Tag: handicapping

Handicapping: Part 5 – A Coherent Explanation

crimson

My last post went a little off the rails. While it is still technically on topic, providing a specific example of what I’m trying to explain, it spent more time criticizing the actions of a certain individual south of our Canadian border. In this post, I will aim to stay on track and provide a much more coherent explanation of what I’ve been talking about.

To further my aim, I decided to discuss the topic with ChatGPT. Once again, this is technically a real life specific example of the theory I’m trying to express, but at this point, I feel it is necessary for me to get to the point.

In talking to an AI about my ideas, I was finally able to identify more precisely in what areas or fields it falls. That is, as is often the case, my idea is not necessarily new. There have been others exploring these ideas for some time, even as far back as Aristotle I am told. The theory most closely related to my discussion is called the “tragedy of the commons” and is associated with the “Commonize Costs–Privatize Profits Game” (CC–PP Game) from game theory. Though these other theories are very similar, there are some differences as well, mostly in focus.

In the tragedy of the commons, the focus is on a resource that is limited. The idea is that if everyone has access to this resource, and if everyone is utilizing the resource for their own benefit without bearing the cost, then the limited resource will eventually disappear as a result of over utilization of the resource. That is, if I consider everyone as being something like an infinite demand and I consider the resource as something like a finite supply, then it should be clear that the infinite demand will eventually outpace the finite supply. There are a lot of assumptions that play into this, but the idea is that as progress is made, and as individuals (or groups) identify the common resource’s benefit without having to bear the cost, they will eventually grow their utilization until there is nothing left of the resource. In my theory, I am focused more on the socialization aspects of this situation than I am of the resource. Or, perhaps my focus is in an intangible resource, such as the future.

In the CC–PP Game, the scenario is focused on determining the most likely beneficial decision given the conditions of the situation. Specifically, if there are 2 individuals, both vying for the resource, then each has 2 options: to take the resource, or not take the resource. If both take the resource, they each get a portion of the benefit. If one decides not to take the resource, opting to preserve the resource, then they will receive much less benefit and the other gains a greater benefit than before. However, if both parties decide to not take the resource, both trying to preserve the resource, they will both gain much more of the resource at a later time. The following image from Wikipedia shows an example of this game with groundwater utilization:

(from Wikipedia – CC–PP game)

As often happens in game theory, the optimal choice an individual ought to make is the one that is least beneficial in the long run. That is, if I am individual A, then I have to make a choice without knowing what the other will make ahead of time. If the other opts to preserve, then I can either preserve as well for a $100 benefit, or I can extract for $80 benefit. However, if the other opts to extract, then I can either preserve for a $20 benefit, or I can extract for a $50 benefit. In the case where the other preserves, both options are quite reasonable, but if the other decides to extract, then my benefit reduces significantly, especially if I chose to preserve. Ultimately, looking at the numbers, it is in my best interests to extract, because the least I will benefit is $50, regardless of how the other behaves.

Putting this another way, if it is possible for me to trust the other party to make a choice to preserve, then I ought to preserve, as that will benefit me the most. But if I cannot trust the other party to make a particular choice, then I am better off extracting. So the key here is the question of trust.

As it turns out, in the case of the tragedy of the commons situation, one needs to remember there are many, many more than 2 individuals involved. There may be hundreds or thousands of individuals in this array, and the results become much more complex. However, the take away is simply that if all parties cooperate, then all can benefit. But if even one of the parties decides not to cooperate, they will run away with a much greater benefit, essentially stealing the benefit from all others. Thus, the technically correct maneuver is to extract, as it is the safest option for me.

Again, this is not precisely my theory, but it is very much related. For my theory, I am concerned with the social aspect. I am concerned with how the outcome affects things in the long run, regardless of how decisions are being made in the short run. And when I described my theory to ChatGPT, it provided the following much briefer explanation of what I was describing:

“Imagine a competition where the winner is whoever is willing to sacrifice the most. At first, people give up comfort, safety, or honesty to win. But eventually, they start sacrificing the future itself—resources, stability, trust—just to stay ahead.

