There is something conspicuously – and wisely – missing from the Bill of Rights in our constitution. It does guarantee many rights. We have a right to be free from government interference in our speech, our religion, our press. Government may not deny our right to keep and bear arms nor may it quarter soldiers in our homes except under extraordinary conditions. Government may not require excessive bail nor impose excessive punishment. However there is one kind of right nowhere to be found in the constitution. That is the right to have anything given to us.
The constitution contains no right to a “living wage” or even to any food. While government may not take our life, liberty or property without due process, we are not guaranteed life, liberty or property at taxpayer expense. If a person acts carelessly and dies, or even dies because of disease, the constitution provides no remedy. If someone binds himself to debt to the point that he loses much of his liberty, the taxpayers have no obligation to bail him out. If he carelessly loses his property or just fails to acquire any, the constitution does not require anybody to correct his lack.
In fact the Bill of Rights gives us a right to nothing – though that nothing is very important. There are areas where government should do nothing and is constitutionally mandated to do nothing. WE have no restriction on speech but also no guarantee anybody will listen to what we say. We have no restriction on the press but also no guarantee we will have the money to print what we think everybody should read. No restriction on the right to bear arms (except for felons) but also no guarantee that we will have the money to purchase those arms. Nobody has any constitutional right to anything beyond the fruits of his own labor.
Constitutional freedoms might be called negative freedoms. They are things that may not be done to us. There is nothing there to force any private citizen to do anything for any other citizen. Nor if there anything to force the government to do anything for any citizen.
There is a great difference between the constitutional rights of freedom from certain government actions and what some today are pushing as right to have something. For example many of our politicians are claiming that health care is a right. That would be a right to have something whether you've earned it or not. Those politicians fail to mention two important facts:
1. Any such right can only exist if somebody else is obligated to provide it. We cannot have a right to health care without imposing the obligation on someone to pay for it. Giving someone such a “right” hands over to that person the fruits of other people's labor.
2. We do not have unlimited resources. Those who multiply “rights” to health care, decent housing, adequate nutrition etc. seem to assume that there is some source of food, housing, medical care etc. which must only be directed to those in need. That is a nice theory but it cannot withstand the trial of empiricism and facts. In fact, giving people what they want regardless of their labor encourages them to avoid that labor, thus reducing the resources that would otherwise be available.
Nobody has any constitutional right to the fruits of another person's labor.
I am old enough to remember the 60's when the phrase “the world owes me a living” became popular among some young people. Prior to that time nearly everybody, at least in the U.S., understood that work was required to produce the necessities and niceties of life. Work is still necessary. Someone has to produce and transport the food and clothing we need, build our housing, undergo the arduous regime of medical school etc. The “world owes me a living” attitude cannot change that. At best it will take from the worker and give to those who do not work. More likely it will discourage work and reduce the resources available to everybody. When those resources are all allocated, someone will go without as happened in the USSR.
The world does not owe anybody a living. At most it owes us opportunity to scramble for that living ourselves. There is an immense difference between a right to speak without government interference and a right to the fruits of someone else's labor. That is why our founders were wise when they included in the constitution many rights of freedom from government control, but no “rights” to have anything someone else would have to produce.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Showing posts with label responsibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label responsibility. Show all posts
Friday, August 28, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Risk Management?
A few days ago I discussed the problems of crises, how they get our blood flowing and at times divert our attention from more important issues. However there are crises that are both real and urgent. Families may face these with financial problems or sudden health issues. Governments face them when threatened militarily or otherwise. How do we deal with these problems? One field that has developed in recent years is “risk management.” The idea is to manage the risks and thus avoid the crises they may generate. That is a good idea but I dislike the term “risk management,” I think I would prefer to call it “risk preparation.” In most cases we do not manage the risk. What we manage is ourselves.
Most risks just are, we can do little or nothing about them. The drunk or careless driver who shares the road with us; the dangerous curve on that road; the susceptibility of our bodies to certain illnesses; the risk of a layoff at work – all are beyond our control and we cannot manage them. However we can manage ourselves. We can drive defensively; we can take care of our health; and we can be prepared to change jobs or live on savings if necessary. We face many other risks, most of which we cannot control, but we can control how we prepare for and respond to them. With preparation, what might have been a crisis becomes only a nuisance or sometimes even an opportunity.
I know, some of you are thinking that this is just semantics. I disagree. What we call something affects how we think about it. If we think in terms of managing risk, the focus is on external factors that we probably cannot control. However if we think in terms of our own action we will focus on what we can do. That is much more likely to result in effective action.
