Can Versus Should

You and I can do a lot of things. We are speaking of ability here.  We have the ability to do something – act, think, write, whatever – but whether we do so depends on other matters. One of those matters is if we ought or should do something.

Should calls into question a value structure or ethos. There are situations in which doing something has negative consequences – for the planet, other people or myself. For example, buying a new car without enough money will require formation of a loan, or debt. Affordability of that debt is always a question to consider before buying the car. Can I afford the car? This may depend on whether I intend to use the car for travel on a routine basis as opposed to local errands. Will I be using the car for extended mileage requiring the purchase of a lot of fuel, maintenance, oil, filters, brake linings and the like.

It may be that heavy use of the car is not affordable. Buying a new car may be affordable, but using the car might not be affordable. There are marginal considerations here. Also, some cars require more maintenance than others, while insurance experience will drive the insurance premiums to unaffordable areas, too! Some cars require premium gasoline which further expands expense.

So, affordability is something that affects the can vs should analysis. I might very well be able to afford a car that sits in the garage mostly; but that would be ridiculous, right?

Similarly I could build a large house for any number of reasons. But do I need it or require it? Perhaps for health reasons? Because of the size of my family or intended size? Assuming those questions are answered in the affirmative, there are more questions to ask: can I afford the monthly mortgage payment, property taxes, utility costs and maintenance expense of this home? The answer may be yes at this point in time; but consider an extended period of illness, unemployment or some other circumstance that interrupts household income; or a period of expanded living costs for similar reasons. The affordability issue changes under these conditions. So the question becomes – Can I afford this home in the long-term under changing circumstances?

So far our discussion has involved financial issues for two common purchase decisions – transportation and housing. There are many alternatives to fulfill our consumer needs in these two areas. We can go upscale or cheap. Many additional options exist between the two poles. Why we would pursue the cheapest or more moderate option adds other questions and objectives to our thinking. Perhaps we are saving money for retirement, education for the kids, a summer home or exotic travel opportunities for the family. Or perhaps we are a sports loving family who spends resources on swimming, gym memberships, golf play or hunting and fishing trips. So many interests pull us toward different uses of time and resources. Providing for these requires us to plan accordingly on how we spend our resources on other life style categories.

So, we are examining the ethos of can vs should  based on personal consumption decisions. Much broader concerns require our attention as well. These would include environmental protection, public education policy, pursuing non-oil energy options, global versus national objectives and the policies affecting same. You see the expansion of our focus?! Ethical considerations should always be included in our decision making. This is true for corporations as they pursue new product and service offerings to their markets, as well as governments as they pursue national interests.

I suggest the ethos is a common one for all of us on the planet. Certainly we would not knowingly pursue a policy that endangers the planet for our continued inhabitance! Runaway pollution endangers the planet and our lives. Pollution or air, water, soil and sound (oh the noise!) restricts livability of the planet and no one should be allowed to endanger our environment just because they derive a value from it. There are limits to ownership based on the common good of others. We protect the public accordingly. This is the role of government.

Such a role is not well delegated to private entities.

The tension between private and public will always be present, I think. It is part of the natural order. So government issues are a conscious decision of reserving for government the authorities and rights to perform functions not safely allowed to private parties. Waging war is one such function. Mercenaries have been used throughout history but with almost certain ends not envisioned by the delegators! So too with education; if we ask public educators to do more of the family’s work, then we endow the schools with too much influence in the lives of our own family members. There will be an eventual flashback of unwelcome results.

Same with police powers. Ensuring public peace on our streets is one objective but we don’t wish for military power mentality on our police force where natural public order reverts to marshal law. Citizens must retain the power to decide what constitutes public order. There are fine lines throughout all of this to consider. There are trade offs. There is give and take. Again, this is a can vs should matter.

Just because we can do something –whether by the individual or the public infrastructure – does not mean we should do something. Of course being aware of this tension point keeps us aware of the trip points in making these decisions. But consideration is a must and we must remain involved if we are to trust the results.

Now there is a can or should issue!

July 3, 2015