Someone tries to stop that spiral. They show restraint, think long-term, try to preserve the future. But that makes them weaker in the short term, and they’re overtaken by those who don’t hold back. Even worse, the biggest winners are those who pretend to care while still exploiting everything.

Here’s the twist: because these short-term winners gain power, they get to write the rules. They shape laws, standards, and culture to reflect their values—aggression, consumption, dominance. They even rewrite history to glorify themselves.

So the system not only rewards self-destruction—it locks it in. It turns reckless behavior into the new normal and buries the alternatives.“

I know it is not my words, but I thought ChatGPT did a reasonably good job of explaining my concern. Certainly more succinct than I have been up to this point. I hope it is clear why the case of Donald Trump as president of the United States fits this description so very well.

So my theory is that humans are in this very competition presently and have been for a very long time. It is possible that this is simply a model for life itself, but I would need much more research to determine that. Human life, in modern times, definitely fits this description. There are those who are willing to do whatever it takes to be successful. They will utilize all resources at their disposal, regardless of who owns them or even whether they are entitled to the resources at all. And the main resource I always end up talking about is the future.

When I say “the future,” what I am referring to is the tragedy of the commons. The resources available to me are always limited and finite. There are no infinite resources. There may be “seemingly infinite” resources, as in resources that I could never hope to use up in my lifetime, but if I and my progeny were to utilize those resources in an exponential fashion, there will come a point when those resources will most definitely become exhausted. If you do not believe me, try paying yourself a dollar at the beginning of the month, and then double it each day. How long until you cannot afford to pay yourself? (Hint: you will have to pay yourself over a billion dollars before the end of a typical month.)

The thing ChatGPT said to me that I thought was particularly poignant was “It doesn’t even require bad people—just people playing the only game available.” Like the example of paying myself, it is just a cold calculation that gets away from me very quickly. This is why I tend to focus on the seemingly insignificant things that happen in the world. The noise pollution that many generate without thinking about it. The growing use of leaf blowers to push the dust and debris around to clean the sidewalks. Even just letting the faucet drip. All these things seem completely innocuous, and yet over time and with enough people, these things have a devastating impact on our world.

But that isn’t even the part that is most concerning to me. It is that those individuals who sacrifice the future for their own benefit, particularly in the short term, are setting precedence. They are the ones who are our “leaders.” They are the ones who set standards and create laws and promote their ways of being to the populations at large. Like how a celebrity can use their influence to drive consumers to purchase particular products. The culture I now live in is such a culture, carefully crafted and adjusted over centuries by all those who came before me.

One of the concerns I expressed while taking philosophy was that those whom we were reading may not have been the individuals who originated their ideas. Like my handicapping theory, I am certain there are those out there who thought my thoughts before I did. But what makes those particular philosophers special, such as Jean-Paul Sartre, was that they were the first to put pen to paper and publish these ideas. And because they did, they get the credit. Whomever might have originated their ideas will never be known because those poor individuals never published, for one reason or another.

But there are sometimes glimmers of hope. Sometimes someone does eventually get some credit for their work, such as Simone de Beauvoir, whose works only really started gaining popularity in about the past 15 years. While I have no direct evidence to support this, I am of the belief that it was Beauvoir who was responsible for many of Sartre’s ideas. After studying both, I feel that Sartre’s ideas are just poorly understood copies of Beauvoir’s ideas. Unfortunately, as both individuals are now dead, there is no way to tell. And even if they were not dead, I think Beauvoir’s love for Sartre would prevent her from disparaging him in this situation, regardless of the truth of the matter.

At the end of the day, my theory of handicapping is my fear for the future. I have spent the better part of my life trying to preserve the future. I have been the one handicapped, by my own choices. And of late, I have been forced to cease that practice, little by little. I cannot continue to handicap myself for the sake of the future any longer if I hope to preserve the present for those that I love.

Handicapping: Part 4 – What Is The Point

crimson

It has been a while since I last sat down to write like this. So much has happened. So much continues to happen. The irony that my topic is precisely what this is all about is not lost on me.