So how do we manage ourselves and prepare for risk? The first step is to understand, as well as we can, what risks we face. That understanding should go beyond a simple list to include probabilities and consequences. This is related to a blog I published earlier about probability, expectation and utility. The risks of most concern are those with a high probability of costing us dearly.
As an example, consider what happens when I go rock climbing – yes I'm silly enough to do that. If I'm three feet off the ground, the consequences of a fall are minimal. Unless I plan to go higher I probably won't bother with a rope, even if the probability of a fall is high. However if I'm 100 feet off the deck things get a bit more interesting. Even if a fall is unlikely I'll probably be tied into a rope.
Step one in risk preparation is to know the risks, how likely they are to materialize, and the possible consequences. That tells us which risks are worth our attention.
Second, we need to determine what we can control and what we can't. I cannot control the hand and foot holds on that rock face, nor can I control the possibility of falling rock. I can pick my route though, and that may avoid some problems. Likewise in life there are risks within our control and some that are not. Even if we cannot control the drunk who may share the road with us, we can control how, when and where we drive. We cannot control the genes we inherited from our parents but we can control the way we eat and the exercise we get. We cannot control an employer's financial situation but we can control our preparation in case of a layoff.
Third, we should decide how to prepare for those risks. In some cases we can reduce or eliminate the risk. When I was a young man on the dairy farm, being kicked by a cow was always a risk, but usually not a high risk. However there was one cow that would fight and kick through the entire milking process. It took several men to control her and she still sometimes managed to kick one of us. My father finally decided that he could manage that risk very well. In fact he eliminated it completely. That cow never kicked anyone again and there was a bit more hamburger on the market.
Of course it is not usually practical to eliminate risks so we just decide how we will prepare for them. I could forgo rock climbing and thus eliminate that risk to myself, but at the cost of the enjoyment that sport provides. Instead I can take other measures. I can learn how to climb better, thus reducing my risk of a fall. And of course a properly used rope doesn't reduce the chance of a fall but does greatly reduce the adverse consequences. I can also look at things like weather and maybe climb tomorrow instead of today if an electrical storm threatens.
Likewise in life we can look at things like driving defensively and even not driving at dangerous times, like New Year's Eve when more people are likely to be drunk. Such actions reduce the likelihood that we will encounter the risk, even though that risk is still there. We can take measures to reduce adverse consequences. My climbing rope is one of those “consequence-reducing measures,” but so are things like insurance, diversified investments, and home smoke detectors.
On the national scene as well, there are risks we can and cannot control. Our ability to control the fanatic wing of Islam is limited to say the least but we can try to keep its operatives out of our country. We can also try to eradicate them in their strongholds though that is difficult and the outcome is uncertain. However in my opinion we as a nation have yet to make the effort to really understand this risk. Too many people think of those fanatics as simply another enemy, failing to recognize just how implacable they are. The fact that they produce people willing to kill themselves in order to hurt us should tell us something about them. Sadly we may not want to recognize what it tells us, but recognize it we must. It should motivate a study of those fanatics, their motives, methods, and weaknesses. Sadly, I’ve yet to see much understanding at that level even in our national leaders.
Once we understand the fanatics we can think about how to try to eliminate them and how to reduce their ability to harm. However any strategy not based on a sound understanding of the problem is doomed to failure. We cannot manage the fanatics. They manage themselves so we must likewise manage ourselves. We must use our strengths and shore up our weaknesses to stop them. However a full treatise on that subject is beyond the scope of this blog so let’s return to the general subject of dealing with risk.
To summarize:
There are some risks we can change or eliminate. If the risk is serious enough, we should do that.
Most risks are beyond our control so we must find other means to deal with them.
We usually don’t manage risk, we manage ourselves. We decide which risks are in our control and how to control them. For other significant risks we decide how to protect ourselves or how to reduce the damage they can do. We do this keeping in mind our abilities and how much it is worth to ameliorate each risk.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Most risks just are, we can do little or nothing about them. The drunk or careless driver who shares the road with us; the dangerous curve on that road; the susceptibility of our bodies to certain illnesses; the risk of a layoff at work – all are beyond our control and we cannot manage them. However we can manage ourselves. We can drive defensively; we can take care of our health; and we can be prepared to change jobs or live on savings if necessary. We face many other risks, most of which we cannot control, but we can control how we prepare for and respond to them. With preparation, what might have been a crisis becomes only a nuisance or sometimes even an opportunity.
