Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (130673)	2/11/2010 1:11:40 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542059

Self actualization can only come about in the framework of laws and concepts and institutions that permits/allows such self actualization in alignment with the American Ideal. I agree with that. We need to support our institutions. Whether we do it out of sacrifice or out of self-interest, we need to do it. So the question you and I face is is whether it matters which approach we take to doing it. Yet society reciprocated our sacrifice. We got instant respect on buses, trains, planes, and restaurants plus appropriate discounts. That reciprocation instilled in us our "worth" to our country. If the reward for making a sacrifice is important, then framing the action as a sacrifice is iffy. If you got something valuable in return for your action, then it was at least in part a mutually beneficial transaction. It's not unlike the mutually beneficial transaction of kids nowadays joining the military seeking opportunity. The only difference is that one was mandatory and the other isn't. If that's a wash, then we have left to consider only the involuntary sacrifice that occurred in earlier times, those drafted who would not otherwise have served. Is the loss of that enough to be our focus for what's wrong with the country? I don't see how. First of all, involuntary sacrifice doesn't come from the spirit of sacrifice you're touting. It comes from the power of the government to force service. Maybe, having been forced to sacrifice and being rewarded for it that cohort comes to embrace sacrifice as a philosophy going forward and thus increases the country's pool of sacrifice becoming do-gooders in their later lives. Or maybe they become bitter and resentful and broken. Hard to say that's a net positive, really. By hiring our servicemen and women we've basically underwritten the principle that it is OK for the less privileged to serve the country while the more well off "self actualize" as it is my perception that it is mostly the economically disadvantaged who join up as they see service as means of affording college. As I wrote above, I see the less privileged self-actualizing when they enter military service to better themselves. That's what self-actualizing is--being all you can be. Learning skills, developing a resume, building relationships, finding pride in accomplishment, collecting a paycheck, feeling cool and confident in a uniform. I'm pretty sure that's a large part of why most volunteers volunteer. If that weren't the case, the military wouldn't advertise on that basis, it would advertise on sacrifice. I think you've set up a false dichotomy if you think that self-actualizing belongs only to those who don't serve. Take this away and basically what you have is everyone for him/herself. You'll have to connect the dots for me. I'm not sure just what "this" you are referring to. Regardless of what you had in mind for "this," that statement seems awfully glib. I don't see how lack of sacrifice inherently produces being just for oneself. Let me offer some context. The day before you and I engaged this topic a friend and I were discussing life's annoyances over lunch in the context of why we each chose not to go back to work after retirement (from government service) despite missing the stimulation and sense of accomplishment. As part of that discussion we agreed that the good life for each of us is defined as being able to do whatever we want whenever we want. So, my friend and are each just the sort of person you characterized as "wherein the individual feels entitled to do what he/she wants." However, she and I are both responsible people. Every bit of "whatever we want" is, if not always useful to society, at least not harmful. Each of us is sober, we pay our own way, and we continue to contribute here and there. (I was outside this morning helping to shovel cars out for people who had to get to work today even though I did my own yesterday. At my age, shoveling snow for someone else's benefit can easily be construed as a sacrifice. <g>) But, yeah, my friend and I don't want constraints or annoyances, particularly stupid ones, we want to do our own thing, to remain aloof to sacrifice unless the circumstances are dire, so your characterization applies to us. My point is that defining the good life as doing what you want when you want to do it and does not necessarily mean that you run roughshod over everyone else as you seem to have elided in forming your conclusion. If you're responsible and recognize the legal and social constructs than enable your good life, you contribute without thinking of your contribution as sacrifice. So, I think your focus on sacrifice is off target. I think the key for what you're seeking is not sacrifice but 1) responsibility and 2) respect for the enabling societal framework. You can model both of those with nary a thought of sacrifice.