Sense of Entitlement after SHTF [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Sense of Entitlement after SHTF


DaveG
04-06-2012, 21:05
I story on here by a fellow member got me thinking about the ice storm that hit the Midwest about 3 years ago. I heard about the chaos that was around me, like folks fighting over water and generators and more than a few gas stations running out of fuel. But... one, little incident hit home for me. My wife and I were able to get by without going out, pretty much during the whole BAD part of the weather which was about 5 days and we were without power for about 9 days. I was using my Surefire flashlight a lot during the dark and it's got a BRIGHT led light. (awesome light, btw) A neighbor 3 houses down who I'd never met, asks to use it because apparently, they don't have a single flashlight. I do the neighborly thing, but not wanting to hand my favorite light over to her, I go down the way and light up her garage for her so she can see, then go back home. She knocks and asks to use it again a short while later with her son, so rather than giving them my $100+ LED light to her I tell her that she can HAVE one of the cheap Rayovac's that I have laying around the house. She turns it on, see's that is not as bright and says exactly this... "This one ain't good, I need that one." I said that I needed it for my house, and her son said "for what?" I basically explained that it was... well... mine, and I'd like to keep it for my wife and I, but she could HAVE the other one, AND the extra D-cells too. Her son stared me down for a bit, and she said "hmmmpfff" and after both acting first confused and then angry that I wanted to keep my better light instead of the old one I gave them, they left without a Thank you. Small details project big problems for the future. I'll be keeping my eye on them next time.

G22Dude
04-06-2012, 21:18
You can't change human nature. Some people just need to be left to their own devices.

UneasyRider
04-06-2012, 21:19
I know the feeling and it's not just in an emergency (then it's worse) but all the time. I'm talking about loaning my neighbors tools. I used to do it freely but no more. My response now is to remind them of the specific tool of mine that they still have or ruined by leaving it outdoors. I have lived in the same house with the same neighbors so long that I know the ones who are going to treat my tools poorly, make me go ask to get them back or just plain still have them since they were a cheap tool.

In the case of your flashlight I would never give those people help again and since they have a teenager who could mess with your stuff I would make up some crazy story why I can't let them use it, like the batteries are almost dead and I am terrified to be in the dark, etc.

People are just amazing when it comes to other peoples stuff aren't they? Drives me crazy.

Aceman
04-06-2012, 21:21
I was ALMOST ready to give this thread a recommendation for "take this crap elsewhere"
But you raised a good point IMO.

This has nothing to do with "sense of entitlement" in the typical "gubment makes zombies" sense of things IMO (tell me if I'm wrong). It has to do with selfishness and laziness and short term thinking. That's a little different. That applies to working all the way up to bank CEO's. Just want to make things clear...

The REAL issue here is, and will always be, when SHTF, and the UNPREPARED come a calling, what will you do?

I have to say, I highly applaud your a) Willingness to help and b) sensibility to keep your hands on your gear! A perfectly played hand, if I must say so.

There is a fine line between making sure you and yours are protected and your gear is safe versus being a complete doosh to everyone and anyone around you.

Honestly, I am part of a community. I will likely need all of them to get by in a really serious or long term situation (at least some of them). Going around being a jerk is a fast ticket to be on the wrong end of a lot of unhappy people. Bad idea.

But at the end of the day, if you choose an Xbox over a three to five day supply of water or whatever, in an area where you are likely to need it...well, you made your choice.

But just because people need assistance and aren't long term thinkers, doesn't mean they are bad. However, the attitude of this woman appears to pretty poor.

You can write her off, or you can take the high road and explain the situation to her, and attempt to get her to be a little better prepared next time. And then, if she isn't interested, tell her "Sorry - I offered, you declined. Good luck" and do it with clear conscience.

Bolster
04-06-2012, 21:30
Wow, that story made me angry.

The most telling line was when the son says: “For what?” In other words, “We want/need the light more than you do, and there’s two of us and one of you, so your light is rightfully ours.”

Once socialism rots the boundaries of private property, then whatever you own belongs to the people who can make the best case for being needy victims, or better yet...intimidating needy victims.

Marx would have liked the story. “From each, according to his foresight, work, & preparations, to each, according to his ability in creating coalitions, playing the victim card, and sheer audacity.”

How much you wanna bet your flashlightless neighbors have an awesome flat panel TV?

UneasyRider
04-06-2012, 21:37
Wow, that story made me angry.