I know, some of you are thinking that this is just semantics. I disagree. What we call something affects how we think about it. If we think in terms of managing risk, the focus is on external factors that we probably cannot control. However if we think in terms of our own action we will focus on what we can do. That is much more likely to result in effective action.
So how do we manage ourselves and prepare for risk? The first step is to understand, as well as we can, what risks we face. That understanding should go beyond a simple list to include probabilities and consequences. This is related to a blog I published earlier about probability, expectation and utility. The risks of most concern are those with a high probability of costing us dearly.
As an example, consider what happens when I go rock climbing – yes I'm silly enough to do that. If I'm three feet off the ground, the consequences of a fall are minimal. Unless I plan to go higher I probably won't bother with a rope, even if the probability of a fall is high. However if I'm 100 feet off the deck things get a bit more interesting. Even if a fall is unlikely I'll probably be tied into a rope.
Step one in risk preparation is to know the risks, how likely they are to materialize, and the possible consequences. That tells us which risks are worth our attention.
Second, we need to determine what we can control and what we can't. I cannot control the hand and foot holds on that rock face, nor can I control the possibility of falling rock. I can pick my route though, and that may avoid some problems. Likewise in life there are risks within our control and some that are not. Even if we cannot control the drunk who may share the road with us, we can control how, when and where we drive. We cannot control the genes we inherited from our parents but we can control the way we eat and the exercise we get. We cannot control an employer's financial situation but we can control our preparation in case of a layoff.
Third, we should decide how to prepare for those risks. In some cases we can reduce or eliminate the risk. When I was a young man on the dairy farm, being kicked by a cow was always a risk, but usually not a high risk. However there was one cow that would fight and kick through the entire milking process. It took several men to control her and she still sometimes managed to kick one of us. My father finally decided that he could manage that risk very well. In fact he eliminated it completely. That cow never kicked anyone again and there was a bit more hamburger on the market.
Of course it is not usually practical to eliminate risks so we just decide how we will prepare for them. I could forgo rock climbing and thus eliminate that risk to myself, but at the cost of the enjoyment that sport provides. Instead I can take other measures. I can learn how to climb better, thus reducing my risk of a fall. And of course a properly used rope doesn't reduce the chance of a fall but does greatly reduce the adverse consequences. I can also look at things like weather and maybe climb tomorrow instead of today if an electrical storm threatens.
Likewise in life we can look at things like driving defensively and even not driving at dangerous times, like New Year's Eve when more people are likely to be drunk. Such actions reduce the likelihood that we will encounter the risk, even though that risk is still there. We can take measures to reduce adverse consequences. My climbing rope is one of those “consequence-reducing measures,” but so are things like insurance, diversified investments, and home smoke detectors.
On the national scene as well, there are risks we can and cannot control. Our ability to control the fanatic wing of Islam is limited to say the least but we can try to keep its operatives out of our country. We can also try to eradicate them in their strongholds though that is difficult and the outcome is uncertain. However in my opinion we as a nation have yet to make the effort to really understand this risk. Too many people think of those fanatics as simply another enemy, failing to recognize just how implacable they are. The fact that they produce people willing to kill themselves in order to hurt us should tell us something about them. Sadly we may not want to recognize what it tells us, but recognize it we must. It should motivate a study of those fanatics, their motives, methods, and weaknesses. Sadly, I’ve yet to see much understanding at that level even in our national leaders.
Once we understand the fanatics we can think about how to try to eliminate them and how to reduce their ability to harm. However any strategy not based on a sound understanding of the problem is doomed to failure. We cannot manage the fanatics. They manage themselves so we must likewise manage ourselves. We must use our strengths and shore up our weaknesses to stop them. However a full treatise on that subject is beyond the scope of this blog so let’s return to the general subject of dealing with risk.
To summarize:
There are some risks we can change or eliminate. If the risk is serious enough, we should do that.
Most risks are beyond our control so we must find other means to deal with them.
We usually don’t manage risk, we manage ourselves. We decide which risks are in our control and how to control them. For other significant risks we decide how to protect ourselves or how to reduce the damage they can do. We do this keeping in mind our abilities and how much it is worth to ameliorate each risk.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Mob Rule, Part 3
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
The mob mentality – it is dangerous to both our personal character and to society at large. If we subordinate our actions to the beliefs and decisions of a group we become less human, less than we should be. We also endanger others and risk passing along false or bigoted beliefs to our families. This is a problem that has plagued society throughout history and it shows no sign of going away on its own. If it is to be eliminated we must take action against it.
