Every man for himself.
Maybe I’m a grumpy guy—okay, I’m definitely a grumpy guy, but I’m really irritated with the culture of entitlement that’s moving stealthily on our society. Today I was waiting for the subway. I was clearly the first person on the platform but as the rush-hour bodies started to fill in around me, one woman stepped directly in front of me to get on the train. She so blatantly violated the rules of subway-queue etiquette that I was compelled to sarcastically comment on her rudeness. “By all means: after you!” Of course she shot back a nasty look; what right did I have to say anything, after all?
While the world prepares for an imminent flu epidemic, there’s a different pandemic currently circulating (in Western society anyway) and nothing is being done to stem the tide. I’m talking about the crop of people who are motivated by self-interest and nothing else. An epidemic of selfishness. These days, it’s every man, woman and child for him/herself. When did apologies go out of style (and I’m not talking about my blog or my album, which has never been in style)? When did we stop holding the door open for each other? Why am I a social outcast if I want to save something for the next guy in line?
Today I visited a client who screwed up a deal not once, not twice but three times. While a typical visit to a client takes 30 seconds to three minutes, this guy’s error cost me an hour of my time. No big deal; we all make mistakes and I know how busy life can be, so I cut him some slack. But once error number three popped up, I couldn’t afford to wait another 30 minutes for him to rectify it. Did he apologize to me for all the time he consumed, you ask? No. In fact, he was upset with me because I pushed the deal for another day. The man, who cost me my lunch and compromised my arrival times for other clients, couldn’t see past himself. Selfish.
Life is a pond and we’re all going to make ripples around us, but why is it so hard to be aware of the ripples you make? To the guy in the apartment below me I say, Hey dude: your music sucks. The 80s are over, and I don’t remember them ever being that loud. To the guy in the office who likes to microwave his morning fish (huh?) on high for ten minutes I say, Hey, you stink and now, thanks to your selfishness, so does the whole office!
My theory is this: previous generations were forced to go without, both technologically and economically. Our parents had tighter belts. We have more of everything today; this is the age of Wal-Mart! So new parents dote on their children and want to provide for them a so-called better life. Children get everything they want without asking for it or earning it and all of a sudden, they expect it. They grow a sense of entitlement. Add to that a leftist idea that discipline is some draconian pastime and you get kids who run amok. You wouldn’t find parents on Dr. Phil 30 years ago asking how to control their kids. (Hint: when you “punish” him by sending him to his room, take the Playstation away!) Now that completely ignores many other sociological contributions to the problem including urban crowding, cultural conflict and an increasingly isolationist lifestyle fed by HDTV and high-speed internet, but I think it’s a start.
My friend once asked me (rightly) why I love living in the city so much when I can’t stand people. It’s not that I can’t stand people; I love people. I love seeing others helping out. It makes me smile when I see the Salvation Army volunteers feeding the hungry. That’s a beautiful thing. What does bother me is the me-ism that’s consuming people today. Why does everyone have to be so damn selfish? In the city where there’s such a concentrated group of people, it’s hard to avoid looking after number one, but I promise you that the world would be a better place if you stopped pretending you’re the only person in it.
posted by Myke @ 7:14 PM
10 Comments:
More proof of your point, Myke.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051017/ap_on_fe_st/microwave_stabbing_1
The "culture of entitlement" is not new or "stealthy" by any stretch of the imagination. It has always been here (remember the "me-generation" of the 1960s?). There have always been two types of people in this world: givers and takers. You are a giver. Don't be discouraged or resentful. There are many like you in this world, Myke.
Remember when you last visited and we talked about taxation? I said that I appreciated lower taxes because it allowed me more discretionary income to, among other things, give. There is little difference, in my mind, between individuals who take and governments that over-tax. Both diminish our freedom to do with our hard-earned income that which we choose.
Larry,
I got your second Narnia link. Thank you. I couldn't access your latest link, though: the one reinforcing my commentary on selfishness. Could you send it again?
I appreciate your point on government taxation, but selfishness is the very reason I would be reluctant to leave charitable giving up to the taxpayers as opposed to the government. I believe true philanthropy, and not giving for tax purposes, is dying, if not dead. Only monumental events, like 9/11, Katrina or the Tsunamis ever seem to rally people, and even then it's more out of hype than out of a true, selfless desire to give. Or so I believe.
I think we're going to have some interesting conversations in the future, you and I. I look forward to it!
Why would you think that government is more reliable in giving than individuals? Governments are historically incompetent (see FEMA) and oftentimes corrupt, not to mention bloated with massive bureaucracy and regulations.
I think it is indisputable that private organizations and individuals are more efficient at charitible giving. Perhaps you favor the socialist model because it's all you've ever known. If members of a society are so used to government taking care of everybody, why would they volunteer to give when, in their minds, it's already being taken care of? The answer is they won't. That mentality isn't as prevalent in the U.S. Self-reliance and enterprise have always been ingrained in our societal DNA.
Obviously, I don't believe that everyone has altruistic motives. But, what difference does it make if someone gives out of pure altruism (which doesn't exist) or out of greed to take advantage of a tax incentive provided by the government? I don't see where the motive matters, except to God. As Christians, that is not inconsequential. But, as a society, I don't see how it is relevant.
In fact, isn't it the best of both worlds? The government incentivizes taxpayers to give and private individuals or organizations who give most efficiently, take advantage. In this way, the government is involved by subsidizing the private sector. The private sector directs gets the money to the most effective charitable organizations. Charities are incentivized to provide better services because they know their funding is performance-based, thereby benefitting the people who need it most. Isn't that what it's all about, after all?
