Think with me for a moment about business practices and labor practices. Implied, and even stated, are certain contractual exzpectations.
A business will not cheat, will not lie, and will deliver what it promises on time and for the price set.
A laborer or labor union will do the job competently, on time, and for the wages agreed to.
That creates both a contract of employment and (even more) a social contract.
When businesses cheat, as did so many banking institutions before 2008 in bundling bad mortgages in with good ones and selling them as "good investments" a world wide recession gets created. Trust is broken, people lose their homes, unemployment soars, and . . . well, you lived through it. You get the picture, if you weren't stoned or drunk through the five years that followed.
When men and women are hired to do specific jobs, and spend their time gossiping, wandering around with a coffee cup in their hands, or leaning on shovels instead of working the employer's costs go up and the employer begins losing money, failing to meet realistic deadlines. and either goes out of business or gets the taxpayers to bail it out.
It's all part of the social contract that makes things work. When people, unions, companies, governments all fail to voluntarily "do the right thing" all the time, to buy in to the implicit social contract, society falls apart.
When society falls apart, people are hurt, family are destroyed, commerce comes to a halt and progress in all areas of life grinds to a stop.
How do we get buy in from everyone to the basic social contract terms that will keep us going? Will keep us reasonably safe? Employed? Employable?
Anarchists want to blow it all up. But who wants to live in a world run by anarchists?
Think about it, and leave your thoughts on this topic in the comment field. Thanks.
Al Lustie
Thinking with Al
Friday, November 28, 2014
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Getting Buy In
Maybe it is a mistake to read the newspapers, the news feeds and to watch TV newscasts. It seems as if a greater part of the society we live in has failed to agree to the implied social contract that makes our living and working and enjoying possible.
I was thinking recently about the knowledge required to become a U.S. citizen. Then I thought about the probability that most American born folks don't know even five percent of that material. We are exposed in school, but don't really learn it.
That got me thinking about the young man in Marysville, WA, and the two kids a Columbine, and the troubled teenager at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, CO, and a host of others who seemed to never buy in to the social contract that keeps our world functioning. Perhaps parents, teachers and other trusted adults never exposed these kids specifically to the idea of a social contract, and never got any formal agreement that they would buy in to it.
Socrates gave voice to the idea of a "social contract". A former police commissioner for the city of New York expressed it this way (and I paraphrase): If more than 90% of the citizens fail to obey the law voluntarily, no number of police can keep the city safe for it's citizens.
In other words, we all have to buy in to terms of the social contract or we function as savages, in defense mode most of the time, ready to rip out the throat of our adversaries before they rip out ours.
The terms of the social contract are pretty basic: don't murder, don't steal, don't cheat, do learn, behave politely, make way for others. I suppose we can add things like drive between the lines, stop for traffic lights, and so forth. I summarize it simply: live in a trustworthy way.
In some ways I was taught to participate in the social contract by being punished for lying, told to never steal, etc. But I don't remember people helping me learn that my society would stop working if I failed to buy in. My school would not work if it was a jungle. My Scout troop would be of no value if we didn't behave in trustworthy ways. Our larger social setting would become more like that of the Middle East where extremists blow up their own families to make a point. (Talk about failing to buy in to the social contract!)
I want to develop this idea in future blogs, but first: what thought come to your mind as you read this? Leave your comment and let us know.
I was thinking recently about the knowledge required to become a U.S. citizen. Then I thought about the probability that most American born folks don't know even five percent of that material. We are exposed in school, but don't really learn it.
That got me thinking about the young man in Marysville, WA, and the two kids a Columbine, and the troubled teenager at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, CO, and a host of others who seemed to never buy in to the social contract that keeps our world functioning. Perhaps parents, teachers and other trusted adults never exposed these kids specifically to the idea of a social contract, and never got any formal agreement that they would buy in to it.
Socrates gave voice to the idea of a "social contract". A former police commissioner for the city of New York expressed it this way (and I paraphrase): If more than 90% of the citizens fail to obey the law voluntarily, no number of police can keep the city safe for it's citizens.
In other words, we all have to buy in to terms of the social contract or we function as savages, in defense mode most of the time, ready to rip out the throat of our adversaries before they rip out ours.