I had mentioned in my previous posts that I’ve been avoiding discussing what is going on in the world, but it seems I have no choice in the matter. It has caused me to be delayed this long before composing another post on this topic. So I guess I ought to take the hint and discuss it, however briefly.

Unless you have been living under a rock, you know that the current president of the United States is a guy named Donald Trump. Why you would know this is likely related to where you live. But in many cases, it is probably because Trump has declared a sort of war on your country. In most cases a trade war, as the media seems fond of calling it, where Trump has imposed tariffs on your country to some degree. In other cases, a property war, where Trump has suggested he will annex your country, turning it into an extension of the United States. I’m sure there are other malicious things Trump has done that I may not even know about, but my point is that he has decided to alienate the United States from virtually every other country in the world presently.

In my case personally, as a citizen of Canada, Trump has declared both a trade war and a property war. He has imposed several tariffs on Canada, some of which have been temporarily suspended and some of which have been made permanent. And he has strongly suggested he plans to annex Canada and make it “the 51st state.” The thing about all these hostile acts he is performing is that they do not actually do what he says or thinks they do.

To elaborate a little, tariffs do not work in the manner he seems to think they do. A tariff is a tax that a government imposes on a good or service coming into their country. For example, Trump has imposed a tariff on lumber from Canada going into the United States. So, the lumber is shipped from Canada to the United States at some price, and then the United States government adds a tax to that price. So, who does he think is paying for this tax? Canada sets their price, and the United States government adds a tax. The buyer of this particular good pays for both; that would be the Americans who purchased the lumber.

In other words, by imposing a tariff, Trump is forcing the American people to pay extra for the good. In a direct sense, the party who has been “tariffed” does not pay anything at all. In my example, Canada pays nothing. Canada is the seller of the good. The United States is the buyer of the good. The United States is paying Canada for the good. The additional tax imposed by the government is paid for by the United States as well. So the actual party who suffers in the case of tariffs is the Americans. What makes this whole situation absolutely hilarious is that Trump is imposing tariffs on as many other countries as he can. Blanket tariffs applied to countless goods and services from countless countries. He is taxing the hell out of the American people!

To be clear, I am not suggesting there is no negative impact on Canada when Trump imposes a tariff on Canadian goods. I would refer to the impact as an indirect impact. If the American people who are trying to purchase the good are being forced to pay more for the good because of the additional tax, then they are likely to not purchase as much of the good. Or if the situation becomes particularly bad, they may stop buying the good altogether. In that way, Canada may be negatively affected because they have lost a customer.

The United States is probably the largest consumer pool in the world. Americans purchase more goods and services than any other country. Thus, for a country like Canada, losing all those customers is going to negatively affect their bottom line. However, all is not lost. If Canada wants to sell to some other country, nothing is stopping them. If Mexico would like to purchase more lumber from Canada, then Canada can simply make a deal with Mexico and continue doing business. And that is the current state of affairs going on.

As Trump applies more and more tariffs and generates a less and less stable global economy, countries will simply stop doing business with the United States and do business with each other instead. It may take a bit of time to transition, but that is where everything is going. Trump’s actions and choices are slowly shifting the focus of the world economies elsewhere. Given enough time, Trump will simply isolate the United States from the rest of the world. I do not believe this is his intent. I do not believe this is the intent of the American people either. I believe there is going to be a reckoning in the United States in the very near future. A civil war perhaps…

As for the whole annexing Canada business, I do not see that as happening. The first thing to point out is that Canada doesn’t even technically belong to Canada either. Canada still belongs to England, technically. So if the United States decided to invade Canada, they’d have to contend with England disputing the claim. Putting this another way, Canada has a number of positive allies and positive relationships with other countries. The United States invading Canada would not be well received by many other nations across the globe. In a similar fashion to how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has not been well received either.

