Drink and Get Rich
©Jack Trimpey, 2006, all rights reserved.
Here is an article published by the Journal of Labor Relations pumping the benefits of drinking alcohol in terms of your personal finances. While successful men and women may also have a tendency to drink unequaled by their less successful, less affluent peers, it is doubtful that the original source of funding for this little piece of pop-science would agree that the money was well-spent.
I looked into the sponsoring organizations, the Locke Institute and the Reason Foundation, and I fail to see the basis for their interest in this odd topic, nor do I understand the logic for their assertions. The article is a bald invitation to underachievers everywhere to break out the booze in order to better meet their responsibilities to their families, employers, and communities by drinking alcohol. For clarity, let me point out that the original source of funds for this study was not the Locke Institute or the Reason Foundation. It came from a foundation supported by large, for-profit corporations or from the estates of people who were productive during their lifetimes.
According to this nonprofit research, men who drink will earn 10% more personal income than men who abstain, but if you are a woman, drinking will net you a hefty 14% more money than your abstinent sisters. Moreover, they proclaim that drinking provides educational opportunities, to learn business and social skills. These benefits have been discovered by scientists funded by nonprofit organizations that were funded by foundations that are funded by corporations and individuals whose courage, self-discipline, ingenuity, and productivity created wealth.
This allegedly scientific research into the wisdom of drinking alcohol has about as much common sense to it as the titillating science published by the nonprofit American Heart Association, which proclaims the benefits of drinking as a prevention of heart disease. It is possible for many risky behaviors to have beneficial, unintended side effects. However, I have no doubt that every problem drinker in America now weighs the health benefits of alcohol into his inner debate about his continued use of alcohol. I think I’ve heard from about half of them, personally.
The Locke Institute and the Reason Foundation are both nonprofit organizations, reliant upon unearned income to finance their dalliances. In other words, those who work there are apparently not engaged in productive activities, but are merely encumbering their budgets so they will be replenished next year. Much of the income for these dependent organizations comes from productive enterprises, corporations whose officers have been intimidated by the I.R.S., lured by the benefactor image, or shamed by other nonprofit organizations into giving large sums to nonprofit organizations. Ironically, both organizations have their origins in the individualism that forms the foundation for the greatest invention of humanity, the business corporation of capitalist societies.
John Locke was a British social philosopher of the Enlightenment era whose works have been incorporated into worldwide liberalism and now form the foundation for free enterprise and capitalism itself. The Reason Foundation boasts Libertarianism as its political ancestry, and claims to adhere to that true-grit individualism with limited government and emphasis on individual rights, free enterprise, and private property. Condidering their origins, it may seem strange that these nonprofit organizations would suggest that people drink in order to gain a 7% increase their income. However, there are few entities less congruent with John Locke’s works and Libertarian politics than the nonprofit organization, a dependent entity based upon the precepts of socialism and collectivism.
For-profit research
Recently, the entrepreneurial giant, Google.com, announced its plan to make use of the for-profit corporation in its effort to reduce human suffering. Google is certainly aware of the immense power of capitalism. Quite possibly, Google also suspects that altruism is flawed in that it often tends to foster dependence without solving the underlying causes of suffering. I think it is very likely that Google understands that the profit motive is a manifestation of the human spirit that unleashes creative energies unknown in the realm of altruistic benevolence.
The rewards of altruism are fleeting and sentimental, but doing urgent research to create and sell new products, structures, services, methods, and implements gives more to society than charity and more to the corporation than the profits. Driven to provide the greatest value possible to consumers by solving urgent problems, while cutting waste and redundancy to the minimum, profit-driven corporations are most often benevolent and purposeful, providing income for employees, revenue for government, and real value to consumers and society.
Most great advances in human civilization, including many in the arts, have been fueled by the profit motive, most of which have occurred in the last two hundred years. Those inventions and innovations very often bring enormous, immediate benefits that improve the quality of human life. Large, profitable corporations such as oil companies and pharmaceutical corporations are often villified even though they are very expensively engaged in reasearching, developing and producing new goods, services, products, methods, and remedies for ages-old afflictions that remain unsolved.