How do we recognize the problem so we can deal with it? Perhaps the most insidious aspect of the mob mentality is that we can so easily participate in it without realizing it. Indeed, the essence of a mob mind-set is not thinking about what we are doing, a severe form of groupthink.
How then can we stop this nonsense? How to eradicate or at least reduce the mob mentality in our society? It won't be easy but there are ways to do it, and it starts with each of us. We must look at our own lives and thinking patterns before we can presume to tell others how to correct their own mind-sets. A recipe for starting to do this is:
First, self-awareness. We must learn to ask ourselves if we really believe what we say in public, or are we just putting up a front? Are we just “going along to get along?” This self-examination is probably the hardest part. Ideally we will learn to examine ourselves in the heat of a group consensus. However even thinking about it afterwards is helpful, that can be a step towards clear thinking in the face of inappropriate group consensus.
Second, if we find that we are showing signs of a mob mind-set, we can attack the causes directly. If we are deindividuating ourselves we can stop and think of ourselves as individuals. I could say to myself, “Hal, you are a person, an individual with a brain and integrity of your own. Why don't you act like it? Who will you see in the mirror tonight, a real person who acted like a man or someone who gave up his personhood to others?”
Third, we can also look at the “enemy” as individual human beings, not part of an amorphous group. I can think that each person who opposes me is a human with a face, with human desires and needs. Those people may enjoy the same sports I enjoy, watch the same sunset I watch, and in many other ways be the type of people I might enjoy knowing. The fact that we have different colored skin or disagree on politics, religion, or other things is really only a small part of who we are. If I can call those people by name that will help even more. It can be easy to hate someone for the disagreements we have or the color of their skin. It is more difficult to hate Bill Smith who likes football and barbecues, but happens to disagree with me in one area.
By such measures we can reduce our own susceptibility to mob mentality. That is an important beginning. What next? How do we help and encourage others to do the same? The first step is to have the courage to speak up. Frequently a group will refrain from anti-social action if only one person points out the problems. That should not be surprising since most members of a mob are indulging in groupthink. They believe everyone else agrees with the group. One person speaking out can destroy that fallacy and they may all wake up to the reality of what they are doing.
However there are cases in which one person opposing is not enough. I doubt a Ku Klux Klan cross burning would stop just because one person spoke out. However even then there are measures that can be effective. The first is to reverse the deindividuation, essentially re-individuate some of the mob members. If possible call them by name and mention something in their lives that calls them back to their humanity. In the book To Kill a Mockingbird Scout does this by calling Mr. Cunningham by name, then apologizing for the fight she had with his son. Suddenly that man must recognize himself as an individual. He can no longer put aside his own personhood.*
Though a work of fiction, I believe that is an example of how a person can be reminded that he is not simply part of an amorphous group, he is a human being. I suspect that even a KKK member, if he can be identified by name, would respond to such an approach. His anonymity would be removed and he would be forced back into the world of individual persons.
OK, I know I've given my readers (if I still have any) a tall order. However nothing worthwhile is likely to be easy so I challenge you to do your part by first examining yourself, then by having the courage to speak out when a group is going off into the mob mentality. It may not be easy but I promise that it will be worth it.
*I thank the author of the Wikipedia article on “Deindividuation” for reminding me of that episode in the book.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
The mob mentality – it is dangerous to both our personal character and to society at large. If we subordinate our actions to the beliefs and decisions of a group we become less human, less than we should be. We also endanger others and risk passing along false or bigoted beliefs to our families. This is a problem that has plagued society throughout history and it shows no sign of going away on its own. If it is to be eliminated we must take action against it.
How do we recognize the problem so we can deal with it? Perhaps the most insidious aspect of the mob mentality is that we can so easily participate in it without realizing it. Indeed, the essence of a mob mind-set is not thinking about what we are doing, a severe form of groupthink.
How then can we stop this nonsense? How to eradicate or at least reduce the mob mentality in our society? It won't be easy but there are ways to do it, and it starts with each of us. We must look at our own lives and thinking patterns before we can presume to tell others how to correct their own mind-sets. A recipe for starting to do this is:
First, self-awareness. We must learn to ask ourselves if we really believe what we say in public, or are we just putting up a front? Are we just “going along to get along?” This self-examination is probably the hardest part. Ideally we will learn to examine ourselves in the heat of a group consensus. However even thinking about it afterwards is helpful, that can be a step towards clear thinking in the face of inappropriate group consensus.