But let’s say the United States invaded Canada, just for a moment. Would the invasion be successful? The military in the United States is certainly much larger than the military in Canada. However, the American military is very poorly trained, especially when compared the the Canadian military. American soldiers are highly specialized soldiers, trained in very narrow areas. Compare that to Canadian soldiers who are trained generally, able to perform in a wide variety of situations. Canadian soldiers are trained on many, many different weapons. American soldiers are trained on only one.

Which leads me to my final point about a potential invasion: winter. Whether you believe in climate change or not, Canada’s climate is definitely a lot more hostile than the climate in the United States. Canada’s military is trained in conducting warfare in hostile environments, like winter. American’s do not really know how to handle the winter. Certainly not the weather Canadians are exposed to on a regular basis. Much like how the Russians dealt with the Germans in World War II, Canadians can survive and thrive in situations the Americans cannot.

Putting this all together, if Trump decided to attempt an invasion of Canada, I would expect him to experience the sort of problems Putin has been experiencing. An invasion intended to last a couple weeks would be drawn out for much, much longer. In the end, I do not believe the United States would succeed. And to be honest, I do not think the American people would be interested in pursuing such an endeavor either.

Now I should take a moment and discuss how all this relates to my topic. I have been talking about the idea of handicapping, of sacrificing one’s projects for others. Trump is trying to sacrifice everyone else’s projects for his own right now. He has a plan, and it seems he intends that all others across the globe should sacrifice their own plans and pursue his. In his little circle of sycophants, he may have somehow convinced those people to abandon reason and sanity to pursue Trump’s interests and desires. I admit, I do not know how Trump did this, but I have some theories about that. However, for him to convince people in other countries to do the same seems incredibly unlikely.

It is like these tariffs. Trump seems to believe that by applying tariffs to other countries, those other countries will pay the tax. But that simply is not how it works. Americans pay the tax. Trump does not have the power to force other countries to pay a tax. The closest he could do is apply an export tax on goods, but he seems pretty confident that that is not what he wants. He has said numerous times how much he “loves tariffs.” Which leads me to a dark theory about what is actually taking place in the Unites States right now.

I believe Trump is currently organizing what might be the largest heist of all time. I believe Trump is planning to steal all the gold in Fort Knox. He has already suggested it could be possible that “maybe somebody stole the gold” and that he needed to go to check. Consider all the evidence up to this point. His actions are clearly focused on exploiting the American people. The tariffs are a direct example of this. Furthermore, he has been using his powers to dismantle the American government, making it more likely he can retain power beyond the scope of what he is entitled as an elected official. It is crazy the things he is doing right now.

If the heist isn’t Fort Knox, perhaps it is the tariffs themselves. When tariffs are applied, the taxes is collected by the government. Normally, the government would then use those taxes to assist the local citizens during the challenging time, offsetting the additional expense of the people. Which begs the question of why tariff at all? The reason for tariffs is to give local businesses an opportunity to compete in global markets where they may not currently be competitive. If an incoming good is taxed, but the local good is not taxed, there is greater incentive for the local buyers to purchase the local good over the foreign good. This provides a relief to the local businesses, allowing them to continue doing what they are doing, and use those profits to improve upon themselves.

There is no guarantee that a local business will take the increase in their own business to improve themselves, but that is often the intention. This is how Samsung became a globally competitive business. A tariff is like a surgical instrument, and is best used sparingly toward some specific goal. Once that goal has been achieved, the tariff ought to be lifted, and the stronger local businesses allowed to compete in the market in earnest. Applying tariffs like a blunt instrument over a wide scope is kind of pointless.

A tariff ought to be applied to a very specific good in a very specific way, with the very specific goal of promoting a very specific business (or group of businesses). Specifically, to allow for the local business (or businesses) to grow and eventually thrive. Applying a tariff generally to all goods or services from an entire country (or even several countries) only serves to destabilize relations with those countries with no beneficial goal to anyone. The only group that can reliably gain any sort of benefit from tariffs is the government applying them. So, let’s see if Trump takes all that money and uses it to help the local American economy, or whether that money simply seems to disappear.

Handicapping: Part 3 – Who We Do It For

crimson

With everything going on in the world of late, it is hard to maintain focus. I want to continue my topic, but I am often compelled to address those other things that are going on. For the moment, I have abated my compulsion and will continue my treatise. We will see if I can keep doing that as time progresses.

