People: What's their deal?
"People are people, so why should it be you and me get along so awfully?" This is a quote from a Depeche Mode song from the awesome 1980s.
There are many reasons why people don't get along. The reasons range from superficial (outward appearance), philosophy, xenophobic feelings (unknown), life experiences and many other things. Things like "racism" (a form of xenophobia) are actually natural/evolutionary reactions related to a fear and/or actions of an unknow entity.
This is the section where i tackle people and some things i believe are inherently wrong with them (and the assumptions i view them as operating under).
The Motivations of People:
In economics, there has long been an assumption that people act in order to further their own rational self-interest. That is not to be confused with "greed". Greed is irrational; rational self-interest is based on logic, market conditions, and personal benefit. Basically, people will always act in a way that will directly benefit them (even if it is not clearly evident).
That is not to say that people will always act rationally or non-idiotically. This can be extended to family vis-a-vis children (some try to extend it to groups they support too). This is really an evolutionary response to ensure their survival and the continuation of their genetic material. So, to put this another way, i believe that rational people always act in the way they perceive will have the greatest personal (or familial) benefit.
Politically, liberals and conservatives differ here. The conservative believes in individual freedom and that through exercising their freedom without external intervention they can better their lives. In other words, they have the responsibility for success or failure firmly on their shoulders.
Liberals, on the other hand tend to be a little more externally oriented. Though, i believe their reasons are personal not altruistic. I have always thought the liberal wanted a more level playing field (using government intervention) in order to give themselves a better chance of success (or a lesser chance of failure). In other words, they are hedging their individual bets under the guise of fairness or equality. Unfortunately, this more level playing field changes the chance of success for everyone (and reduces the possible benefit level).
Now, i guess i should put this more in a policy context... My example will be health care (or insurance). Conservatives were essentially saying that the government should stay out because the current system could be tweaked without government intervention to better serve the public. The conservative believes that is mostly the responsibility of the person for getting their own insurance (or as a non-salary incentive part of their compensation), if they so choose. The liberals were trumpeting the idea everyone should be covered.
Why did the Republicans reply with hostility? The simple answer is that a public health care insurance overhaul to increase coverage is not viewed as a net benefit to them (it is viewed as hurting them in some way - whether it be resource loss, like increased premiums/decreased service, or potential economic instability). Many conservatives look at things from an economic/cost angle anyway.
The liberal wanted more coverage, but i do not think for one minute it was altruistic. In many ways, the liberals are trying to hedge their bets. What they are really saying is that they want health care (or insurance in the case of Obamacare) to be provided more widely just in case they need it at a later date. They are using the less fortunate to justify something they want for themselves, but don't want to admit that is the reason. Make no mistake; they believe there is a personal benefit in it for themselves.
Altruism does not exist. Every action is designed in some way to benefit the individual (even if it is an illogically programmed sense of guilt at their own success). Sacrifices are largely illusions or temporary "setbacks" designed for future perceived benefits.
There will always be a lower class but feeling a sense of obligation towards them is kind of a strange concept. i guess it is part of a belief that if they were in the same situation someone would do the same for them (a flawed expectation).
Supporters of social programs, for the most part, are lying to themselves about their true intentions. It is not about how it will benefit society; it is about trying to get a benefit for themselves by using a justification that it will help those less well off financially. It is the whole "what's in it for me" view (why support something that doesn't benefit you). This kind of viewpoint along with something like a disaffected minority group who thinks the system is biased against them makes liberals strangely malleable. It is essentially the leaders of a party telling them you can get something for nothing or convincing them they have a sense of entitlement.
A sense of entitlement is a dangerous thing politically. Of course, this is coming from a conservative who doesn't believe people are entitled to anything. Once you convince people they are owed something, you are in the danger zone. You will have to pay it off until the end of time (unless you can drastically change their views).
Liberals have played on this concept, but why wouldn't they. If you have a group that depends on you, you own them (and can control their votes). Younger people (especially since they seem to feel more entitled to whatever they want) and minority groups are easy targets for the unscrupulous politician. You should be most wary of entitlement movements when the economy is in a lull. Short-term solutions tend to have a way of becoming long-term problems.
Jealousy is another dangerous problem. There are liberals out there who plan their policies based off of jealousy. Some groups and people out there through superior effort and a little luck will gain economically.
Less successful people or groups out there will look at that group and wonder why they are not that successful. Some groups will look at what it took to be successful and learn from it, others will grow more skeptical. The skeptical groups may start saying things like "they must have cheated", "they acted unethically" or some other excuse why these groups were successful in the first place.
This kind of thinking, in a democracy concept, can lead to bad things. What are some of these bad things, you may ask...? They are things like progressive taxes, biased legislation and changing the business environment to penalize success.
The Give Me Generation and the Liberal Mindset
What do i mean the "give me generation"? Basically, i am talking about how i perceive the so-called Generation Y. i could rewrite this to talk about the last 20 years. This is essentially the younger "millennial" generation born after 1978 [when did i originally write this? 2013 or earlier]. Generation Z is not much better. Of course, there are more people this could apply to.
Basically, the "give me" generation has been spoon-fed to believe they have the right to almost everything. Health care - that is right. Success - it's in the Constitution.
They feel they are more intelligent than their predecessors, they are misguided. They might have a better handle on how to use technology and social media, but common sense - not so much. Many of them seem more delusional to me that the 1960 hippies.
Many of them grew up going through the liberal school system (indoctrination central) and playing games where everybody gets a trophy. Basically, they seem to feel entitled to everything they want (as they have been coddled). They seem to have no problem with government stretching into things like healthcare (mostly selfish reasons). In many ways, they are not prepared for the truly horrible world that awaits them and will try to bend everything to their will.
How does an unwarranted sense of entitlement lead into the liberal mindset? The generation feels more entitled to programs they don't see the cost of yet (they want to be subsidized by the taxpayer for personal benefits). This is extremely short-sighted. Of course, some of this should change as they start making substantially more money (and seeing their money vanish into the abyss).
A group that feels entitled to undeserved benefits and a system that likes to use spending programs to control votes, this will not end well. This group plays right into liberal hands (of course i am generalizing a little).
i get the feeling that this group doesn't care (or even acknowledge the consequences of their actions). Society has been programmed with the idea that there is a quick fix for everything and that nothing is really your fault - the pesky system is broken, not you.
No comments:
Post a Comment