Second, if we find that we are showing signs of a mob mind-set, we can attack the causes directly. If we are deindividuating ourselves we can stop and think of ourselves as individuals. I could say to myself, “Hal, you are a person, an individual with a brain and integrity of your own. Why don't you act like it? Who will you see in the mirror tonight, a real person who acted like a man or someone who gave up his personhood to others?”
Third, we can also look at the “enemy” as individual human beings, not part of an amorphous group. I can think that each person who opposes me is a human with a face, with human desires and needs. Those people may enjoy the same sports I enjoy, watch the same sunset I watch, and in many other ways be the type of people I might enjoy knowing. The fact that we have different colored skin or disagree on politics, religion, or other things is really only a small part of who we are. If I can call those people by name that will help even more. It can be easy to hate someone for the disagreements we have or the color of their skin. It is more difficult to hate Bill Smith who likes football and barbecues, but happens to disagree with me in one area.
By such measures we can reduce our own susceptibility to mob mentality. That is an important beginning. What next? How do we help and encourage others to do the same? The first step is to have the courage to speak up. Frequently a group will refrain from anti-social action if only one person points out the problems. That should not be surprising since most members of a mob are indulging in groupthink. They believe everyone else agrees with the group. One person speaking out can destroy that fallacy and they may all wake up to the reality of what they are doing.
However there are cases in which one person opposing is not enough. I doubt a Ku Klux Klan cross burning would stop just because one person spoke out. However even then there are measures that can be effective. The first is to reverse the deindividuation, essentially re-individuate some of the mob members. If possible call them by name and mention something in their lives that calls them back to their humanity. In the book To Kill a Mockingbird Scout does this by calling Mr. Cunningham by name, then apologizing for the fight she had with his son. Suddenly that man must recognize himself as an individual. He can no longer put aside his own personhood.*
Though a work of fiction, I believe that is an example of how a person can be reminded that he is not simply part of an amorphous group, he is a human being. I suspect that even a KKK member, if he can be identified by name, would respond to such an approach. His anonymity would be removed and he would be forced back into the world of individual persons.
OK, I know I've given my readers (if I still have any) a tall order. However nothing worthwhile is likely to be easy so I challenge you to do your part by first examining yourself, then by having the courage to speak out when a group is going off into the mob mentality. It may not be easy but I promise that it will be worth it.
*I thank the author of the Wikipedia article on “Deindividuation” for reminding me of that episode in the book.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Mob Rule, Part 2
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
Imagine if you will the following:
Situation 1: You're walking home when you see a wallet in the gutter. Inside you find $250 in cash. It turns out that the wallet belongs to your neighbor. Do you keep the cash and claim the wallet was empty when you found it, or do you return it intact?
Situation 2: A major storm just passed through your area. It dropped a few limbs from a neighbor's tree in your yard but did no other damage to your property. While cleaning up you accidentally break a window. Repair will cost $250. Your insurance won't cover the damage because you broke the window yourself. Had the window been broken by a falling tree limb it would have been covered. Do you pay for the repair yourself or do you claim that it was storm damage and get the insurance company to pay for it?
Most people would probably return the money to their neighbor. In fact many would return it to a stranger. However many of those same people will cheat and tell the insurance company that the storm broke the window. Often people who consider themselves honest will not only defraud the insurance company but will take a few “unauthorized benefits” from their employer or help themselves to some items at the store that they didn’t exactly pay for. Some business managers will divert company resources to their personal use. Why that disconnect in honesty? I think the cause is similar to the mob mind-set discussed yesterday; actually what we might call the reverse mob effect. Anonymity and diffusion still play a big part, but in a different way.
First, anonymity and deindividuation: The wallet owner is an individual, but the insurance company is an amorphous entity. In this case it is the victim, not the perpetrator that gets deindividuated. It is the victim who lacks personhood. That makes it easy to think we are harming nobody when we cheat that company.
Second, diffusion: The effects of cheating the company are diffused over a large number of people, doing very little damage to any one of them. In this case it is not the responsibility that is diffused but the damage. Stealing that $250 from the insurance company is still fraud, but is less visible because only a little is stolen from any one individual.
This reverse mob effect affects business and public life. For example, once when I complained about wasteful government spending I got the response, “I regard it as my duty to get as much federal money spent in the county as I can, even if it is spent on wasteful projects.” The speaker was a county commissioner, allegedly a fiscally conservative republican. I had complained to him about the waste but he just wanted to get money into the county. He didn’t think of the fact that he was taking tax money from the widow in Nebraska, the struggling young family in Wyoming, or the parents in California trying to pay for their daughter’s education. The reverse mob effect allowed him to ignore the overall results of his efforts.