In my last post, I spoke of ethics and tried to present what it is in the most basic of senses. The big question I ended with was determining who the others were. That is, who’s interests and desires are so important to me that I am willing to sacrifice my own interests and desires in favor of theirs. Where does the ethical impetus come from?

In some sense, the answer seems simple enough: everyone else. Society. My community. My parents. For some strange reason, I care what everyone else thinks about me, and so I will sacrifice my own crazy desires to appease those around me. I admit that this is something I feel and perhaps you do not. Over the course of my life, I have met some people who certainly do not valuate the world as I do. Perhaps you are such a person?

However, it has also been my experience that those sorts of people are fewer and further between. And unfortunately, those people also tend to be in positions of authority or power. I have often wondered if there is a correlation between these seemingly opposing things. (Spoiler: I do believe this is the case, and this is part of the point of this theory of handicapping).

It has been my experience that people who voluntarily limit themselves, who handicap themselves, are putting themselves at a disadvantage. Perhaps not in every instance, but in the lion’s share of instances limiting one’s self often leads to being in a situation of less. This is why I chose the word “handicap” in the first place. In general, handicapping has a negative connotation, suggesting that handicapping is negative and ought to be avoided at all costs.

In sports, when someone is handicapped it is meant to level the playing field. The one with the clear advantage is given a limitation to offset their advantage. That way, when the game begins, even those who are not as proficient can stand a chance against those with great proficiency. But this is simply another way of saying that the one who clearly ought to win in the match up is being limited so the one who should not win the match up can be placated.

In this case, the handicapping may be viewed as positive for the underdog but negative for the superior athlete. I would imagine the superior athlete would not accept such an arrangement normally, unless there was some reason to allow the limiting action. This, once again, is ethics. The superior athlete sacrificing what they may desire in favor of the desires of others. Perhaps others in this case include the audience, wanting to see a more balanced match up. Perhaps it is the business owners trying to ensure the match up is less predictable; if the same people always won, the sport would become quite boring.

But in this case, the handicapping is once again happening not because of the desires of the individual, but instead the desires of others. Once again this is about doing something others want instead of what I want.

In the case of the athlete, they may be compelled to follow and obey in order to continue in their sport. After all, what would sports be without the support of audiences and others? Some may argue that a sport is strictly for the individual in isolation, but how many athletes can you think of that never perform for some sort of audience? To be fair, those that do would likely not be very well known for precisely the reason I am making.

This all falls into the category of definitions now. That is, an athlete is an athlete in large part because they perform for some sort of audience. Were there no audience to be concerned with, it may affect the impetus of the individual to accept some sort of handicapping.

For me, for my discussion, focusing on the case of athletes is not really where I wish to focus. I am more concerned with a general concept of handicapping, particularly in the average person’s day-to-day life. The individual who is self legislating, deciding for themselves that they ought to behave in ways other than the ways they would like to behave. Like so many other ideas and concepts I prefer to discuss here, this one once again is likely causing some confusion. I can tell by the way my sentence structures are becoming fuzzy and unclear, even to myself who is writing this all down.

I think I will tie this post off here for now, and think about this a bit more. It seems to me it is pretty clear who the others are in this situation: society. However, what may still be less clear is why one would abandon their own desires in favor of the desires of those around them. As I suggested in my previous post, it seems like the why is related to a sort of “keeping the peace.” But that over simplified answer has also not been sitting well with me.

It has taken me a long time to really talk about this topic. It seems I am still struggling to explain it properly.

Handicapping: Part 2 – Why We Do It

crimson

In my last post, I established in the most basic sense what handicapping is (as I see it): it is the act of limiting one’s self when up against others. In particular, for my purposes, of giving up on one’s own projects in order to pursue (or help pursue) the projects of others. To sacrifice one’s freedom (perhaps temporarily) to support the freedom of another. So the next natural question I would expect to ask is why would someone do this?

