Money Mammoth. Ted Klontz

CHAPTER 3 Your Children

      How far would you go to protect the life of a close family member who was in mortal danger? If you had no other choice, would you kill to protect them? If you are a parent, how far would you go to protect your own child? How far would you go to protect a child's emotional well-being? How far would you go to give your child a leg up in the world? While it is easy to criticize others for going too far with their children, it's important to recognize that the desire to help children—especially our own children—is hardwired and is in a large part responsible for the survival of humanity. Human offspring are immobile, defenseless, and totally dependent for years after they are born.

      We are wired to perpetuate our genes. This is the origin of sexual behavior and the natural protective instincts we all have. Even if we are not parents, we are wired to feel empathy and protective toward children. Childlike features trigger a protective impulse in most of us. It is why you see total strangers often immediately soften, smile, or otherwise change their demeanor when a small child makes eye contact with them. The typical social distance and emotional reservation will often instantly melt away, and many people will tilt their heads, lean over, or even squat down to engage a child—even when they are total strangers. When it comes to our own offspring or that of close family members of friends, this instinct is intensified.

If your child, or a close family member, was in mortal danger, would you kill to save him or her? The majority of human beings have a strong inhibition toward killing other human beings. However, when the lives of our family members are threatened, this inhibition can be overridden. This is one of the reasons that in training soldiers, the military works hard to facilitate the creation of a family. The soldiers in a platoon, for example, consider each other brothers and sisters. Many accounts from combat reveal that soldiers are able to override their inhibition to killing not for patriotism or political causes, but out of a desire to protect their brothers and sisters.

      So while we are prone to self-preservation, this impulse can be easily suppressed when we feel like the lives and/or well-being of our family members are threatened—especially our children. This natural impulse helps explain a variety of destructive financial behaviors. They are all done from a place of love, worry, and concern, but they can backfire quite dramatically. It is important to be aware of these impulses so that we can engage our analytical brains to think through the long-term consequences of our behaviors.

CAN MONEY MAKE YOU INSANE?

      Ethan is 16 years old. One evening, he and his friends got a little bit wild. On an impulse, they stole some beer and had an impromptu party at his parents' house. But these decisions were not the worst ones he made that night. Later that evening, Ethan and his buddies decided to go for a drive. Tragically, Ethan's drunk driving led to the death of four pedestrians and left one of his passengers brain damaged and paralyzed. Ethan's blood alcohol level was tested at 0.24 several hours after the crash, which was about three times the legal limit in Texas.

      Due to the horrific nature of the crime, the prosecutor pushed for 20 years in state prison. Ethan pleaded guilty to four counts of manslaughter and received 10 years of probation from the juvenile court. Many were outraged by the verdict. They thought that his family's wealth afforded a defense that allowed him to receive a reduced sentence. However, the sentence isn't what makes this story so remarkable.

The unusual part of the story came at Ethan's trial when his mother and attorney asserted what has now become known as the “affluenza defense.” A psychologist called in for expert testimony made the argument that Ethan's socioeconomic privilege was actually a mental disorder. The defense argued that Ethan was afflicted by his wealthy upbringing and environment, which resulted in criminal insanity. Due to his wealthy upbringing, the argument went, he was unable to distinguish between right and wrong. Ethan became known as the “affluenza teen.”¹

      While nobody can say for certain whether this line of defense impacted the judge's verdict and sentencing, it raises several interesting points. Can growing up in a wealthy environment, spoiled with materialistic possessions and luxuries, warp your sense of reality to the point where you can't function as a normal member of society? Could wealth so warp your sense of reality that you could be classified as insane and not be held legally responsible for your actions? Is it the wealth that can lead to a disconnect from “reality” or is it more the result of bad parenting?

      You can imagine how someone could be raised in an environment that puts him or her out of touch with the experience of the average person. For example, imagine you grew up in a world where you got everything you wanted, where you could do whatever you wanted without consequence, and where your parents would use their money and influence to fix whatever problems you created for yourself. Don't you think that after years of living in that environment, your sense of reality and personal responsibility would be skewed? While fair-minded people would agree that this experience would be detrimental to a well-adjusted upbringing, it certainly wouldn't excuse drunk driving.

WERE YOU A SPOILED CHILD?

It's easy to point fingers at people who are wealthier than you and argue that they are spoiling their children. However, the concept of spoiling is really a matter of perspective. To the average European in the Middle Ages, we as adults today were all spoiled as children. In fact, we were living in the lap of luxury. We had our own room (or only had to share it with one or two other people); we had indoor plumbing; we didn't have to start working until we were teenagers (or even adults); we got to go to school, we probably weren't beat on a regular basis (sorry, if you were); we probably had more than one set of clothes or shoes; we were regularly given a bath with warm water; and we were probably taken to a doctor or dentist for “check-ups” when there was nothing major wrong.

      So, rather than putting people into categories of good/bad, right/wrong, it can be helpful to look at the concept of “spoiling” along a continuum. Certainly, Ethan would have been on the outer edge of our modern spoiling analysis, but in historical terms, so were we and so would our children be. But when does spoiling cross the line? At what point does a little spoiling and protecting of children go too far and risk doing real damage?