The Olympics

A Chinese weightlifter, at the end of his turn, burst into tears and apologized to his nation. He had merely won a silver medal. The radio commentator who told the story used it to illustrate the single-minded focus of Chinese media on winning gold medals. Nothing less is acceptable. But clearly the Chinese are not alone in that. In the age of nation states and jingoism, all nations are counting their gold and other medals, certainly the US.

But I find the entire spectacle strange. Think of the enormous sums of money invested not only in the Olympic Stadium and other facilities, but think all of the hundreds and thousands of athletes who have prepared for years for this event. You don't become an Olympic class athlete by going to your job 40 hours a week and spending the weekend taking care of your yard and your house, and playing with your kids. You have to be fully concentrated on this Olympic ambition and on your training. Someone has to pay your bills and has to pay for making gymnasiums, or whatever other places are needed, available for constant training.

So an enormous mass of resources is being spent on getting these very few people to be spectacular athletes. I wonder whether that is the best way of using those resources. One Chinese observer was quoted as saying that some of these resources should be made available to allow him and people like him to do sports and to allow them to improve their athletic skills and powers.

But the people who are in charge of Olympic events, the world Olympic committee, the Mitt Romney's of this world, businesses that hope to attract trade to themselves through their sponsorship of aspects of the Olympics, and other interested parties have decided that producing a few top athletes is more important than allowing large numbers of citizens to work out, to train, and generally improve their athletic skills. The peak performances of a few selected athletes have been chosen over improving the physical health of millions of people so that they feel better in their bodies and therefore may enjoy their life more.

By this decision the large number of people who are passionate about sports are condemned for the most part, to passivity. It is difficult for them to find the time and spaces in which to work out themselves. Instead, all they can do to follow their interest in sports is to turn on their television set and watch the broadcasts (and of course the commercials.). All they can do is sit and be Monday morning quarterbacks.

It is striking that in a democracy decisions of this sort are not submitted to the people. The explanation for that is obvious: the Olympics are entirely run and financed by private business. That is the domain of private ownership and democracy has no place there because in our world private property rights are more powerful than every persons democratic rights to determine the chief features of their life.

But maybe democratic rights should take precedence over the rights of private property.

Private property and common goods: parking vs. children's play area..
Private property is very important. Most people work hard for what they own and it matters to them that they be secure in their possession. They want to be sure, when they go to work in the morning, that they find their car in the driveway where they parked it last night. They want to feel completely safe in their house and not have their yard invaded by drunken party-goers. Owning private property means that one can exclude all others from one's house, one's yard, one's car. It is up to the owner to decide who may enter her house or drive her car.
Not all things in this world can be privately owned. There are many goods from which one cannot exclude other users. Clean air is there for all to enjoy. All breathe the same air. To be sure the air in inner cities tends to be worse than in wealthy suburbs. But within each area, the air is the same for all. No one can exclude others from breathing the same air. Parks and playgrounds belong to all. No one can claim private ownership and exclude everyone else. Some cities are livable; they are clean, their parks well kept and passersby are courteous and helpful. Those characteristics of an urban landscape cannot be privatized. Inevitably they are shared by all. They are a common good.
Sometimes private ownership and common goods conflict. I may own a forest and should, therefore, be allowed to cut down my trees if I so choose. But the trees contribute to clean air which is a common good and cutting down my trees may worsen the air quality for all. Here then some decision has to be made whether private property rights-- cutting down my trees -- should override the common good-- clean air for all, or whether the common good should take precedence.
Here is another example of such a conflict: The former City Hospital in Worcester has been flanked for many years by two or three acres of open space with some majestic old trees. The neighborhood is densely built-up; there are no parks within walking distance. The neighborhood children have played in this open space for generations, thereby avoiding having to play in the streets. A woman I know who is now close to thirty told me about growing up in the neighborhood and playing in the grassy area next to City Hospital. UMass/Memorial Hospital, owners of the building, some time ago decided to pave over this green space and cut down the trees. The planning board granted the necessary permits on the grounds that the hospital owned this open space and therefore had private property rights to exclude other users – in this case the neighborhood kids who had played there for many years.
The planning board refused to see the real conflict between the hospital's private property rights and the common good of the community to have a safe place for their children to play. This conflict confronts us in many different contexts, for instance, when ocean beach front homeowners want to exclude the public from using the beach and swimming in the ocean. We encounter the conflict when drug companies want to have unlimited potential for profits even if that means that poor people may die prematurely because they cannot afford to buy the needed medicines. Private profit is chosen as more important than a full life span for all. Entire cities decay when major industries move offshore. The private profit of the automobile company takes precedence over the quality of life in Michigan cities such as Detroit or Flint. The common good is made to yield to private property rights again and again.
The conflict is a serious one; it is not easy to resolve. But we tend, in too many cases, to sacrifice the common good for the rights of private owners. Because of that neglect of the common good, the quality of life of too many Americans has deteriorated in the last fifty years.