Nonprofit charities, e.g., the disease banners for cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, and other serious illnessess rarely arrive at an actual solution for those problems, depleting their budgets with administrative and public relations activities while pharmaceutical companies and electronic industries discover the real solutions. The science of a for-profit, Swiss pharmaceutical company produced the miracle of DDT, but the nonprofit science of the environmental movement banned it worldwide, resulting in a public health catastrophe from unchecked malaria. While billions of tax dollars have been spent on nonprofit research into the nature of addiction and its treatment, no remedies have come from that research, and the nature of the problem has only been further mystified with scientific biobabble and worthless remedies.
Nonprofit science isn’t really science, but the application of scientific discourse to bogus, sentimental concepts, such as how alcohol makes us healthy, wealthy, and wise. In other words, nonprofit science, especially driven by the winds of politics, finds what its funders want to find. Nonprofiteering is very popular in the United States, because altruism is a common human failing. Currently, there are over 600,000 nonprofit organizations in the nation, with about 10,000 devoted to addiction and recoveryism. For-profit science finds what is good for the shareholders, and there is nothing better for shareholders than a truly beneficial, well-marketed product or service which is in great demand.
Altruism, dependence, and resentment
As a general rule, dependence breeds resentment because independence is inherently superior to dependence. No one really wants to be dependent, from children to the elderly, from the sick to the disabled. Dependence strains both parties, one with envy and frustration, the other with the practical burden plus the inevitable failure of gratitude. Sadly, the dependence produced by altruistic charity often breeds jealous resentment toward the anonymous givers. That resentment is very often directed toward the productive sector, including taxpayers and the corporations that are the source of the wealth altruistically directed toward the recipient.
Dependent people will always resent those who stand free of the miseries of their afflictions, for it is easier and more satisfying to blame a human being than God or fate. It is, therefore, no surprise that dependent fellowships dwell upon the resentment common to their dependence. The matters of altruism, charity, jealousy, and resentment may cause consternation on the parts of giver and receiver when the disease or disability is factitious, such as when disability results from vice rather than from fate or from acts of God.
In a capitalist society, each citizen is a for-profit corporation at birth, with a lifelong obligation to profit from gainful employment. Every citizen is a shareholder in everyone else’s corporation, so it is important that we demand independence of everyone who is capable of it, and expose as parasites those who indulge in unnecessary dependence upon others. Sadly, the nonprofit sector is prone to glamorize dependence, even claiming that dependence is superior to independence.
One non-profit organization, Alcoholics Anonymous, has gained enormous power by exploiting the mother lode of emotional dependence that naturally arises from habitual self-intoxication. By reflecting back to addicted people the beliefs and values created by addiction, AA creates a bond with its members driven by addictive desire itself. Such brand loyalty, which exceeds one’s devotion to one’s family or to one’s country, is channeled into evangelical activities, spreading the word to all who will hear, that AA is the only possible remedy for problem drinkers and drug addiction.
Each AA meeting begins with doctrinal readings praising AA’s nonprofit status, implying that nonprofit status is evidence that AA is “entirely self-supporting,” even though its revenues are from charitable donations. In a typical inversion, AA makes its dependence upon the charity of its members appear to be evidence of its independence. Members are told they have a mysterious disease that will smite them unless they attend meetings in perpetuity. Dependency training begins with the requirement of forming a dependent relationship with another member, without which one is considered at great risk of self-destruction.
Whether Google’s profits result from its employees’ use of alcohol should remain in doubt until more research is done on this intriguing question. The research should be done by a for-profit entity, an individual human being in capitalist, American society. You can start that research on your top menu bar, by entering the search term, “alcohol and productivity.” Scan down at least the first page before getting the drift. It’s fun; just do it.
- - - - - - - - -
Brief notes:
Rational Recovery Systems, Inc., is a for-profit, tax-paying, educational corporation with the mission of making independent recovery from addiction a viable option for all addicted people. Since 1986, RRS has pioneered desperately needed innovations, most notably Addictive Voice Recognition Technique® (AVRT®). In recognition of the emotional dependency engendered by addiction, the essentials of AVRT® are posted at this website without charge. AVRT® is the lore of independent recovery from substance addiction in a brief, consumer-ready, service-marked, educational format.