Such shortsightedness is common. It is easy to convince ourselves that nobody is hurt when we take maybe a hundredth of a cent from millions of people. We don’t want to think that millions of people may be doing the same, stealing in the aggregate rather large sums of money from each victim. Nor do we remember that a business or government is nothing but a collection of people. Those people need and deserve the fruits of their labor to care for themselves and their families.
Businesses do not manufacture money; instead they exchange goods or services for it. If they lose money to theft they must make it up by raising prices, cutting employee pay or benefits, or reducing payments to stockholders. Worst case, they go out of business and leave customers, employees, stockholders, and even creditors without funds. When we cheat a retailer, insurance company, or any other business we are really cheating the people who depend on that business. Spreading our crime over many people does not change the fact that it is a crime.
Likewise, government has no real way to obtain resources except from the people. Even borrowing or printing money is just a different way to get those resources from you, from your retired first grade teacher, and from other citizens who have to give up the results of their work to provide for government projects. If we demand and get a fancy sports stadium at taxpayer expense, we are really taking the money from those people, many of whom don’t care a fig about sports.
We can improve our economy if we get everybody to realize that there is no such thing as stealing from government or business. Those organizations are only intermediaries between us and other individuals, flesh and blood people with names, homes, families and their own wants and needs. When we defraud a company or the government, we are really defrauding each individual who has an interest in that organization.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
Imagine if you will the following:
Situation 1: You're walking home when you see a wallet in the gutter. Inside you find $250 in cash. It turns out that the wallet belongs to your neighbor. Do you keep the cash and claim the wallet was empty when you found it, or do you return it intact?
Situation 2: A major storm just passed through your area. It dropped a few limbs from a neighbor's tree in your yard but did no other damage to your property. While cleaning up you accidentally break a window. Repair will cost $250. Your insurance won't cover the damage because you broke the window yourself. Had the window been broken by a falling tree limb it would have been covered. Do you pay for the repair yourself or do you claim that it was storm damage and get the insurance company to pay for it?
Most people would probably return the money to their neighbor. In fact many would return it to a stranger. However many of those same people will cheat and tell the insurance company that the storm broke the window. Often people who consider themselves honest will not only defraud the insurance company but will take a few “unauthorized benefits” from their employer or help themselves to some items at the store that they didn’t exactly pay for. Some business managers will divert company resources to their personal use. Why that disconnect in honesty? I think the cause is similar to the mob mind-set discussed yesterday; actually what we might call the reverse mob effect. Anonymity and diffusion still play a big part, but in a different way.
First, anonymity and deindividuation: The wallet owner is an individual, but the insurance company is an amorphous entity. In this case it is the victim, not the perpetrator that gets deindividuated. It is the victim who lacks personhood. That makes it easy to think we are harming nobody when we cheat that company.
Second, diffusion: The effects of cheating the company are diffused over a large number of people, doing very little damage to any one of them. In this case it is not the responsibility that is diffused but the damage. Stealing that $250 from the insurance company is still fraud, but is less visible because only a little is stolen from any one individual.
This reverse mob effect affects business and public life. For example, once when I complained about wasteful government spending I got the response, “I regard it as my duty to get as much federal money spent in the county as I can, even if it is spent on wasteful projects.” The speaker was a county commissioner, allegedly a fiscally conservative republican. I had complained to him about the waste but he just wanted to get money into the county. He didn’t think of the fact that he was taking tax money from the widow in Nebraska, the struggling young family in Wyoming, or the parents in California trying to pay for their daughter’s education. The reverse mob effect allowed him to ignore the overall results of his efforts.
Such shortsightedness is common. It is easy to convince ourselves that nobody is hurt when we take maybe a hundredth of a cent from millions of people. We don’t want to think that millions of people may be doing the same, stealing in the aggregate rather large sums of money from each victim. Nor do we remember that a business or government is nothing but a collection of people. Those people need and deserve the fruits of their labor to care for themselves and their families.
Businesses do not manufacture money; instead they exchange goods or services for it. If they lose money to theft they must make it up by raising prices, cutting employee pay or benefits, or reducing payments to stockholders. Worst case, they go out of business and leave customers, employees, stockholders, and even creditors without funds. When we cheat a retailer, insurance company, or any other business we are really cheating the people who depend on that business. Spreading our crime over many people does not change the fact that it is a crime.
