Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not a member of OWS. I just empathize with many of their positions.
I don't agree with everything OWS says or everything the Tea Party says.
But we sure need to think about what kind of country we are running when peaceful protesters get painted with pepper spray right in the face. That's outrageous.
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,334 posts, read 26,089,277 times
Reputation: 3995
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311
I know some of you like to ridicule it, but self-reliance and personal responsibility are the start and the hallmark of many successful people. The people who get it done are often the ones who don't wait for others.
“It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission”
-- U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Grace Hopper.
There's a lot of truth to that. Of course, many conservatives are making fun of the OWS folks because they've been doing precisely that --- taking action.
Self-reliance and personal responsibility can be very important aspects of being a successful adult. Don't be a doormat, and don't just sit around feeling sorry for yourself. I've been in bad positions, but it's possible to pick yourself up and get going again. I've done it.
What I don't particularly like, however, are those who engage in proactive but selfish behavior to further themselves at the expense of others, and yet it seems like many businesses treat such actions as expected or even rewarded behavior.
I was part of a classic team-building exercise maybe 15 years ago now when an organization I was a part of was going through some rough times. Perhaps 50 or us were in each class, and for this one particular exercise the class was asked to break into three different groups that would compete against each other.
I don't remember the specifics of the exercise, except that there were three things I remember quite distinctly:
(1) The Instructor had asked the class as a whole to attempt to get the highest score. Our team interpreted that to mean the highest combined score between the three teams, something that was later confirmed by the instructor.
(2) The game was structured in such a way that the maximum score could only be achieved if all three teams cooperated to reach that goal.
(3) It quickly became obvious that there was a way for one team to win by getting the highest individual team point total, but in doing so the overall score of the class would be severely reduced.
We weren't permitted to talk to other teams directly, but we could send representatives to negotiate. At some point negotiations were over, all teams locked their actions in place, and we were convinced at that point that we'd done it. The other teams had agreed with us to act in such a way that we would reach the maximum score as a class.
When the final results were announced, however, the truth was revealed: two teams had actually decided to sacrifice for the good of the class as a whole. One team did not, however, and effectively backstabbed the others so they could get the highest individual team score.
The two cooperative teams were made up of programmers.
The third team was made up of managers and team leads.
Because of team #3's actions, we failed the exercise. And yet afterwards they were proud of the fact that they'd submarined us in order to "win", completely oblivious to the fact that their actions caused us to fail.
I've seen this type of thing from leaders in the business world for a couple of decades now, and it has taught me that many business leaders are quite short sighted when it comes to the ultimate impact of their actions.
Leadership is important. Taking assertive steps is important. Sometimes tough actions are needed. But is ****ting on others to get what you want really necessary?
There's a lot of truth to that. Of course, many conservatives are making fun of the OWS folks because they've been doing precisely that --- taking action.
Of course these are very broad topics we're addressing, but to address the OWS people, there is a right way to take action and a wrong way to do it. In my opinion the OWS people picked the wrong way. Breaking things and threatening to break things doesn't generally get your point across in a good light. Being able to articulate your points in a clear and concise manner is also a prerequisite in my book to achieving your goals. Some ridicule the Tea Party folks, but if you look at those gatherings, they were lawful and peaceful. There may have been some individual and isolated cases of someone doing something wrong, but it was not a stated goal. There were no mass arrests or court rulings.
You mention crapping on people (I paraphrase) to get what you want, with an implied statement that it's a zero sum game, and those who achieve things must be taking away from others in the process. I don't agree with what I perceive as your thesis.
Arjay is they reason we have generations of people on welfare. They have no incentive to improve becuase they get everything they need and more.
This is somewhat of a fallacy, as you assume that people only innovate in order to meet basic needs (bottom of Maslow's hierarchy--food, warmth, shelter, etc.) It's actually much more the case that people can innovate ONLY IF these basic needs are first met.
There are plenty of studies on this. It's why kids who eat breakfast and lunch actually do better in school compared to those that don't. Go figure that basic sustenance is actually a requirement for higher-order thinking!
“It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission”
-- U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Grace Hopper.
There's a lot of truth to that. Of course, many conservatives are making fun of the OWS folks because they've been doing precisely that --- taking action.
Self-reliance and personal responsibility can be very important aspects of being a successful adult. Don't be a doormat, and don't just sit around feeling sorry for yourself. I've been in bad positions, but it's possible to pick yourself up and get going again. I've done it.
What I don't particularly like, however, are those who engage in proactive but selfish behavior to further themselves at the expense of others, and yet it seems like many businesses treat such actions as expected or even rewarded behavior.
I was part of a classic team-building exercise maybe 15 years ago now when an organization I was a part of was going through some rough times. Perhaps 50 or us were in each class, and for this one particular exercise the class was asked to break into three different groups that would compete against each other.