I agree: giving to people who need it most is the entire reason for charity, and I don’t want to argue too strongly in favour of the state here, but wasn’t the principle of elected officials established so that we, the people, would have dedicated, educated individuals and institutions concentrate on what’s best for the people? Now I’m not so naïve as to think there isn’t a metric tonne of bureaucracy which is mired in self-serving, petty administrators and underhanded politicians. But as educated as the general public is these days, don’t you think someone who has spent an entire decade of their life dedicated to the cause of, say, welfare reform or debt relief would know more about it than the general population?
Furthermore, the general public tends to make uninformed, emotional decisions with their money. I don’t want to paint everyone with the same brush, but look at how much attention the Tsunami victims got, or the 9/11 victims got compared to, say, people in Darfur right now. I think it’s safe to say that, were it not for government intervention, causes like Rwanda and Darfur, Africa in general, would be in deep, deep trouble. And without tax incentives, people just wouldn’t give. Ever.
Believe me; Canada has seen its share of government corruption. We’re in the middle of a major (well, for us) scandal as we speak, but if we look to Germany and Luxembourg as examples, we can see illustrations of so-called socialist governments with an efficient civil service.
I think your premise is flawed because it is based on the notion that the private sector will always be greedy and do the wrong thing, while the public sector will do the right thing. I don't understand the basis for this belief. Do you not think the Bush Administration's respose to Katrina wasn't emotional, at least in part? Of course, it was (and I say that as a supporter of our president on most issues). There are many crises in the world occuring at any given time and only so many resources to go around. So, naturally, charites (private or public) have to be selective, and those that are most shocking typically draw our attention.
You mention Rwanda as a government success. But, this was a disaster because our government DIDN'T help. Clinton said he considered that one of the biggest mistakes of his presidency (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1001490).
When government does step in, like in Darfur, for example, they often screw it up. Isn't the purpose of the UN, in part, to provide aid, care, and protection for oppressed peoples in places such as Darfur. Why, with all their resources, has their "help" been so slow in coming and ineffective? They constantly fail to meet their own stated objectives. When they do get around to helping, they grease their own pockets (Oil-for-Food) or rape the women and children they're supposed to be helping (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4595911.stm). If this is the kind of "charity" we can expect from government organizations, I'd rather dontate to private charities, thank you very much.
No, no- obviously Rwanda was a complete failure 800,000 times over; a failure that reflected poorly on the UN and every major nation capable of helping, with Darfur poised to meet a similar fate. What I am saying, though, is that average citizens of the global community hardly register these places as blips on their radar. If a crisis doesn't impact the west, then it's very hard to raise help and awareness, as we still witness many countries in bondage to slavery, poverty and gross miscarriages of human rights.
My premise extends further than society’s greed (which you can easily make a case against, what with the millions upon millions of donations sent in by individuals over the past months). I think society is greedy sometimes, yes, but mostly inept. Formal institutions are organized and accountable; in an ideal world at least, whereas individuals are chaotic, ignorant and emotional. Private aid organizations can sometimes be as bloated and corrupt as any government. As we have seen, they can be downright criminal, though that is rare. Organizations like the UN are fighting for relevance because their morality, accountability and organization skills are lacking, thus they are impotent.
However, my ideal way of meeting the needs of a needy planet would be a hybrid where governments and institutions (such as the UN) are run effectively; where such relationships produce results and, when the need is dire, the private sector can supplement donations. Because this is a pipe dream, I do appreciate that the private sector is able to help out. (Perhaps I have lived in a leftist country too long.)
As for my premise, I left that road several paragraphs ago.
I was done, but I just have to take issue with one more statement. You posted that "Formal institutions are organized and accountable; in an ideal world at least, whereas individuals are chaotic, ignorant and emotional."
Most people in my circle of associations are organized, rational, responsible, and very capable of making sound financial decisions. Formal public institutions, while well meaning and often effective, generally become less so as they get more centralized and bureaucratic because they are, by definition, not as close to the people they were created to serve. I have seen no evidence supporting your contention that formal public institutions are more accountable than private organizations. There is no question that, when an organization is funded just because they're part of the government machinery and not based on results, they have no incentive to perform. The result is inept, corrupt, and wasteful bureaucracy.
I'm starting to repeat myself, so I guess I'm done.
Sorry, one more thing. Germany is a model of efficient civil service? Check this article out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/17/AR2005091701255.html
Here's a sample:
"In May, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder called for new elections to be held a year early, after his Social Democrats were pummeled in a series of regional contests. While voters expressed their unhappiness with a record 11.6 percent jobless rate, they were perhaps even angrier about Schroeder's efforts to revive the once-mighty German economy by trimming pensions, welfare payments and other expensive benefits that have stifled growth."
You know what happened to Schroeder...
I can see that I have to be a little more careful with my words around you. That’s a good thing, because I so often hold people to their words. I enjoy the energy of a debate; I hope you feel the same way, and don’t feel like I’m trying to antagonize you.
I studied bureaucratic dynamics in sociology, so I’m familiar with the lack of incentive that can exist. As far as Germany and Luxembourg go, I should have been more specific. Their medical plans, particularly, are run a lot smoother than, say, Canada’s plan, with little to no wait times (compared to our average 8-17 week wait for a hospital procedure). I’m just saying that these models can provide an illustration for other civil service to follow.
You’re right; we’ve been kicking at this can for too long. One final point first: you mention your circle of influence as being responsible financially. Many with whom I associate (relatives, friends and acquaintances,) have had some difficulty being responsible with money. Any income dividend is immediately absorbed as people live above their means. In no way is this a commentary on society as a whole, but consider my social circle if you get frustrated at my reticence towards laissez-faire finance. Gotta run. I wrote this post quickly so don't hold it against me.
Post a Comment
<< Home