How does one take down the man when one is the man?

It's no secret that I love "stickin' it to the man." But I always do it in ways that might be interpreted as, well, less than ballsy. For instance, I might stick it to the man by buying my steak from Wholey's instead of Giant Eagle. I might get a copy of Sarah Vowell's latest collection of thoughtful essays at Jay's instead of Barnes & Noble. I'll feast upon a succulent cheesburger at Tesaro's instead of T.G.I. Friday's. And these ways are all consumerism anyway; the man wants me to spend money, and that's precisely what I'm doing. I'm just not spending it exactly where "he" wants me to. Or maybe I stick it to the man by voting for the Green Party candidates in local elections. But who's kidding who? I'm just taking my vote away from the man's opposition, aren't I? But then again, Democrats are just less evil versions of Republicans, aren't they? If Republicans are 90% evil, then Democrats are something like 70% evil. Big business is big business, right? But perhaps I might look to The Thomas Crown Affair for something interesting about sticking it to the man.

Thomas Crown, who for all intents and purposes is the man, lives exceptionally well. He can eat at whatever spendy restaurants he wants to whenever he feels like it, can travel anywhere for the weekend, and can play philanthropist. Being ridiculously wealthy obviously provides a certain amount of freedom from the day-to-day concerns that the rest of us face. Simply by virtue of living well, is Thomas Crown "sticking it to the man," or is he merely perpetuating the status quo by living as the establishment dictates that the rich should live? He would seem to spend a lot of time at work, dealing as he does in the hyper-intense world of finance, and so perhaps the man has him in that way just as he has the rest of us. Crown has ridiculous sums of money, but can only enjoy them on the weekends and certain free evenings. The man has him. If I had a tenth of Crown's net wealth, I'd already be retired. But not him; something about the competition involved in finance pulled him in, and the man has him. Until, of course, he decides to leave.

At the end of the film, when it becomes known that Crown is an art theif, he leaves the country never to return. We are to understand that he takes an immense sum of money with him. Now here's the dilemma: does he, by escaping from the day-to-day snares of "the man's" system, stick it to the man? Or has he simply acted as "the man" and fleeced the rest of us by depriving the public forever of the millions he would have payed in taxes had he stayed legally in the United States?

At the risk of revealing an embarassing individualistic aspect of myself, I must admire the guy. He loves and understands good art and fine wine. And he has the means to enjoy both to the fullest because he has been able to manipulate the system to his advantage. Should all of us who possess the ability to do that act in the same way? Or should we, as so many of us do, teach at universities for poor wages, work for non-profits, etc., living relatively pauper-like lives in comparison to those of similar intellect who chose to persue the field of capitalism? Or is there some middle route? This, of course, is a question as old as organized human society. It reminds me of the Matthew 19:24, one of those Bible verses firmly entrenched in my mind as a result of attending Sunday school at a wealthy, suburban church: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Taken in the context of The Thomas Crown Affair and this blog about it, Matthew would seem to imply that Thomas Crown is himself "the man" because he remains rich, and presumably gives none of this wealth toward the general well-being of the world once he leaves the country. At least while he lived in New York, he gave substantially to a great museum. As much as Crown's escape appeals to me, I don't think I could stand for doing it myself from a moral standpoint. I'd rather just retire and be a philanthropist. Imagine how rewarding it would be to travel all over the world giving money to worthwhile causes for a career. Hell, if I had that much money, I could give half of it to the Green party, and they'd be able to compete for press attention in the next presidential election. Of course, that would probably bring another Republican president since everyone with even a quarter of a brain and a tenth of a heart already would never vote Republican. Oh well. I guess all hope has been lost and if I become ridiculously rich, I should just take my money and get out while I can.