Do modern "free" societies create cream puff citizens?
I was reading someone else's thread about their dealings with stupid people in the customer service industry. That made me think of customer service in other, less developed, countries. Speaking specifically of food, you pay money and you get what you get. If you don't like it, well don't come back there. There isn't any "oh well I didn't like it so I want something else instead at no extra charge" like in the US. People do that here because they are allowed to, and they are allowed to because everyone feels like they should be catered to.
I started to wonder if this feeling of entitlement was because of the amount of freedom US citizens enjoy and what "freedom" really means to US citizens. This "Land of the free" used to be called so because it was less restrictive with regards to religion and because common people had more of a say in the system that governed them. Nowadays it seems that "freedom" means doing anything that you feel is right, or having anything that you want. That, in my opinion, is how political correctness got started. Apparently included in this "freedom" and having everything that you want is the notion that no one is supposed to offend you at all, ever. So no one can can tell you that something is off limits unless it is really wrong like pedophilia or murder, and they cannot openly disagree with you're lifestyle or choices. It is like always giving a child what it wants (barring dangerous items). Eventually that child only wants more just for the sake of having more. The same is true of Americans and freedom (perhaps this is true in other developed countries as well). People are constantly coming up with more ridiculous (and sometimes perverse) things that they claim are an expression of their freedom.
Going back to the title of the thread though, I have wondered how US citizens would fare against less "free" (and therefore less spoiled and whiney) societies. If, say, North Korea successfully invaded the US (lets leave out military involvement) would its citizens be more or less likely to overpower US citizens? How about Iraqi citizens occupying US land? Would they be more likely to take over? I think that in both instances the foreign entity would prevail. Why? They are not pampered and spoonfed socially. They are more hardened (for lack of a better word). While US citizen would be saying "well its not fair that...." or "its not right...." the invading citizens would kick ass and ask questions later. Maybe it would be more fitting if is said that US citizens and Iraqi citizens were dumped on a deserted island. That takes all of the other variables out. I fully believe that the US citizens would be more caught up on what is "fair", "right" and on political correctness to have any type of edge over citizens from less developed countries.
I have a theory about this.
Want to hear it?
Sorry, too late to stop me now:
A "society" is not simply a mob of people who happen to live near each other, but rather a complex system of interactions between an immense number of people over a long period of time-- over generations-- these interactions governed by "social technology"-- a sort of intellectual software program that human beings developed over hundreds of generations, over tens of thousands of years of evolution.
It was thanks to this intellectual software that humans managed to get together in large numbers and cooperate to alter their environment, and insure their mutual safety and prosperity in a nasty, hostile world.
The basis of this program is an all-encompassing set of rules of personal and group behavior, which together make it possible for large numbers of people to work together without too much friction. Some of these rules are written down-- laws against murder, rape, robbery, etc.-- but the huge majority of the rules are simply understood among members of society, and are passed on from generation to generation under the guise of "manners," and "morals," and "common decency." Examples:
.....Don't lie.
.....Don't cheat.
.....Don't mess with someone else's woman/man.
.....If you don't work, don't expect to eat.
.....If you want respect, be respectable.
.....If you want dignified treatment, live with dignity.
.....You can have what you earn, you must earn what you get.
...And pages and pages, and volumes and volumes more of the same kind of hateful and reactionary and oppressive and old-fashioned thinking that modern and sophisticated people see right through.
What we call "political correctness" is a successful rebellion against the little, unwritten rules, a demand that select people be given special treatment, above and outside the standards of manners and morals that kept society together for a couple thousand generations. You might call it the "How Dare You" Revolution...
....."How dare you be offended by my offensive behavior, you BIGOT!"
....."How dare you deny me what I know I'm entitled to have for free, you FASCIST BASTARD!"
....."How dare you hit me back first, you NAZI!"
The essence of political correctness-- Hell, admit it, of what we call "modern society"-- is sophisticated, liberated, progressive hypocrites shitting all over the rules of common decency that built the society that sheltered them and fed them and allowed them to become the smug, degenerate asses they are.
And the problem this leaves "modern society" with is that there is no modern "society." Without universal acceptance and adherence, the little rules of society no longer work; and unless the little rules work ("play nice") the big rules ("don't murder," "don't steal") don't work either.
It's all broken, and we have no way to repair it. No way. None.