Likewise, government has no real way to obtain resources except from the people. Even borrowing or printing money is just a different way to get those resources from you, from your retired first grade teacher, and from other citizens who have to give up the results of their work to provide for government projects. If we demand and get a fancy sports stadium at taxpayer expense, we are really taking the money from those people, many of whom don’t care a fig about sports.
We can improve our economy if we get everybody to realize that there is no such thing as stealing from government or business. Those organizations are only intermediaries between us and other individuals, flesh and blood people with names, homes, families and their own wants and needs. When we defraud a company or the government, we are really defrauding each individual who has an interest in that organization.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Mob Rule, Part 1
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
It was in the 1930’s when Hugh Nibley, a doctoral candidate in the classics, proposed writing his dissertation on the perennial phenomena of the mob in the ancient world. The topic was rejected. Too unreal, too irrelevant to the mood and spirit of the modern world the committee said. Nibley, later a renowned scholar, had to choose a different topic. The institution that rejected a study of the mob as irrelevant to modern society was the University of California at Berkley.
As Berkley found to its sorrow, the mob is very relevant to our society. Not only have we had riots in many inner cities, but less publicized mobs often affect public decision-making. It’s worth examining the mob mind-set not only for that reason but to see how it affects some of our own even non-violent actions. I’m not a psychologist but I have read a bit about the subject and I conclude that there are two components of that mind-set:
First, the anonymity of the mob, what psychologists call deindividuation (essentially losing ones individuality). Participants don’t think of themselves as individually responsible for the mob actions. Removing that personal responsibility allows them to do things they would never do if they thought they would be recognized and called to account as individuals.
Second, diffusion of responsibility. Mob members can easily think that they had no part in the decision to act, so they are not responsible for their actions. Everybody just follows the crowd with no conscious decision-making on the part of most mob members. This is groupthink writ large.
The result may be a lynching, beating up someone of different ethnicity, stealing merchandise from a store during a riot, or other anti-social action. It may just be the crowd getting out of hand at a rock concert. In the minds of mob participants none of it is their fault; they are just going along. The fact is that people will do things as part of such a group that they would never do as individuals.
Those moral gyrations may sooth consciences, but the participants are still responsible for their actions. The person who steals a TV during a riot is just as guilty of thievery as the burglar who breaks into the store at night. The Ku Klux Klan member who helps beat up a black person is just as much a thug as the mugger who beats someone without hiding behind a white sheet. The lynch mob member who helps hang a potentially innocent man is a murderer, quite as guilty as the guy who gets mad at his neighbor and shoots him.
“That’s all well and good,” you say, “but how does it apply to me? I’ve never been part of such a mob.”
Are you sure of that? You may have never been part of a violent mob but look again at those two aspects of the mob mind-set. Do they not apply to non-violent group actions as well? I would call anything done with that mind-set a mob action.
Look at business decisions for example. If “the company” decides to mislead customers or cut corners on quality, is that somehow better than if you or I as an individual did the same? Yet it is easy to mask our part by anonymity or by diffusing responsibility, especially in a large corporation. In fact the Spanish term for corporation is “sociedad anónima,” literally anonymous society. The large group allows a mind-set similar to that of a mob; people can think of themselves as not responsible for their actions and unlikely to be held accountable for them. Yet the employee who helps mislead a customer is just as guilty of fraud as is the charlatan who sells snake oil.
Other organizations can have similar problems but there is one that exceeds them all – Government. Government is most prone to this problem and is in a position to create the most damage by its mob action. In addition to deindividuation and diffusion of responsibility, government adds a patina of legitimacy to the mob mind-set. This is combined with a power beyond what any private organization possesses.
Few people are willing to steal from a neighbor to get money for entertainment. However we accept all too readily such things as congressional earmarks for museums of dubious value or a bridge to nowhere. Cities are all too willing to provide tax money for sports teams or artwork, which only a small minority of their citizens will ever enjoy. Local governments even force people to sell their property to private businesses preferred by the politicians. Those actions amount to thievery, regardless of how they are justified. The elected officials who support them are thieves and the voters who demand them are thieves as well. The anonymity, diffusion of responsibility, and patina of legitimacy associated with government do not change that fact.
Fortunately we have progressed beyond the time when people thought slavery was acceptable because government approved it. Now we need to get beyond thinking that government thievery for earmark projects or favored groups is acceptable.