I don't remember the specifics of the exercise, except that there were three things I remember quite distinctly:
(1) The Instructor had asked the class as a whole to attempt to get the highest score. Our team interpreted that to mean the highest combined score between the three teams, something that was later confirmed by the instructor.
(2) The game was structured in such a way that the maximum score could only be achieved if all three teams cooperated to reach that goal.
(3) It quickly became obvious that there was a way for one team to win by getting the highest individual team point total, but in doing so the overall score of the class would be severely reduced.
We weren't permitted to talk to other teams directly, but we could send representatives to negotiate. At some point negotiations were over, all teams locked their actions in place, and we were convinced at that point that we'd done it. The other teams had agreed with us to act in such a way that we would reach the maximum score as a class.
When the final results were announced, however, the truth was revealed: two teams had actually decided to sacrifice for the good of the class as a whole. One team did not, however, and effectively backstabbed the others so they could get the highest individual team score.
The two cooperative teams were made up of programmers.
The third team was made up of managers and team leads.
Because of team #3's actions, we failed the exercise. And yet afterwards they were proud of the fact that they'd submarined us in order to "win", completely oblivious to the fact that their actions caused us to fail.
I've seen this type of thing from leaders in the business world for a couple of decades now, and it has taught me that many business leaders are quite short sighted when it comes to the ultimate impact of their actions.
Leadership is important. Taking assertive steps is important. Sometimes tough actions are needed. But is ****ting on others to get what you want really necessary?
Great story, RCSteiner. And I'm sorely disappointed I can't give you any rep points for this (since I'm maxed out).
I admire Neil's position on individual charity to a large extent, even though I'm not a conservative. And I agree with his praise of the values of self-reliance and responsibility, and I can even acknowledge that in some cases individuals abuse the social welfare system.
But (and I'm not directing this at anyone here in particular), I also tend to find a strange, stubborn, even irrational adherence to self-reliance among many conservatives that is somewhat disturbing. It's as if any move to use government means to assist those in need is automatically bad, making all those who receive such assistance somehow lazier and more worthless human beings. And this is despite the fact there are some major logical problems with assuming all welfare should be private and not public.
For starters, there's no evidence that there is sufficient funding in private coffers (private including individuals and churches) to cover all the basic needs of people. So the government is the only entity that has the power and ability to step in and fill in the gaps--not only in financing such needs, but also distributing goods and services. There's no driving profit motive for such an initiative, so it's not an area that can be productively met with hard-core capitalistic theory.
I've heard different conservatives in my lifetime try to argue that "greed is good." I can't for the life of my figure out why they can rationally make such a blanket statement (especially for those who are also "Christian," but that's another story). As RcSteiner's example shows, greed isn't necessarily a good thing. Nor is "competition" always a model that makes us the most efficient or productive as a people. It's got to be a wider set of values and concerns here.
I continue to emphasize the example of kids. It's not their fault if they don't have enough money to eat. And unless you're Newt Gingrich, there are few who would seriously propose that we need to return to child labor practices to "get kids off of welfare." I just don't see how competition or self-reliance or work or etc. is the rational "solution" to this problem.
I would just like to see conservatives acknowledge that their ideology isn't a solution for everything, that is has some major gaps, that self-reliance alone will never be able to make sure all basic human needs are met. That seems more than a fair compromise since they demand that liberals like me need to acknowledge that welfare isn't a solution to poverty, that it can be abused, and that it needs to be carefully and sparingly deployed. I don't think we'll ever see completely eye to eye here, but we ought to be able to find some common ground if we're honestly trying to get real about these issues.
(Or maybe I'm just tired of the ideological rigidity I'm seeing more and more from liberals and conservatives every year. It ain't a good thing, folks.)
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,334 posts, read 26,089,277 times
Reputation: 3995
Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311
Of course these are very broad topics we're addressing, but to address the OWS people, there is a right way to take action and a wrong way to do it. In my opinion the OWS people picked the wrong way. Breaking things and threatening to break things doesn't generally get your point across in a good light. Being able to articulate your points in a clear and concise manner is also a prerequisite in my book to achieving your goals. Some ridicule the Tea Party folks, but if you look at those gatherings, they were lawful and peaceful. There may have been some individual and isolated cases of someone doing something wrong, but it was not a stated goal. There were no mass arrests or court rulings.
It has been my impression that most OWS folks have been nonviolent and nondestructive, and that in some cities others have taken advantage of the relative disorganization to advance their own less peaceful agendas.
Quote:
You mention crapping on people (I paraphrase) to get what you want, with an implied statement that it's a zero sum game, and those who achieve things must be taking away from others in the process. I don't agree with what I perceive as your thesis.
No, I said that, in my experience, a fair number of people seem to do that and get rewarded for it. You've been around ... I'm sure you've seen that happen as much as I have.
There are also plenty of examples of people who don't do that and still get ahead.