The most telling line was when the son says: “For what?” In other words, “We want/need the light more than you do, and there’s two of us and one of you, so your light is rightfully ours.”

Once socialism rots the boundaries of private property, then whatever you own belongs to the people who can make the best case for being needy victims, or better yet...intimidating needy victims.

Marx would have liked the story. “From each, according to his foresight, work, & preparations, to each, according to his ability in creating coalitions, playing the victim card, and sheer audacity.”

How much you wanna bet your flashlightless neighbors have an awesome flat panel TV?

The son got me too! What a world when people can't tell the difference between "yours" and "theirs".

We had a guy come to the door today and I was busy so my wife went to the window where we scope out the door (not the peep hole) and saw some guy we did not know who knocked instead of using the doorbell... she came back to me and reported that she did not let him in or let him know that we were home. Good training! No uniform AND labelled vehicle? No answer unless I am there with a weapon. I love my wife.

Bolster
04-06-2012, 21:42
Here's my report on a weirdly similar situation...albeit a training exercise rather than a weather event...but the details are much the same. I got mugged for my spare flashlight, with absolutely no appreciation.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1377675

G22Dude
04-06-2012, 21:45
The son got me too! What a world when people can't tell the difference between "yours" and "theirs".

We had a guy come to the door today and I was busy so my wife went to the window where we scope out the door (not the peep hole) and saw some guy we did not know who knocked instead of using the doorbell... she came back to me and reported that she did not let him in or let him know that we were home. Good training! No uniform AND labelled vehicle? No answer unless I am there with a weapon. I love my wife.

Hell if people could tell the difference between yours and theirs we wouldn't have so many criminals who come around and "liberate" your property with no regard for you rights.

I know that's not what you meant bro. But this whole story just ticked me off. I know too many people with this woman's poor attitude, and I know too many theives who would also take your stuff as if it really belonged to them. Dude sometimes people just annoy me

Bolster
04-06-2012, 22:01
I know too many people with this woman's poor attitude, and I know too many theives who would also take your stuff as if it really belonged to them.

They're known as Socialists. Or as Obama voters, same thing. 52.9% of the population in 2008.

G22Dude
04-06-2012, 22:06
They're known as Socialists. Or as Obama voters, same thing. 52.9% of the population in 2008.

Aint that the truth

kenpoprofessor
04-06-2012, 22:15
I can't believe how "nice" some of you people are. An offer was made, for her to take the cheap flashlight and batteries. If any complaint, offer would have been retracted and said persons sent on their way in the dark, no compassion for dushbags.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

G19freak
04-06-2012, 22:45
I think after the punk opened his trap--I would have recended any offers of help other than offering she'll need to gather 2 sticks and that she and the boy will have to rub them together to make light the old fashioned way.

Shinesintx
04-06-2012, 23:14
I honestly learned something from this thread. Gotta feeling that most of my neighbors are not prepared for anything.

kirgi08
04-07-2012, 01:08
Never/ever become indigent.'08.

you will be what the strong live on.

Javelin
04-07-2012, 01:14
http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/536140_287650297978390_100002002666152_671110_1349526557_n.jpg

Protus
04-07-2012, 04:59
I was ALMOST ready to give this thread a recommendation for "take this crap elsewhere"
But you raised a good point IMO.

This has nothing to do with "sense of entitlement" in the typical "gubment makes zombies" sense of things IMO (tell me if I'm wrong). It has to do with selfishness and laziness and short term thinking. That's a little different. That applies to working all the way up to bank CEO's. Just want to make things clear...

The REAL issue here is, and will always be, when SHTF, and the UNPREPARED come a calling, what will you do?

.

All the same. Your Xbox example is a perfect one. Except you could change it to vaction in Cabo,new truck, new boat. etc.

Entitlement runs deep and is an everyday issue not just a shtf one.It will just bring it to the surface on every level.
To many people these days have the mentality that what is yours is theirs. My job puts me smack dab in the middle of what true entitlement is. So maybe im jaded a tad. But when people dont have and you do , it creates an issue.
here's your free flash light glad i could help..." WHAT i cant have YOURS its better and bigger"
Anyone remember the black lady on the bridge during Katrina when she got her MREs
" These arent good enough to eat..."
1- you have zero food.
2- be thankful someone gave it to you
3- shut up and eat or die
4- i bet she ate it anyway but wanted to ***** and moan ( lot do this like a kid having a tantrum- thinking it will get them their way)

oh well. sorry i ranted.