The terms of the social contract are pretty basic: don't murder, don't steal, don't cheat, do learn, behave politely, make way for others. I suppose we can add things like drive between the lines, stop for traffic lights, and so forth. I summarize it simply: live in a trustworthy way.
In some ways I was taught to participate in the social contract by being punished for lying, told to never steal, etc. But I don't remember people helping me learn that my society would stop working if I failed to buy in. My school would not work if it was a jungle. My Scout troop would be of no value if we didn't behave in trustworthy ways. Our larger social setting would become more like that of the Middle East where extremists blow up their own families to make a point. (Talk about failing to buy in to the social contract!)
I want to develop this idea in future blogs, but first: what thought come to your mind as you read this? Leave your comment and let us know.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Dumb Definitions Don't Help
On the ride to church yesterday we passed and then were passed by a vehicle with a bumper sticker on the back window that read something like: "Liberals are really socialists." As I reflected on it I wondered if the truck owner or driver would like a similar sticker saying, "Conservatives are really facists" or "Conservatives are actually Nazis) (some are, of course). Then I began to reflect.
These sweeping "definitions" don't help much, do they? Let me explain my thinking.
First, labeling someone "Liberal" or "Conservative" has very little meaning. We don't know the person any better, we don't know her thoughts, his history, their pains and joys, their upbringing, their fears or ambitions. The label doesn't help us understand or know them, but it does help us avoid getting to know that person or group.
Second, even if the label helped (it doesn't) the 'definition' doesn't define. Using another label causes the same problems. We don't know the person or the group any better. If there is a problem, we aren't any closer to a solution to the problem. Where there is inequity, we don't know better ways to resolve the issue and create more equity. Where there is poverty we aren't any closer to helping someone find economic health.
Some bumper stickers are humorous. Some advance thinking. But these kind of pseudo-definitions don't help.
What are your experiences in this area? Leave a comment and let us know.
These sweeping "definitions" don't help much, do they? Let me explain my thinking.
First, labeling someone "Liberal" or "Conservative" has very little meaning. We don't know the person any better, we don't know her thoughts, his history, their pains and joys, their upbringing, their fears or ambitions. The label doesn't help us understand or know them, but it does help us avoid getting to know that person or group.
Second, even if the label helped (it doesn't) the 'definition' doesn't define. Using another label causes the same problems. We don't know the person or the group any better. If there is a problem, we aren't any closer to a solution to the problem. Where there is inequity, we don't know better ways to resolve the issue and create more equity. Where there is poverty we aren't any closer to helping someone find economic health.
Some bumper stickers are humorous. Some advance thinking. But these kind of pseudo-definitions don't help.
What are your experiences in this area? Leave a comment and let us know.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Sometimes
Sometimes. . .
The turn of the 1800's to the 1900's was one of those times. Optimism was rampant. Hope was in the air.
The turn of the 1900's to the 2000's was not so hopeful (except maybe for the Apple corporations which had just bet their future on a better computer and a better operating system). Looking backwards to pre-Roe vs. Wade, to pre-civil rights, to pre-women's power and to some mythical culture where men ruled supreme (well, some men ruled supreme) somehow became the norm in many parts of our diverse culture.
But sometimes. . .
sometimes we can reach for better goals, more equality, access for more people to opportunity.
Could today be your "sometime"? What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
- people have preferred to look forward, at least in the United States of America
- people have hoped for a better future
- people have hoped their children would do better than they have done
- people have hoped for peace, not war
- people have hoped fora more orderly life rather than one filled with chaos
- people have hoped their faith would serve them well in an unknown tomorrow
- people have chosen positive changes rather than 'going back' to the negative
- people have noted that the best thing about the good old days was that they are gone.
The turn of the 1800's to the 1900's was one of those times. Optimism was rampant. Hope was in the air.
The turn of the 1900's to the 2000's was not so hopeful (except maybe for the Apple corporations which had just bet their future on a better computer and a better operating system). Looking backwards to pre-Roe vs. Wade, to pre-civil rights, to pre-women's power and to some mythical culture where men ruled supreme (well, some men ruled supreme) somehow became the norm in many parts of our diverse culture.
But sometimes. . .
sometimes we can reach for better goals, more equality, access for more people to opportunity.
Could today be your "sometime"? What do you think? Leave a comment and let us know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)