I generally have a high level of respect for the latter group, but not the former group. Using others in that manner is not ethical, IMO.
I could perhaps have been clearer and stated that "I've seen this type of thing from some leaders in the business world for a couple of decades now", but sadly I think that attitude is far more common than not, and I thought the fact that I was talking about a subset (albeit a significant subset) was obvious based on context. Sorry for not being more precise.
It boils down to the fact that there will always be people who do not want to work. They may have other goals or means of supporting themselves. That doesn't them bad people, any more than you can say that those who do work are good people.
Yet we continue to treat work as if it's some sort of holy grail. Why not face the reality that not everybody is going to be working, and simply let those who can pay the freight do so, and move on? We'll never get anything done if we're constantly bogged down in arguments about fairness.
It boils down to the fact that there will always be people who do not want to work. They may have other goals or means of supporting themselves. That doesn't them bad people, any more than you can say that those who do work are good people.
Yet we continue to treat work as if it's some sort of holy grail. Why not face the reality that not everybody is going to be working, and simply let those who can pay the freight do so, and move on? We'll never get anything done if we're constantly bogged down in arguments about fairness.
I'd have to agree with everyone else Arjay, this is the most rid. argument I have ever heard. Like prior posters said, most people do not want to work. If that wasnt the case people wouldnt be retiring at 60. If you take your line of argument than I am sure a lot more people wouldnt be working which means the people that are, would even have a greater burden of working. Lets extend your reasoning even further...most kids dont want to go to school, so lets let them stay home also. Guess what, working is being responsible, something you have to do as an adult. This responsibility is what leads this country to be so great, and even the "poor" to have things like heating, refrigerators, etc. Entertainment, cars, etc? Give me a break. There are plenty of other countries that dont give their poor anything and millions of them seem to survive. Now I am all about giving everyone a chance to be a productive member in society, so I advocate free education, vocational training, etc. But if you arent going to take advantage and become a productive member of society than whats your purpose of being in society and why should they be "rewarded" for it? We are not naming them as "good" or "bad" people and if they have other means of supporting themselves than the argument is moot. And a lot of other people have "other goals" but understand that at some point they need to be responsible and the goals need to be an after thought (hobby) or are unrealistic. The whole point is the people that work hard, spend hours studying in school shouldnt have to support people that dont "feel like it". Now that being said, there are other "types of work" in which you might not be compensated a well and sure perhaps we should support people like that, and be other types you are still contributing to society- greenpeace, social work, and many others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57
Why not face the reality that not everybody is going to be working, and simply let those who can pay the freight do so, and move on? We'll never get anything done if we're constantly bogged down in arguments about fairness.
Thats the whole point we are arguing, people have no problem paying their frieght and moving on, you are arguing that those people should pay their freight plus the freight of the people who cant (or wont).
Last edited by ecuresident; 11-28-2011 at 05:37 PM..
Reason: add
It has been my impression that most OWS folks have been nonviolent and nondestructive, and that in some cities others have taken advantage of the relative disorganization to advance their own less peaceful agendas.
You're entitled to your impression, and I never said they were violent. My perception is that as a group they have broken the law in just about every city, and the police and/or courts have had to intervene to remove them. There have been many reports of sexual assaults, drug use, and other serious crimes at the camps. Given they have relatively little organization or goal, some honest protesters have been co-opted by a group of true anarchists, petty criminals and homeless, and socialists whose stated objective is the removal of our economic and political system.
My point is that no one really knows who these folks are or what they actually want. Are they well meaning college kids and naive others who just don't understand the way an economy works, or are they calculating operatives who truly want to bring harm to our system, or are they opportunists and criminals who want a place to cop a cheap feel? Other than generic rhetoric about "corporate greed" and wanting free stuff, I have yet to hear a serious policy agenda that could be put in place if they were to somehow win an election and get their agenda passed. They also have no candidates or direct influence on anyone running, that I can tell.
Contrast that with the Tea Party who got some really good candidates elected in 2010. The Tea Party has a simple and clear agenda that isn't very hard to understand, although many on the left distort and try to taint their message because it is so simple.
Contrast that with the Tea Party who got some really good candidates elected in 2010. The Tea Party has a simple and clear agenda that isn't very hard to understand, although many on the left distort and try to taint their message because it is so simple.
The Tea Party has a relatively clear message, sure: Reduction of government's ability to tax citizens.
But in practice, their behavior doesn't quite match up to this message. If they were really just about fiscal issues, then the newly elected Tea Party folks wouldn't be pushing social (and fiscally irrelevant) issues like cutting off abortion rights, and blocking gay marriage rights and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. If the Tea Party were really only about fiscal issues, they wouldn't be constantly buttressing politicians like Michelle Bachmann and Christine O'Donnell, who are way, WAY evangelical.
I *wish* we had a legitimate libertarian party in this country. The Tea Party is not it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
