Likas raw na gahaman ang tao. Wari kaseng balong walang kasing lalim ang gutom at uhaw ng tao sa maraming bagay na hindi ito kailanman maiibsan ng lubusan.
May mga naniniwala na masama ang ganitong kalikasan. Kailangan itong pahinain at pigilin. Yan ang utos ng simbahan sa atin.
Ngunit sadya yatang matindi ang kalikasan na ito sapagkat kahit ilang beses tayong makarinig ng sermon na masama ito, lalo pa yatang sumisidhi ito.
Kahit gamitan ng batas at buwis, tila lalo lang itong tumitindi kaya gumagawa pa tayo ng paraan para masunod lamang ang kalikasan na ito.
Hindi kaya hindi naman masama ang kalikasan na ito at ang tamang paraan ay pagbigyan na lamang ito?
Kung gahaman nga ang tao, hindi nya gugustuhin ang mga bagay na magpipigil sa likas nyang uhaw at gutom sa maraming bagay. Gagawin nya lahat para maibsan kahit panandali ito.
Maari kasing pakinabangan ang pagka gahaman ng tao. Kung hayaan nating sundin ang kalikasan na ito, maaaring maiiwasan ang koruption at mabilis na umunlad ang tao. Ito ang lohika ng palengke.
Kumbaga sa palengke, kung ang tao ay manininda ng produkto, dahil gahaman sya at gusto niyang mapasakanya ang maraming kita, gagawa sya ng paraan para mapaganda ang serbisyo, mapataas ang kalidad at mapababa ang presyo.Ganito kas kung ang tao naman ay mamimili, dahil gahaman siya at gusto nya makabili ng produktong mura, di kalidad at mabilis ang serbisyo.
Ganito rin ang nangyayari sa pamahalaan. Kaya siguro talamak ang korupsiyon ay dahil hindi tama ang pagtrato natin sa kalikasan natin.
Kaya sa halip na pahinain at pigilin, hayaan na lamang siguro at pakinabangan. Ito ang lohika ng kapitalismo at globalisasyon.
Ano ang palagay mo?
Ano kaya ang palagay ni Jose Rizal, bilang probinsyanong intsik, bilang liberal, bilang repormista, bilang propagandista?
Moderation, in the Buddhist sense, is the imperative to always seek for the middle path. Put another way, it commands to avoid excesses.
Used as the norm of an economic policy, moderation has proven to be effective in Thailand were King Bhumibol Adulyadei has institutionalized “sufficiency economy” as the middle path approach to human development, poverty reduction and conserving the environment in the country.
In this context, moderation makes economic policy a moral issue. I find this problematic because moral incentives are not effective incentive mechanisms for development.
In the case of the Philippines where about 90% of the Filipinos are Christians who regularly receive sermons that greed is evil, the moral incentive to do good and avoid evil has obviously failed because the country has been consistently one of the most corrupt in the world at the cost of its development drive.
While Buddhism’s success as a moral incentive can be attributed to its orientation as a personal commitment to perfection, Christianity’s failure could be its propensity to condone imperfection as implied by forgiveness and mercy as recognized virtues.
Instead of moderating greed through ineffective moral incentives, since human beings are by nature self- interested, put bluntly, human beings are greedy, the practical policy response would be to decide on whether to regulate or deregulate greed.
Regulation is premised on the idea that greed is evil. Thus, it requires a strong interventionist state to punish the greedy using coercive laws and repressive taxes as apparatuses of its police power to maintain a status quo of authoritarian political order based on the rule of law. While this works in states with Buddhist population like Thailand and other developing countries in east Asia, regulation breeds corruption in countries like the Philippines where moral incentives fail to curb the natural urge of greed that tempts people, even government officials, to circumvent the laws to create opportunities to convert public goods into private gain.
Deregulation, on the other hand, is premised on the idea that greed is good. In contrast, it merely requires a weak minimal state that allows the market to take advantage of greed by letting the greedy compete among themselves. In the process, competition lowers the cost of commodities and services, improves their quality and increases efficiency. The role of the state is reduced into a night watchman who intervenes only to guarantee that the natural urges of greed produces the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people by dismantling monopolies and ensuring fair competition.