More than one way to skin a cat....but some are more difficult

Our society has a nasty tendency to require labels for everything. 50 years ago it was quite simple...there were men and women, straight and gay, liberal or conservative. In the last year, I've learned terms like cisgender, pansexual...hell I've seen 4 different names for the terrorist organization that grabs most of the attention in world news. One day it's ISIS. Then ISIL, maybe IS, and now there's Daesh. Unfortunately, the more we implement labels, the more we assume things about the people that we just classified. Stereotypes, I believe, exist for a reason. It's the only logical way to categorize information, but they do not come with inherent prejudice. Look at a computer for example. We have pictures, documents, music, downloads, games, etc. and we place them in folders that categorize what is what. If we didn't, I'd look at the root of my C drive and be overwhelmed by all the stuff. I wouldn't have a way to access the information I need at the time. Our brains work in a very similar fashion. Unfortunately, once things are categorized and reinforced over and over, our brains start to believe in extremes.

We've all heard it before..."the police are mean to black people", "women are not treated equally", "the rich get richer and never help the poor" I could go on and on with examples. There is truth in some of these statements. YES! Some police officers are racist and unfair to minorities. YES! Some companies pay women less than men for the same job. "YES!" Some rich people are selfish assholes. Deep down though, I believe the average person knows this. We are quick to throw labels at things because it allows us shift responsibility for fixing the issue on someone else.

The truth is liberals and conservatives can have any opinion regarding any issue. Some conservatives are pro-choice and some liberals want to defend 2nd amendment rights. It's how we go about solving the problem that really determines our political affiliation. I'll use marijuana as an example. Liberals that are pro-marijuana want there to be a law saying it's legal and other laws that govern the sale, growth, and other regulations regarding it. A conservative that is also pro-marijuana would say decriminalize it (take away the law that makes it illegal) and allow a smaller group of people (local government, the community, or the family) decide how to handle it safely. In this example, both groups want the same thing they just want to approach it differently. This then begs the question: what's the best way to reform society and our culture?

I hate the phrase "in a perfect world", but this whole message requires me to touch the subject briefly. In a perfect world capitalism and trickle down economics would work. The rich would take lower salaries to afford raises to their employees, but this requires the "more privileged" to have morals and values and not be overly selfish. Communism also theoretically would work in a perfect world...everyone gets an equal share of the "pie" that they all contributed to making. Once you add the aspect of us being human to the mix both systems easily become corrupted.

The question now becomes which of these is more practical/probable. I truly believe it's easier for individuals to make a bigger difference with their friends and family than trying to add more government to the mix. If one looks at human behavior as a whole, it’s pretty plain to see that rules don’t change people. Our government made alcohol illegal for a period of time, yet people still managed to find it through bootlegging and speak-easies. Our government has implemented laws to “ensure” that people of all races are treated equally, but some people are still racist.

I can speak from personal experience that no law ever made me change how I look at life. When I have changed, it has come from a desire within myself to be better. I believe that same desire can be found within any other person on this earth, but the only way to tap into that is accountability. Every breath we waste blaming others is time we could be spending becoming better people.

ziggy1734 said:

I can speak from personal experience that no law ever made me change how I look at life. When I have changed, it has come from a desire within myself to be better. I believe that same desire can be found within any other person on this earth, but the only way to tap into that is accountability. Every breath we waste blaming others is time we could be spending becoming better people.

Click to expand...

Agree with you. Good subject for this forum. It would be great if people read this message and it had some impact on them. I'm not suggesting that many here are non stop complaining whiners, or have no ethical, moral or personal desire to be a better person. But in some cases, along with having strong differences of opinion, come some very personal attacks. And the other is that prejudice is abundant.

I older I get the more I let Jesus take the wheel.

ziggy1734 said:

I can speak from personal experience that no law ever made me change how I look at life. When I have changed, it has come from a desire within myself to be better. I believe that same desire can be found within any other person on this earth, but the only way to tap into that is accountability. Every breath we waste blaming others is time we could be spending becoming better people.

Click to expand...

Personal responsibility/initiative vs government mandated change/laws, thats the topic if I'm understanding you correctly. While I would agree that the personal level is less upsetting to society as a whole and less costly, it just doesn't work. I will use speed limits as an example. Everyone should drive a safe speed, for their own safety as well as others. Its beneficial to the individual to drive a safe speed. To employ the personal model, it would basically be the honors system, and would fall apart as soon as it started. Some people are always going to drive as fast as possible, even if they're not in a hurry. So we need government laws and government enforcement to protect us from crazy drivers because we have no other defense against them besides staying off the road completely, which isn't really an option. Now some will point to statistics that show cars as being the leading cause of death and demand MORE laws and enforcement. Others will say that current laws unnecessarily restrict freedom and increase the size of a costly police force. Truth is somewhere in the middle, with laws and enforcement that are the least invasive yet most effective, and accepting that a certain amount of risk can never be eliminated, and another certain amount can be but the regulation and enforcement required would result in a virtual police state. Its a compromise between the 2 pure ideals of personal accountability/responsibility and government regulation.

You introduce accountability as the way to make this work, but there can be no accountability without some superior enforcing agency and laws to guide them. Like you said, its human nature we're fighting here essentially. Most people understand why they should drive safely, but some will always put their priorities first (getting somewhere asap) over even the basic safety of others. There has to be laws defining safe driving, and police to make sure those laws are followed, even if loosely. The "Perfect world" scenarios always exclude that element of the population, but you will never be able to eliminate them or change them. Rules mean nothing to these people, only the fear of getting caught reigns in their reckless behavior.

