Pull youself up by YOUR OWN BOOT STRAPS

Hello all,
I would like to talk about an opportunity we have to speak up like never before. We have a tremendous opportunity to express our voice at a time when the private sector is largely paralyzed and government is desperately trying to oversee and cope with what's going on. Issues of our discontent in the past fell into the category of hobby or trivial youthful naivety. The notion that if you´re unhappy it's because you dont know how to be anything else have been generally disseminated by TPTB. The accepted order of things was that in order to be happy you had to produce and earn your right to be happy.

People looking for handouts and a governmental "sugar daddy" have been associated in the past with anyone asking their government for what is not being offered to them. This happened not because of the validity of the message but the that of the audience we spoke it to. To the government, anything we ask for costs tax money. To each other our requests for a better world can mostly be free of charge.

I say that now the voice of the people should be directed not at government but rather to each other. In the end I think that our will to better ourselves extends into a genuine desire to become better as a people. The things we might ask for are in effect a means to attaining a better standard of living for all by securing it for ourselves. The thing is that this usually doesn't depend on government but rather on the world our community creates for itself.

Let´s look at the paradigm of a prison community. The prisoners can request more security on an individual basis based on their personal needs. The truth is there is a limit to the resources that the warden can assign to each cell block and ultimately to each person. The true answer lies not in making the prison more "secure" but in making the prisoners less prone to disturbance. That may seem ridiculous but in some prisons all around the world the prisoners establish the ground rules of co-existence. If the argument came from the authority or "provider" for less theft for example, it would fall on deaf ears. If it came democratically from a general consensus by the people concerned it would be long lasting and difficult to displace. The offenders would have a whole community to challenge them not adhering to the social order.

Similarly a community looking for more employment can ask for the government to "create" jobs in their general area. In reality the most immediate and long lasting solution would be to open locally owned businesses and hire locally. The community would need to do this, not the "sugar daddy" government.

A community looking for less crime could ask local police to increase their budget and their patrols, the number of officers, the number of courts etc ad nauseum. In the end the best solution would be to decrease crime. The community in question would know itself better than a police officer that works there but lives somewhere else. If the problem was drug use and sale perhaps creating a social center to attract youth away from street gangs and in to more constructive activities. A young man or woman needs more than a B-ball court to entertain the vast amounts of hormonal energy pumping through their veins. Local gyms usually help in bringing kids out of the streets and into a structured environment.

The solutions may vary but in the end the best ones come from the people concerned not from out of touch politician or indifferent police. The government can only assign so much to each person in terms of resources. The communities we live in can be more productive in achieving real results for themselves. A doctrine of auto efficiency is always more preferable than a weak request for assistance. In fact if an auto efficient community does need more help than its own means can attain, the fact they pull their own weight usually falls in their favor when asking for help. They would be considered contenders for being on the offering side if ever the need arose and so would be preserved in a selfish way to those that would help.

The main problem with that is that our government as of late (50 or so years) has indoctrinated itself as the alpha and omega in our lives. They decide what we eat, drink, how we entertain ourselves, endanger ourselves, etc . The problem is not whether it is their place or not, which it is not, but rather what we can decide for ourselves independently. Can we for example ask for less armed forces recruitment in our schools. NO! Armed forces recruitment is a necessity for a viable country. We can devote our efforts to eradicate the need for young men and women to join the armed forces out of desperation and the lack of any real opportunities for them in terms of education and career opportunities.

We can ask for better education, but the answer is to take control of our local schools and demand competent faculty. We can also participate in PTA to design the curriculum they will offer. We can ask for money for beatification of horrendous areas, but really we just need to take care of our communities.

I can carry on like this for ever. The argument, I say, is that solidarity is more than a noble concept created in response to the lack of social cohesion. I say it is quintessential to any real community. So ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for yourselves and each other.

Pull your selves up by your own bootstraps.

peace out world.

Question:
With the current mental state of the average citizen, do you think your theory would be possible?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


While I think the answer to most social problems comes from the citizenry, I believe the problem that is foremost in achieving those answers is government interference. Let me explain.

Government worldwide is taking upon itself roles that were traditionally occupied by community leaders. If 90% of a population for any particular geographic area decide they want to do something or not, they first have to ask for permission, so to speak, from the government of the entire country.

If for example Ohio wanted to abolish drug laws for terminally sick people for example, they could not. The federal government would argue that as a nation "hommie dont play that".

If my local city having a population was 90% Asian and wanted to include Asian studies in a local school, the board of education for the state would say, no, "hommie dont play that" we decide what all kids will learn, so keep the current curriculum in preparation for that state exam we have been pushing.

If my local block wanted to combat unemployment by hiring to local businesses without checking for legal status the big daddy government would say, you got it, hommie dont play that. Even though maybe everyone there are immigrants.

If you want to do something that almost everyone in your community decide is best for them, someone higher up in the bureaucratic food chain would say, no, hommie dont play that. and proceed to bop your aspirations of improvement on the preverbal head.