AVRT® is each addicted person’s missing moral conscience. Each time someone recovers with AVRT®, he becomes an asset rather than a liability to his country, his community, and to his family. Instead of becoming progressively more dependent, as all addicted people do, he becomes more independent — emotionally, financially, and morally. Others, including society at large, have no further burden of responsibility or change, emotionally, financially, or otherwise. AVRT® is the addicted person’s best friend, the taxpayer’s protector, law-enforcement’s ally, and the family’s salvation from the destruction of addiction.
RRS once supported a nonprofit organization, the Rational Recovery Self-Help Network (RRSN), which at its peak had approximately 1000 groups nationwide, most overseen by counseling professionals. When it became apparent that recovery groups are inherently flawed, engaging members in recoveryism rather than recovery, RRS sued RRSN out of existence. Only since our severance from the addiction treatment industry has AVRT® matured into the lean, addiction-killing entity it is today.
EMail This PostBookmark:
October 6th, 2006 at 10:27 am
This ridiculous article aside, I have just looked over your site & it has some excellent info for the layman like myself.
Still, I have found the tone of your site just as dogmatic as anything AA says about recovery.
Though I have never considered AA or any program as the final holy grail… your statement critical of the AA idea that “relapse is always a possibility” seems equally absolute…. the only way you can refute this is to say that at some point in recovery relapse will no longer be a possibility. If that is what you are really saying… you won’t have many takers. “No longer possible,” would seem a bit strong.
For me, the disease model of addiction is not a perfect fit, but it has advanced the ball to more effective treatment. I believe the rational model does have something to add… but “once cured always cured” would be one of its less productive contributions.
correct if I’m wrong…
Steve,
I personally guarantee everyone I care about that I’ll never drink again. I can do this from the moral dimension, which is unknown in the realm of addiction. There are a number of acts that are too wretched, to evil, for me to voluntarily commit. Drinking is #1 on that list. I am simply incapable of acting in certain ways, absolute, final, forever, guaranteed. That guarantee, which is called the Big Plan, is a defining trait of my character. I can be depended upon to never drink/use.
The disease concept of addiction is the denial of the moral axis of addiction and recovery. The disease concept of addiction is for moral sissies who would rather have a pretend disease than quit on moral principle. That is why so very few, if any, ever recover and live normal lives. There are no treatments such as you describe. None.
Jack Trimpey
October 19th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Jack, your “moral” priciple that you will never drink again cannot be proven until you die sober. How many subscribers have died sober - proving in fact that your system truly works to the end? I know many AA members who lived long, healthy happy sober lives until they died of natural causes.
November 7th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Finally someone sees it like it truly is. We are all carrying around the greatest power in the known universe, the human brain! So why shouldn’t we believe that we have free will? If there are miracles, we are among the greatest of them. Jack, what you have discovered, or is it that you have finally remembered, is that we all have the power inside of us. Spread your words, for they have vision. This shift in perception is a miracle itself.
November 27th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
thanks for caring, there are so many who need this
December 7th, 2006 at 11:17 am
I have attended AA, been to counseling, gone through rehab, etc. I totally agree on one thing. Whether in AA or giving Rational Recovery an honest go, you can kiss sobriety goodbye if its not time. Good luck to anyone fighting the cravings or mind set of got to have it. I am a binge drinker turned almost daily drinker. The only luck I have had — 14 months 4 years ago — was with RR. I had such a grip on it only to put my gaurd down out of town working. I know now I stopped practing my rr tricks. Life was mostly way better. However the ambivilance kept comming. I wish your RR would sometimes remember. How difficult it is to practice. The philosophy of RR is the beginning of self improvement. I was turned off by aa stuff you know what I mean. Groups God life long self abuse. I really like the RR approach However I need help in the beginning in life situations eg wedding to attend . I feel you over look the beginning of sober. I am also finding a lot of AA bashing. I understand your feelings on this system but would it not be time better spent trying to improve RR and the crucial beginning period of feeling like a fish out of water or booze. Thank you, Harold.