When pursuing our freedom in our modern world, we often run up against ethics and morality. The idea that what we may want to do is either right or good, or perhaps wrong or evil. Or to perhaps be a bit less dramatic, when I act, I can do what I want to do, or I can do what I think I am expected to do. This is literally ethics.

For those who may not know, ethics is all about oughts. As I go about my life, I am compelled to do what I want to do at any given moment in time, in a sort of selfish manner. That is, I know through my passions and my intellect what sorts of actions I want to take based on what will make me happy or what will give me advantage. If I am hungry for chocolate, I can follow a course of action that will lead to me eating chocolate. Perhaps I will walk down the block to the nearest convenience store and purchase some chocolate and then eat it. The concept I’m suggesting here is not all that complicated. In general, I pursue my interests and desires most of the time. I think most people do.

However, there are certainly times when the thing I want to do is not going to be well received by those around me. Perhaps walking to a convenience store to get chocolate seems quite unproblematic, but what if I do not wish to pay for that chocolate? What if I decided to simply break in and take the chocolate so that I could satisfy my craving? It may seem extreme to think about stealing chocolate, so perhaps I will escalate the idea to help with clarity. What if I decided I wanted money, and I decided the best path to getting that money was to rob the convenience store. This pursuit of mine is clearly becoming quite controversial.

I think most would agree that robbing a convenience store is not the sort of action I ought to do. And there it is, the word ought has already come about. I may want to do this action of stealing, but I know that I am not supposed to pursue this particular action because it is considered prohibited. I ought not rob a convenience store. This is ethics. According to ethics, I ought not rob a convenience store. According to ethics, I ought to sacrifice this particular desire or interest, and instead pursue the desire or interest of another. In this case, the other happens to be my community or society.

In its most basic form, ethics is simply a description of how I decide what I ought to do despite what I want to do. There are many different theories about ethics that try to explain my behavior, such as utilitarianism which suggests I choose my actions based on the consequences of those actions. In utilitarianism, I ought to choose my action based on whichever action will result in the greatest increase in happiness (or sometimes the greatest reduction in suffering). Using my example from above, robbing the convenience store would clearly make the store owner quite unhappy, as well as those who use the convenience store. If I were to chose another manner with which to acquire money, such as working at the convenience store instead, that would seem to generate greater happiness.

There are many other theories of ethics out there, but in cases as straight forward as the one I’ve laid out, they generally will agree that stealing is a prohibited action. All that is really different between theories is how they come to the conclusion. The reason there are so many different theories is that there are cases that are not so easy to define and so each different theory may suggest a different course of action in these harder to define cases.

The purpose of my discussion is not to dwell on different ethical theories, but to instead highlight something the all have in common: they suggest that I give up an action I may want to do and replace it with an action that I ought to do instead. That I should limit myself in some fashion, sacrificing a particular desire or interest I have and instead pursuing or supporting the desires or interests of others around me. Ethics is one reason I might chose to handicap myself.

The next difficult aspect to consider is who those others might be.

Handicapping: Part 1 – Simple Logic

crimson

It is time, not to poke fun at my previous posts. I have avoided this topic for a while now. Technically, I posted about this over two years ago on Reddit. Even then, people seemed not to understand what I was referring to. It isn’t really easy to talk about nor to explain. But it is time I did just that.

Unlike the post on Reddit, I’m going to approach this slowly, bit by bit. A little about what I’m talking about before tying it all together. Hopefully by doing this, there is a greater chance you will understand too.

This is a theory I’ve been working on for a while now. I refer to it as the Theory of Handicapping. I consider it to be a viable explanation as to how humans (and possibly all life) behaves. And I consider it to be an explanation as to why we have not witnessed sentient life from outside our tiny sphere we call Earth. And, unfortunately, I consider it to be an explanation as to why we are all doomed to eventually expire. Probably not this generation, but the clock on humanity is running out slowly. This is what I believe, and perhaps my explanation might resonate with others.