We could argue anything, but in the end we dont decide, and that's a shame. The USA, for example was not like that. We used to do more for ourselves. I dont ask what happened, I think I know. Hommie started deciding instead of us.

I just realized not everyone knows who Hommie the clown was.

We used to have a show in the USA called "in living color" in which a crack head homeless clown would go to kids parties. The kids would suggest activities like pin the tail on the donkey, or bob for apples. Hommie the clown, Damon Wayans, would say "no, hommie dont play that" and bop them on the head. Then he would suggest other inappropriate activities. The end.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by casenately
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

While I think the answer to most social problems comes from the citizenry, I believe the problem that is foremost in achieving those answers is government interference. Let me explain.

Government worldwide is taking upon itself roles that were traditionally occupied by community leaders. If 90% of a population for any particular geographic area decide they want to do something or not, they first have to ask for permission, so to speak, from the government of the entire country.

If for example Ohio wanted to abolish drug laws for terminally sick people for example, they could not. The federal government would argue that as a nation "hommie dont play that".

If my local city having a population was 90% Asian and wanted to include Asian studies in a local school, the board of education for the state would say, no, "hommie dont play that" we decide what all kids will learn, so keep the current curriculum in preparation for that state exam we have been pushing.

If my local block wanted to combat unemployment by hiring to local businesses without checking for legal status the big daddy government would say, you got it, hommie dont play that. Even though maybe everyone there are immigrants.

If you want to do something that almost everyone in your community decide is best for them, someone higher up in the bureaucratic food chain would say, no, hommie dont play that. and proceed to bop your aspirations of improvement on the preverbal head.

We could argue anything, but in the end we dont decide, and that's a shame. The USA, for example was not like that. We used to do more for ourselves. I dont ask what happened, I think I know. Hommie started deciding instead of us.

edit on 16-1-2012 by casenately because: hommie had to fix that

I do see your point much clearly now and i have to agree that communities know better then what big government does. Here in the UK our local councils used to have greater control over what went on in individual area's like you say, but over the past 20 years those powers have been stripped and as a result, area's have been run down, communities broken and the like because they're not getting any TLC from authorizes such as Big government.

Though i do believe after an area has been thoroughly run down, its occupants develop a helpless mentality amongst the hopelessness of there situation - Living in slums, run down housing, rough estates surrounded by drugs, crime, criminals, foreigners with conflicting cultural backgrounds as well as other harmful addictions such as alcoholism, that often tears a family apart rather then just harming the abuser. People begin to lock themselves away from it and start to wallow in there own destitution, digging there graves over many excruciatingly painful years. They become disconnected with people and life.
"Pulling up there own bootstraps" is... in this situation, a novel idea. The people i described in the above paragraph are a reality in the UK, many of them have and are prone to mental health problems. There is no support in these area's and gone are the days when the Doctor and the Labourer lived in the same street.

I think in the right situation your idea is practical - Like catching a cancer early enough to treat. However, after a certain point, these area's would require surgery - Which requires outside help, which costs money, which means these area's will continue to exist and at this rate, grow in size and numbers because "big government" does not care. "Its not there problem" so to speak.

Originally posted by casenately
I just realized not everyone knows who Hommie the clown was.

We used to have a show in the USA called "in living color" in which a crack head homeless clown would go to kids parties. The kids would suggest activities like pin the tail on the donkey, or bob for apples. Hommie the clown, Damon Wayans, would say "no, hommie dont play that" and bop them on the head. Then he would suggest other inappropriate activities. The end.

www.youtube.com...

Lol, that sounds awful :/

I did. I was working a minimum wage security guard job for a hotel. I decided I didn't want to do that anymore, so I learned how to fix computers and internet problems. I moved a call center and learned how to help others do that. After a while of doing that, I decided that answering phones was not for me, so I learned networking. Now I work as a network engineer on a coast-to-coast national $2 billion backbone. All with just a high school diploma.

It took me a while, about 10 years, but I have the adult mentality of "I'll work hard for what I want". That takes time, especially if you don't accept handouts. All you have to do is want to work any job you can while learning a marketable skill. If you don't want to do that, then good luck being a scrub all your life.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American
I did. I was working a minimum wage security guard job for a hotel. I decided I didn't want to do that anymore, so I learned how to fix computers and internet problems. I moved a call center and learned how to help others do that. After a while of doing that, I decided that answering phones was not for me, so I learned networking. Now I work as a network engineer on a coast-to-coast national $2 billion backbone. All with just a high school diploma.

It took me a while, about 10 years, but I have the adult mentality of "I'll work hard for what I want". That takes time, especially if you don't accept handouts. All you have to do is want to work any job you can while learning a marketable skill. If you don't want to do that, then good luck being a scrub all your life.

/TOA

But what if the opportunity to learn the skills is not being offered to people? Either they cannot afford to take the course or the opportunity doesn't exist at all? How then should they proceed?

I believe that social programs and programs which part of community actions (such as police) are a necessary function. I have been the receipent of help, and have greatly appreciated it in adulthood.

I've lived in the system, as a receipent of the help of the system, and between the cracks in the system, and occassionally my lot has been made worse by the problems in the system.