In my honest opinion, the problem with most issues is people don't really look at the overall picture and accept consequences which can be disturbing to think about, but unrealistic to change. To run with my previous example. Auto related deaths are one of the top causes of death in modern society. Tens/hundreds of thousands are killed and maimed every year. We, as a society, accept this consequence of automotive travel and transportation. We accept that all those people every year will be killed in the name of convenient travel and transportation. We regulate it as much as we reasonably can to reduce the collateral damages, and we can even improve things when technology or new ideas allow, but we will never eliminate the collateral damage completely. People will always die so we can drive to work and stores can have their goods delivered. Some people are nigh incapable of even considering such a notion, and much like the people who will always drive irresponsibly, these people will attempt to shift the balance towards a more regulated risk free society. In my opinion they are wrong to do so past a certain point, but its where you draw the line I guess that is the issue.

Guns are a prime example. Guns are a constitutional right, yet their very nature ensures a certain number of deaths due to accidents and criminals. Some cry out for more and more regulation to save lives, others accept that as a consequence of having such a right. The two clash somewhere in the middle, but will never see eye to eye, and inches are gained and lost in the struggle, which spans centuries. In the end, only a larger entity (government) can bring about any sort of agreement between the two. But then some will try to manipulate government itself to ensure that their side gains ground instead of losing it. Personal accountability seems like a great theme to run with, but you will never convince the pro regulation crowd to stop fighting to save lives, no matter how much collateral damages are reduced or how restrictive new regulations would have to be to further reduce them, they will always blindly push for more regulation to save more and more lives. Some would argue that its worth it to completely repeal the 2nd amendment if it saves but a single life. Because how can you put a price on a life?

ziggy1734 said:

Our society has a nasty tendency to require labels for everything. 50 years ago it was quite simple...there were men and women, straight and gay, liberal or conservative. In the last year, I've learned terms like cisgender, pansexual...hell I've seen 4 different names for the terrorist organization that grabs most of the attention in world news. One day it's ISIS. Then ISIL, maybe IS, and now there's Daesh. Unfortunately, the more we implement labels, the more we assume things about the people that we just classified. Stereotypes, I believe, exist for a reason. It's the only logical way to categorize information, but they do not come with inherent prejudice. Look at a computer for example. We have pictures, documents, music, downloads, games, etc. and we place them in folders that categorize what is what. If we didn't, I'd look at the root of my C drive and be overwhelmed by all the stuff. I wouldn't have a way to access the information I need at the time. Our brains work in a very similar fashion. Unfortunately, once things are categorized and reinforced over and over, our brains start to believe in extremes.

We've all heard it before..."the police are mean to black people", "women are not treated equally", "the rich get richer and never help the poor" I could go on and on with examples. There is truth in some of these statements. YES! Some police officers are racist and unfair to minorities. YES! Some companies pay women less than men for the same job. "YES!" Some rich people are selfish assholes. Deep down though, I believe the average person knows this. We are quick to throw labels at things because it allows us shift responsibility for fixing the issue on someone else.

The truth is liberals and conservatives can have any opinion regarding any issue. Some conservatives are pro-choice and some liberals want to defend 2nd amendment rights. It's how we go about solving the problem that really determines our political affiliation. I'll use marijuana as an example. Liberals that are pro-marijuana want there to be a law saying it's legal and other laws that govern the sale, growth, and other regulations regarding it. A conservative that is also pro-marijuana would say decriminalize it (take away the law that makes it illegal) and allow a smaller group of people (local government, the community, or the family) decide how to handle it safely. In this example, both groups want the same thing they just want to approach it differently. This then begs the question: what's the best way to reform society and our culture?

I hate the phrase "in a perfect world", but this whole message requires me to touch the subject briefly. In a perfect world capitalism and trickle down economics would work. The rich would take lower salaries to afford raises to their employees, but this requires the "more privileged" to have morals and values and not be overly selfish. Communism also theoretically would work in a perfect world...everyone gets an equal share of the "pie" that they all contributed to making. Once you add the aspect of us being human to the mix both systems easily become corrupted.

The question now becomes which of these is more practical/probable. I truly believe it's easier for individuals to make a bigger difference with their friends and family than trying to add more government to the mix. If one looks at human behavior as a whole, it’s pretty plain to see that rules don’t change people. Our government made alcohol illegal for a period of time, yet people still managed to find it through bootlegging and speak-easies. Our government has implemented laws to “ensure” that people of all races are treated equally, but some people are still racist.

I can speak from personal experience that no law ever made me change how I look at life. When I have changed, it has come from a desire within myself to be better. I believe that same desire can be found within any other person on this earth, but the only way to tap into that is accountability. Every breath we waste blaming others is time we could be spending becoming better people.

Click to expand...

Labels make it easier to paint with the broad brush and avoid looking at nuance. It's part of our ADD culture, IMO.

Excellent post Ziggy.

What I take from it is that small government chimes best with human nature. People are different and variable even within groups and that the one-size-fits-all policies of the left do not work.

I am a Brit/Swede republican (in the sense of anti-monarch) atheist anti-gun pro-abortion conservative libertarian. I, like many people, do not fit into any category.