, and skill. To reduce this even further, they are saying, “I am more important that you”.

All human relationships are based on trade. This means working together for mutual benefit. I will trade my chickens for your shoes. I will mow your lawn if you make this poster. In trade, all men are equal. A king may trade his gold for a blacksmith’s sword. Both parties win and are therefore equal beneficiaries. If the king says, “Give me the sword you made because I am king”. Then he has become a tyrant through his disregard, no less than the person demanding favours from a friend. They are in principle the same.

The philosopher Ayn Rand was a strong advocate of what she called the virtue of selfishness. This is quite possibly the biggest error in her career. You see, she was actually advocating what Objectivists today call rational self-interest and sought to redeem the word selfish to mean just that. Of course people thought she was preaching selfishness and her abrasive attitude did not do her any favours. Even today some Objectivists use her philosophy to justify their selfishness.

I once heard a critic of Objectivism ask “should you not come to the aid of someone in need because it does not serve your immediate interest to save them?” Of course you should save them if you are able. In her zeal to point out the evils of altruism she failed to fully emphasis the role of benevolence.

Altruism is the idea that it is a moral requirement to sacrifice yourself for others. This is why Han Solo is seen as a rogue and Princess Leia as having the moral high-ground when in truth she is trying to take advantage of him. This is why people come to the negotiating table with nothing but expectations. Benevolence on the other hand is a choice that a person makes themselves without any moral obligation or expectation to do so. There is nothing wrong with choosing to help others, in fact it should be encouraged, but a person is under no moral obligation to do so. Benevolence is morally preferable but not morally obligatory.

The man who asks, “What’s in it for me?” is not a rogue, a scoundrel, a selfish person, or an evil man. He is simply opening negotiations for the trade. The person that you have to be concerned about is the one who wants something for nothing. He is saying that your time, energy, and skill, and therefore you, are of no value. He is saying that you exist for his purposes and not for your own.

I always associated the field of economics with finance and as something not only beyond me but also incredibly boring. I was wrong. You see, people are most concerned with two things: love and money. We know all about love thanks to centuries of poems, songs, and love stories, but most folk know very little about money, probably because they have the same prejudices that I had.

As a science, economics has more in common with something like sociology and psychology than with mathematics. For at the heart of economics is people and the trade choices that they choose to make.

When you live in a world where nearly everyone is consciously aware of trading values, such as 19^th Century America, you will find that even the most ignorant person in society understands the most basic fundamentals of economics even if they do not have the academic labels for the concepts.

We still have vestiges in our language and manners from this era, such as thanking a person for their time or saying time is money. Both phrases imply the understanding that every human being is involved in the process of production towards their personal benefit. This is still true, but today we do not readily recognise it.

This failure to recognise each individual as an engine of production and potential trading partner coupled with the prevalence of “free money” and the false morality of altruism conspire to ultimately devalue each individual. Mutual respect is eroded, a sense of entitlement prevails, and everyone is out for themselves by any means necessary. Without the mutual investment of trade human society breaks down.

Herein lies the cruel irony of socialism. By devaluing the individual in the name of the collective you devalue the very components of the collective and thus destroy the social cohesion you seek to promote.

The glue is trade. Not just the trading of material values such as money or goods, but also services and emotional values. These are all on the market. And every person trades these things for their own benefit, and seeing as the trade is for mutual benefit, your trading partner prospers too. It’s all about the win/win scenario. Problems arise when people, and government, try to circumvent this fair process with excuses of morality and calls for sacrifice.

I’m going to throw in a couple other disclaimers before I finish. In addition to the fact that trade can be in material or immaterial values there is also the different sort of trade relationship found in an on-going partnership.

Take the institution of marriage for example. In the traditional vows the woman offers her love, honour, and obedience and in exchange the man gives her all the fruits of his production. Again, we see how our ancestors placed a higher value on production than we do today. These days the man’s promise to be the provider holds little weight against the negative associations placed on her promise to recognise his authority. Nonetheless, these days both parties are producers so it is more difficult to define the trade the relationship. It may take the form of one party making dinner and the other doing the dishes, but it is still there. As soon as one party feels that the trade relationship is no longer a balanced win/win situation then the arrangement is ended.

The other disclaimer is really just a reaffirmation of benevolence. We may chose to help the stranger stranded on the side of the road, or give gifts, or do favours without any expectation of reward or trade. These are all good things. The problem is when we expect others to do these things out of moral obligation which is actually merely shrouding an innate sense of entitlement.

How much is something worth? A gallon of milk? A litre of petrol? A diamond ring? A glass of water? A human life? No matter the commodity, its rarity, or the cost of production everything is worth the same price – which is whatever someone is willing to pay for it. When we decide that something is too valuable for the market it becomes not priceless but worthless.  It’s like common land, if everyone owns it then no one does and therefore no one is responsible for its upkeep.

How much is a person worth? Now I don’t mean slavery here, I’m meaning how much is their time, energy, and skill worth? The answer is the same; whatever someone is willing to trade. If someone is not willing to trade, brings nothing to the table, and just expects a favour, then this person deems you ultimately worthless.  You’re just something to use and throw away.

“What’s in it for me?” is not a statement of greed, selfishness, avarice, or selfishness. It does not mean the person asking the question is a bad person. It does denote self-respect as well as mutual respect. It says, “let’s trade as equals”. Throughout human history trade has been the basis of friendships, marriages, national alliances, and, according to Classical Liberal theory as expressed particularly through Prime Minister Gladstone and Prince Albert, it is the path to world peace.

The final word is never trust someone who offers you something for nothing because chances are they want to make a slave of you. Never trust someone who wants something for nothing, because they’re after the same thing. You are an engine of production and your success in life all depends on how well you can trade. So never be afraid to ask the question, “What’s in it for me?”