In the end, you can't live there forever. There has to be natural limits as to what the help means. Funnels that keep a program for a poorly functioning parent's children going to the children and not feeding the problems of the parent. Limits as to what welfare means.

Schooling is a necessary and important progressive social program that benefits all of society and is a progressive form of grant to all business in a nation. This is the standard to which most social programs should be held. Are you a progressive benefit to society, or do you minimize harm, and can you make that measureable?


One last thing: People who need the extra help should not be grouped together. It is consistently a bad idea, no matter how many snobby jackholes don't like it. The studies have been done, and this never works. People need to be integrated through out communities. Continuously bowing before those afraid of poor-cooties is a form of elitist bigotry that continually ruins social programs.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by The Old American
I did. I was working a minimum wage security guard job for a hotel. I decided I didn't want to do that anymore, so I learned how to fix computers and internet problems. I moved a call center and learned how to help others do that. After a while of doing that, I decided that answering phones was not for me, so I learned networking. Now I work as a network engineer on a coast-to-coast national $2 billion backbone. All with just a high school diploma.

It took me a while, about 10 years, but I have the adult mentality of "I'll work hard for what I want". That takes time, especially if you don't accept handouts. All you have to do is want to work any job you can while learning a marketable skill. If you don't want to do that, then good luck being a scrub all your life.

/TOA

But what if the opportunity to learn the skills is not being offered to people? Either they cannot afford to take the course or the opportunity doesn't exist at all? How then should they proceed?

I didn't take a course. I learned it on my own. The opportunity to learn a skill is available to anyone. Excuses get you jack.

/TOA

Originally posted by Aeons

In the end, you can't live there forever. There has to be natural limits as to what the help means. Funnels that keep a program for a poorly functioning parent's children going to the children and not feeding the problems of the parent. Limits as to what welfare means.

This is the problem with the system as it exists today. There is no expiration date, yet they're treated as if there's an unlimited supply of money. Of course, when the money is being extorted from me, a worker, and given to someone not working, there is effectively an endless stream of money.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by The Old American
I did. I was working a minimum wage security guard job for a hotel. I decided I didn't want to do that anymore, so I learned how to fix computers and internet problems. I moved a call center and learned how to help others do that. After a while of doing that, I decided that answering phones was not for me, so I learned networking. Now I work as a network engineer on a coast-to-coast national $2 billion backbone. All with just a high school diploma.

It took me a while, about 10 years, but I have the adult mentality of "I'll work hard for what I want". That takes time, especially if you don't accept handouts. All you have to do is want to work any job you can while learning a marketable skill. If you don't want to do that, then good luck being a scrub all your life.

/TOA

But what if the opportunity to learn the skills is not being offered to people? Either they cannot afford to take the course or the opportunity doesn't exist at all? How then should they proceed?

I didn't take a course. I learned it on my own. The opportunity to learn a skill is available to anyone. Excuses get you jack.

/TOA

And how exactly did you learn? Local library? Did you have to take an exam to become qualified?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Researched it on the internet. Even back then there was a wealth of information on how to fix computers. I understand if someone doesn't have their own computer to access that information with, but the library is free. There's even less reason today to not have a marketable skill learned on one's own than there was 10 years ago.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

Researched it on the internet. Even back then there was a wealth of information on how to fix computers. I understand if someone doesn't have their own computer to access that information with, but the library is free. There's even less reason today to not have a marketable skill learned on one's own than there was 10 years ago.

/TOA

I dont know, the reading and writing levels of young working class people in the uk are horrendously low, i wouldn't even call some peoples education "basic"

Families make up communities.

Fix families, you fix the community

Fix the community you fix the nation.

I am not saying it will be utopia, but it will be a helluva lot better than what we got now.

I come from one of those "dysfunctional" families....as so many people like to call them. Growing up I wondered if all families were dysfunctional....cause all my friends also seemed to "suffer" from a case of "dysfunction".....

Then I began to wonder what a "functional" family would be like? Was it like the Cosby show? What are "normal" families like? Do they really exist? What is the standard? What are the guidelines to be a functional family? Is there a book I could read?

My point is, there is no standard guide in place anymore to tell families what they can do to be a relatively happy and successful family unit.

There used to be back in the 50's.....the backbone of the family was the church. Well.....the 60's changed all that.

I am not saying we should backpedal to the social oppression of the 1950s, nor am i suggesting everyone has to go to church or even be a member of organized religion but I do think when we as a people do not have a spiritual or at least a ethical foundation....we have no guiding principles to raise a healthy family with.....and when the family is broken.....the community will follow.

I agree about families. As far as I can tell, most people can't work it out on their own. They need some sort of structure in which to model. Currently, it is all up to luck or regression.

Either you figure out how to negotiate it (without any guidance) and are just persistent, or you regress to an old model. Swapping the old male-female paradigm in reverse is still regression to the old model, not some new fangled shocking thing. Switching places only makes you feel nouveaux - the roles are still the same.

While I wouild love to say that everyone could just figure it out, clearly most people actually can't.