Like a blog

Todays blog will be a brief diatribe on several different subjects

The first subject I would like to discuss is anarchy. Anarchy is defined as a state of lawlessness and disorder, but to some people it is actually a fairly appealing concept. The idea of not having a government constantly badgering you about things, or having to obey any rules at all is a desirable concept to many. Could Anarchy ever work though? I do not believe so. After all anarchy is not just some theoretical idea that has never been tested, anarchy has actually happened thousands of times throughout history. The reality is that no place where anarchy occurs ever stays anarchic. Eventually a few factions will become stronger then the others and they will fight until one of them emerges as the dominant faction. In addition, all societies have a desire to govern their members. From this desire emerges government. So it is no surprise really that in every instance where anarchy has occurred it was only a matter of time before a new government was set up. Considering all of this, I believe anarchy to be perhaps an impossible concept to really sustain. Why some people still cling to the idea of it as some salvation from the present structure of government I'm not really sure.

The second issue I'd like to blog about today is cowardice. We may like to think of our society as in general being full of very brave people who are willing to risk harm to themselves for altruistic ends-- essentially good Samaritans--but I am not so sure that is really the case. Perhaps in general the society of the USA is filled with more altruistic people then selfish ones, I can really only speculate since I have not traveled the country extensively. I do know however there are many places I have seen where the cowardly seem to out number the brave. I should take a second and explain what I mean by cowardly. A coward would be someone who while they may be capable of helping someone in need, they choose not to. I have pondered why someone would act in such a manner and I have concluded that the reason may be related to four different factors.

The first factor is confidence, an individual is capable of helping in one sense but may view themselves to be incapable. For example lets say you come upon a women being beaten. If your walking by you may notice that the attacker is no larger then you are, indeed they may even be smaller in psychical size. However let us suppose that you have never been in a fight in your entire life. Are you really going to feel very confidant stepping in to protect that individual against someone who might know a little more about conflict then you, and could easily hurt you? Some people would still try and help the lady, but others would keep on walking by, fearful of getting caught up in anything. They would rationalize the decision as being a correct one because if they were the only ones around, they could easily draw harm upon themselves. At this point in my hypothetical I should also note that while it's true you can call the police if you have a phone, that won't always solve the issue. Would you stand around and do nothing while you waited for a police car to make the five minute, ten minute, or who knows how long drive to you? Sometimes there simply isn't time to wait for someone else to drive down and solve the problem.

Which leads me to the second factor. I believe that unfortunately, we as a society like to train people that taking any kind of action themselves to solve certain problems is wrong. It is preached often that "taking the law into your own hands" is something to be avoided at all costs. If you have a problem, call the police. Hide away in some corner if necessary, barricade yourself. Run, get away, or hide while you wait for someone else to show up and solve your problem. Fighting is bad, and by effect, the message implies that defending yourself is bad. Whether this is a necessary evil or not is not what I'm discussing, but rather the overall effect on society. I think that if you train people to wait for others to solve certain kinds of problems, that training is going to stick with them. Instead of helping that person who needs help, they will call someone else and be done with it. Regardless of whether there's a possibility that by the time the police show up it could be to late for the person in need of help, people will be to scared to endure harm to themselves as well as break one of societies sacred rules of letting other people solve their problems for them. After all, the law does not take kindly to anyone who disobeys this rule even accidentally.

This was not always the case with the law, 50 years ago judges were given much more leniency on how to sentence a defendant based on the individual characteristics of their case. In order to combat organized crime however, sentencing guidelines were drastically reformed with stiff minimum sentences imposed for every crime.

A third factor could be decline of social stigmatization. Social consequences are often a powerful motivator, but as the number of people who can relate to inaction in times of crisis grows, the practice of socially shaming those individuals who choose to do nothing at all weakens.

The fourth factor of course is simple indifference. Some people just don't see it as being any of their business what is happening to someone else, or they just don't care. Still other more sociopathic people even seem to think suffering of random strangers is funny.

In summary I believe that the fear of the situation as well as fear of potential legal consequences are the two main reasons why otherwise good people may choose not to help their neighbors.

Vocab-
Sociopathic : of or relating to a sociopathic personality
Salvation: a means of preserving from harm or unpleasantness