The driving force of this theory is in the name, as often is the case with naming things. The idea of handicapping is the idea of purposely limiting one’s self for some reason or other. In sports such as golf, a handicap may be used to balance the game, making it possible for a less skilled player to compete with a player who is much better. In my theory, this is precisely the idea I have in mind.

In life, I find myself in constant competition with those around me. I am in competition for resources and space and even time. As I try to exercise my freedom, pursuing my interests and desires, I am nearly constantly challenged by others as they pursue their own. This is where the Existentialists, such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, are helpful to talk about. For Sartre, he considered us all to be in this competition at all times, fighting to express our freedom and pursue our projects. For Beauvoir, she considered it instead to be a cooperative venture, where individuals had to make space for each other and acknowledge each others’ freedom. Perhaps it is from reading both of these thinkers that my own theory emerges.

On the Sartrean side, the competition is ruthless and unavoidable. Like the myth of the Alpha, I am forced to bully and fight and sometimes even resort to violence to make my way in the world. No one will give me a moment’s rest and I must defend my claim to space and interests. For Sartre, this is simply how freedom works. Those who fight well and out compete others will get to enjoy their projects, while those who do not will simply be forced to follow the projects of others. I imagine Sartre likely felt women were often on the losing side of this game.

On the Beauvoirian side, the competition is a losing endeavor. Only through recognizing each other’s freedom can any of us succeed in our pursuits. But more than that, she suggested we needed to acknowledge each others freedom, even going so far as to sacrifice our own from time to time in order work with others on their projects. That is, for a while I will help you accomplish your projects, and then later you can help me with mine. We work together, cooperatively, so that we both can pursue our respective goals and interests. The only problem comes when our respective pursuits contradict each other; in this situation, it is less clear what to do. Clearly Sartre’s response would be less problematic.

For me, for my theory, it is this very troubling dichotomy that I am trying to address. For me, I think both are correct in their assessment of the situation. We are stuck in both competition and cooperation with each other in our pursuit of our freedom. Much of the time, we must convince others to assist us in our pursuits, because most of our pursuits are not feasible to pursue alone. I might be able to build a house by myself, but it would certainly take a very long time to do; if I had the assistance of others, the process would be much quicker, and likely a better made house would result as well (considering my own lack of proficiencies).

But then it becomes a question of when to stand one’s ground and when to sacrifice. At what points do I fight for my project, working to ensure that it gets achieved? At what points do I submit to the will of others in their own pursuits, helping them to accomplish theirs? Fairness might suggest that we split the difference and help each other out in equal measure. But if you’ve lived in this world for any amount of time, certainly you will have noticed that this definitely does not happen.

I hate to bring it up, as I’ve been avoiding this topic as well, but the recent election in the United States is a great example of the situation I’m talking about. Donald Trump has recently been elected president again, and he did so on a platform suggesting he would take care of the people. He even went so far as to say “whether the women like it or not, I’m going to protect them.” The crazy part of this is how it so clearly flies in the face of his project, completely undermining the project of his own constituents. That said, he was still voted in, so perhaps there are plenty of women who actually want Trump to protect them.

The problem with all of this is that Trump only said what he said to get elected. He hasn’t even entered office yet, and he has already backpedaled on virtually every promise he made during his campaign. Meaning he only said what he said to convince those around him to help him with his project, never having any intention of cooperating and helping others pursue their own projects. This is the Sartrean competition I am talking about; Trump’s strategy for a successful fight was to use deception and lies to convince those around him to help him with his project. He successfully convinced others to sacrifice their own projects for his.

And so, this is the first part of my theory that I need to establish and make clear. In this world, where we all are trying to pursue our desires and interests, individually we have to somehow convince others to allow us to pursue our projects, either through fighting for them or negotiating for them or some other strategy. And perhaps at times we have to sacrifice our pursuit to assist others in their pursuits. At any time in your life when you have been helping others to do the things they wanted to do, this is precisely what you are doing. You are sacrificing your own desires or interests or goals to assist someone else in accomplishing theirs. And if you look really hard at what you are doing, you may come to realize (as I have) that you are more often submitting to others than doing things for yourself.

This is what I will refer to as Handicapping.