We can hope that people will catch on to this and realize that they are responsible for their actions, either as individuals or as part of a group. However the only way that will happen is for those who already know this to spread the word. As citizens we must avoid demanding government-based thievery for our benefit, and we must oppose it when others make such demands. In our work we must refuse to take part in mob-like actions of deceit and fraud. And of course we must teach this to our children, Lord knows the schools won't teach it.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
It was in the 1930’s when Hugh Nibley, a doctoral candidate in the classics, proposed writing his dissertation on the perennial phenomena of the mob in the ancient world. The topic was rejected. Too unreal, too irrelevant to the mood and spirit of the modern world the committee said. Nibley, later a renowned scholar, had to choose a different topic. The institution that rejected a study of the mob as irrelevant to modern society was the University of California at Berkley.
As Berkley found to its sorrow, the mob is very relevant to our society. Not only have we had riots in many inner cities, but less publicized mobs often affect public decision-making. It’s worth examining the mob mind-set not only for that reason but to see how it affects some of our own even non-violent actions. I’m not a psychologist but I have read a bit about the subject and I conclude that there are two components of that mind-set:
First, the anonymity of the mob, what psychologists call deindividuation (essentially losing ones individuality). Participants don’t think of themselves as individually responsible for the mob actions. Removing that personal responsibility allows them to do things they would never do if they thought they would be recognized and called to account as individuals.
Second, diffusion of responsibility. Mob members can easily think that they had no part in the decision to act, so they are not responsible for their actions. Everybody just follows the crowd with no conscious decision-making on the part of most mob members. This is groupthink writ large.
The result may be a lynching, beating up someone of different ethnicity, stealing merchandise from a store during a riot, or other anti-social action. It may just be the crowd getting out of hand at a rock concert. In the minds of mob participants none of it is their fault; they are just going along. The fact is that people will do things as part of such a group that they would never do as individuals.
Those moral gyrations may sooth consciences, but the participants are still responsible for their actions. The person who steals a TV during a riot is just as guilty of thievery as the burglar who breaks into the store at night. The Ku Klux Klan member who helps beat up a black person is just as much a thug as the mugger who beats someone without hiding behind a white sheet. The lynch mob member who helps hang a potentially innocent man is a murderer, quite as guilty as the guy who gets mad at his neighbor and shoots him.
“That’s all well and good,” you say, “but how does it apply to me? I’ve never been part of such a mob.”
Are you sure of that? You may have never been part of a violent mob but look again at those two aspects of the mob mind-set. Do they not apply to non-violent group actions as well? I would call anything done with that mind-set a mob action.
Look at business decisions for example. If “the company” decides to mislead customers or cut corners on quality, is that somehow better than if you or I as an individual did the same? Yet it is easy to mask our part by anonymity or by diffusing responsibility, especially in a large corporation. In fact the Spanish term for corporation is “sociedad anónima,” literally anonymous society. The large group allows a mind-set similar to that of a mob; people can think of themselves as not responsible for their actions and unlikely to be held accountable for them. Yet the employee who helps mislead a customer is just as guilty of fraud as is the charlatan who sells snake oil.
Other organizations can have similar problems but there is one that exceeds them all – Government. Government is most prone to this problem and is in a position to create the most damage by its mob action. In addition to deindividuation and diffusion of responsibility, government adds a patina of legitimacy to the mob mind-set. This is combined with a power beyond what any private organization possesses.
Few people are willing to steal from a neighbor to get money for entertainment. However we accept all too readily such things as congressional earmarks for museums of dubious value or a bridge to nowhere. Cities are all too willing to provide tax money for sports teams or artwork, which only a small minority of their citizens will ever enjoy. Local governments even force people to sell their property to private businesses preferred by the politicians. Those actions amount to thievery, regardless of how they are justified. The elected officials who support them are thieves and the voters who demand them are thieves as well. The anonymity, diffusion of responsibility, and patina of legitimacy associated with government do not change that fact.
Fortunately we have progressed beyond the time when people thought slavery was acceptable because government approved it. Now we need to get beyond thinking that government thievery for earmark projects or favored groups is acceptable.
We can hope that people will catch on to this and realize that they are responsible for their actions, either as individuals or as part of a group. However the only way that will happen is for those who already know this to spread the word. As citizens we must avoid demanding government-based thievery for our benefit, and we must oppose it when others make such demands. In our work we must refuse to take part in mob-like actions of deceit and fraud. And of course we must teach this to our children, Lord knows the schools won't teach it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