January 8th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I am a “Newcomer” in recovery (dual diagnosis, alcohol and Klonopin (benzodiazepines)). I have been to a year’s worth of meetings and formal rehab. It is fairly clear that anyone who would so casually use generalizations about capitalism and charity to bash an organization just because they disagree with their principles is coming from a very dark place.
One of the basic principles of dealing with people is that when the degree of severity of a reaction is out of proportion to the significance of the stimulus it is most certainly out of fear. Your rant at Cary and grandiose demand for an apology (that you wrote…how charming) is obviously coming from a place of insecurity against a strong and poignant argument.
I question the advice of someone so ignorant of human nature as to make a statement that “I am simply incapable of acting in certain ways, absolute, final, forever, guaranteed.” Jack, you go ahead and stick with your ‘super-human sobriety’ and let we mortal beings do our thing, please.
Readers: Do not let your mind be clouded by people (or substances), rather, find strength within yourselves through any means possible. The knowledge that we are imperfect in our humanity and must always be alert is the VERY thing to which we must cling. How many times must we be cursed because of our arrogance before a lesson is learned?
February 1st, 2007 at 7:32 pm
i think your defense of for profits creating wonders of the world versus non-profits making everything worse is a little simplistic. Yes, DDT did kill mosquitos that carried malaria. It also was destroying the Bald Eagle and Osprey populations of North America as well as contributing to health effects in other animals (cows, chickens and pigs; which humans eat) and humans as well.
Dow (Dow Corning) made every effort to hid the dangers of this chemical. So I think it is a little silly to say that capitalistic companies always have excellence in mind when they develop new products. They also create the “doctors dope” which is given like candy to people with the diagnosis “du joir” like bipolar disorder or schizoid-affective disorder or whatever.
The amount of money made on pushing prozac and other anti-depressents is staggering. The pharmaceutical industry pushes “disease” on all of us every day in TV advertising. There is always some “problem” that they can cure. Yet, witness the recalls of drugs that have killed or maimed people who were convinced that pharmaceutical corporations really cared about their well being. And it is ironic that you defend this when RR is actually against the “doctors dope” as means of battling “Addicto-Depressive Disorder.”
I’m not against science or capitalism. Both are great. The idea that they (for profits) are any more moral or ethical than non-profits is simply not true.
And I agree that non-profits can actually be worse because they represent themselves as “rising above” corruption when they are just as susceptible to it as the
for-profits. I worked for a non-profit that “downsized” and they were just as horrible as any corporation, when it came down to the way we were treated.
Something to consider.
July 31st, 2007 at 5:46 pm
God Bless America,
It is the Greatest Imperfect Country on Earth, I fell for the 12 step philosophy for about 5 years but then the desire to conform to Idiocy was no longer needed and I take complete accountability of my actions regardless of what is socially acceptable. I will never drink or use drugs for recreation again and for all of the other vices that I have succumbed to in the past, I do not blame them on alcohol. To try to reason with the unreasonable is a futile endeavor. Live a great life and know you are on the right path.
It’s been 20 years since I came across this web-site while doing research for a school project. I am entering the Health care field (not treatment) and am amazed at all of the “wine dinners” sponsored by pharmaceutical companies for Physicians.
You have stated what “I came to believe” on my own and I find it refreshing. I will visit this site again.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:39 am
I certainly don’t like brainwashing, but I don’t understand bashing people who want to quit drinking when they have a problem. I’ve gone to AA for years. I meet nice people, controlling people, smart people, stupid people, etc., just like I do in the supermarket or at work.
I am personally responsible for myself, and so far, noone has brainwashed me. I have, however, quit drinking for a long time. That’s amazing to me. I have cut off ties to some old friends, but since they were raging drunks and leaches, it wasn’t really a loss. I kept my other friends, even though they have nothing to do with AA.
I appreciate the support of AA meetings.
Also, I certainly do not trust drug companies, and yes, they will harm people for profit. That doesn’t mean that some people who take psychiatric medications don’t benefit from them. It’s a subjective, person by person issue. Definitely not black and white.