Pop quiz

Here are a few questions I’ve been pondering lately. I know what my answers are. I’d love to hear yours.

1. If you give people a strong incentive to do something you want them to do, do you think they will be more inclined to do it, or less inclined to do it?

2. If you remove a strong incentive for people to do something you want them to do, do you think they will be more inclined to do it, or less inclined to do it?

I realize there will always be exceptions where “people” are concerned, but in general, how would you answer the questions above?

If anyone thinks that removing an incentive is likely to lead to more of the desired behavior, please explain.

Now let’s get a little more specific.

3. If a person’s physical, financial and emotional well-being becomes more dependent upon the people with whom he/she interacts on a daily basis, do you think that person is going to be more motivated to be tolerant of these people, or less?

4. If a person’s physical, financial and emotional well-being becomes less dependent on the people with whom he/she interacts on a daily basis, do you think that person is going to be more motivated to be tolerant of these people, or less?

Again, there will always be exceptions, especially when dealing with individuals, but overall, what do you think about questions 3 and 4?

Okay, let’s move on.

5. Do you think that being able to provide for oneself and one’s family is important to one’s physical, financial and emotional well-being?

I hope your answer is yes. If not, don’t bother explaining; you are reading the wrong blog.

Final question.

6. Given your answers to questions 1 through 5, do you think that people whose physical, financial and emotional well-being are guaranteed by their government have more incentive to “come together as a people” or less?

You can put your pencils down now.

Call me crazy, but if I truly wanted to bring a group of people together, I would let them know that their well-being is not going to be guaranteed by their government.

In fact, I would let them know that their well-being is not and, in fact, cannot be guaranteed by anyone. At best, their well-being is a matter of probability and the best way to improve their odds is to build strong social relationships.

From my perspective, knowing this would be the ultimate incentive for people to truly come together, tolerate one another, take care of one another, and perhaps even learn to love and respect one another.

This seems beyond obvious to me.

If you want to bring a community of people together, make the people of that community aware that their very survival depends on their coming together. Likewise, if you want to drive a community of people apart, tell the people of that community that the government will take care of each of them and thus remove their strongest incentive to come together, to work together, or even just tolerate one another.

Make sense? If so, would someone please explain this to Barack and Hillary? If they truly want to bring us together, I’m sure they’d want to know.

Posted on Sunday, February 24, 2008 at 01:10 AM

Printer friendly

Share Blair:

(4) Reader Comments about Pop quiz

John Thomas says...

Blair,

Well said. I always thought of this issue coming at it from sort of the other end. I always simply started with the idea that the only way to really get rid of discrimination (of any sort, from any angle), i.e. to “bring people together,” is to get the government out of the enforcement business. This way, those inclined to resentment because they aren’t the favored few don’t have that to gripe about, and those benefited by unfair promotion and discrimination have incentive to be the very best they can be in their field. Everyone starts on that playing field and people start dealing with the best person for the job for purely selfish (economic) reasons. When they have to deal with people of other ethnicities, classes, etc. who are the best person for them to work with, they then learn that people are essentially the same across all lines (race, class, etc.), and discrimination disappears of its own accord because we all learn that people are people.

My assertion is that the only way that racism, classism or any other kind of discriminatory activity can continue is if there is some kind of enforcement mechanism, usually governmental (whether it be the state, a church government, etc.). No negative consequences equals (after a relatively short time) no discrimination.

My asserting this should stir up plenty of controversy here. Glad to help, Blair.

- John

Posted on 02/24/2008 at 02:36 AM

Miche says...

Here is a string, Blair, from the movie The American President: (I switched ‘The Government’ for ‘Sen Rumsen.’)

‘Whatever your particular problem is, friend, I promise you, (The Government) is not the least bit interested in solving it. (The Government) is interested in two things and two things only: Making you AFRAID and telling you who’s to BLAME for your fear. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle- income voters who remember, with longing, an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and personal character.’

We can only depend on the US government to the extent that it will squander money and make war. If we want to come together, we can rally behind this government’s willingness to squander money and make war. We commiserate in small groups, shake our heads and smirk about it, because we believe we are powerless to change it. And we are afraid to try.

I know this to be true, Blair, because it has been true for the last 58-years of my life.

This is the propaganda they taught us in public school, back in middle 20th century: The role of the government is to collect taxes and distribute that money back to us taxpayers in the form of social programs. The reason something like universal health care (This is your point; isn’t it, Blair?) sounds alien is: we’ve gone so long without it, the least of any meaningful government service.

If you believe squandering $400-Million PER DAY to make war is acceptable behavior, acceptable return of investment, you deserve no less than the government you have. Anyone who dares to dream different, today, is a parasite and a pariah.

If you can imagine channeling $12-Billion per month into ideals that are at once: civic, and humane, you live in a realm of what we once thought these United States could realize.

If you think you cannot rally a people around that, Blair,
I say: “Try it.”

Michel DuBil

Posted on 02/24/2008 at 11:07 AM

C says...

This should answer how I would have answered the questions. http://www.amish-heartland.com/

What a nice relaxed pollution free, simple minded, kind of lifestyle.

Now, from the nanny state perspective..., if you want to find a friend, feed any animal. So .. DON’T feed the animals!

I enjoy building social relationships with people like minded to me. On the other hand outside of just about no one, the only reason anyone ever calls on me is because they want something from me.

From a worldly perspective everyone is coming together. The oil flows, the grocery stores are stocked, everyone’s on the highway during rush hour, etc.

America is wholly dependent on foreign governments for money, oil, and a place for us to drop our bombs. Any administration seems to be willing to tow that line.

The only reason anyone comes together around these parts is when their is a buck to be made.

Posted on 02/24/2008 at 11:08 AM

Rational Thinking says...