The give me, out reached hand tantrum throwing way of thinking annoys the hell outta me.

Lowdown3
04-07-2012, 07:20
Good wake up call for folks.

Can you imagine having a boatload of people like that around you if something happened? :wow:

LongGun1
04-07-2012, 07:57
A neighbor 3 houses down who I'd never met, asks to use it because apparently, they don't have a single flashlight. I do the neighborly thing, but not wanting to hand my favorite light over to her, I go down the way and light up her garage for her so she can see, then go back home. She knocks and asks to use it again a short while later with her son, so rather than giving them my $100+ LED light to her I tell her that she can HAVE one of the cheap Rayovac's that I have laying around the house. She turns it on, see's that is not as bright and says exactly this... "This one ain't good, I need that one." I said that I needed it for my house, and her son said "for what?"


This is where I go from being the "nice neighbor" to their worst nightmare! I would have laughed out loud & long...while not taking my eyes off of them! When I stopped, I would state..

"Due to your unbelievable attitude & insolence concerning my generosity.....The offer of my assistance is rescinded...PERMANENTLY!"

"Ever heard of ....Beggars cannot be Choosers?"

"Leave RIGHT now & do not E-V-E-R trespass on my property again!"



My left side would be closest to him & my right hand would be resting on my holstered sidearm.....just in case!

I would stand at my doorway until they were back home..

..and make sure my wife & neighbors understood exactly what transpired!

Dexters
04-07-2012, 08:12
She knocks and asks to use it again a short while later with her son, so rather than giving them my $100+ LED light to her I tell her that she can HAVE one of the cheap Rayovac's that I have laying around the house. She turns it on, see's that is not as bright and says exactly this... "This one ain't good, I need that one." I said that I needed it for my house, and her son said "for what?" I basically explained that it was... well... mine, and I'd like to keep it for my wife and I, but she could HAVE the other one, AND the extra D-cells too. Her son stared me down for a bit, and she said "hmmmpfff" and after both acting first confused and then angry that I wanted to keep my better light instead of the old one I gave them, they left without a Thank you. Small details project big problems for the future. I'll be keeping my eye on them next time.

Here are a couple of thoughts for consideration.

1. How did they know you had a flashlight?

2. What kink of 'vibe' do you give off? Sometimes when people help other people they appear weak to the person that is being helped tries to take advantage of them.

3. Did you expose your preps? Did you allow the neighbors to see you were prepared?

4. If things did get worse I think the mother and son might have told others you have stuff and went over to your house to 'ask' for more.

5. This is how fires start. My guess is that if you didn't help the neighbor they might have used candles and might have started a fire.

6. No good deed goes unpunished.

7. It is difficult to say no or know when or how to stop helping.

DaveG
04-07-2012, 09:00
Here are a couple of thoughts for consideration.

1. How did they know you had a flashlight?

2. What kink of 'vibe' do you give off? Sometimes when people help other people they appear weak to the person that is being helped tries to take advantage of them.

3. Did you expose your preps? Did you allow the neighbors to see you were prepared?

4. If things did get worse I think the mother and son might have told others you have stuff and went over to your house to 'ask' for more.

5. This is how fires start. My guess is that if you didn't help the neighbor they might have used candles and might have started a fire.

6. No good deed goes unpunished.

7. It is difficult to say no or know when or how to stop helping.

1. It is like 200 lumens, so it's really bright and they saw me using it outside and came over... maybe in the future I should "pretend" that I only have the crappy ones and use the good one where it can't be seen.

2. I am a pretty big, still relatively young guy. I do not think I give off the "chump" sort of vibe, but who knows...

3. Nope

4. To a certain extent, I am well prepared... and if largely outnumbered... truck full of gas and bug out plan...

5. They had candles too... yep... no fire luckily. They probably would have asked for my house... lol

6. I agree

7. I agree... and it's tough when you finally have to say "no"

arclight610
04-07-2012, 10:04
You did good. I would have told the punk that I'd break his ****ing face in if he kept staring at me.

Stevekozak
04-07-2012, 10:22
She turns it on, see's that is not as bright and says exactly this... "This one ain't good, I need that one." I said that I needed it for my house, and her son said "for what?" .
Should have smacked him in the head with it and said "for this", and closed the door in their faces. :wavey:

Hummer
04-07-2012, 10:57
It is a revealing story of human nature. It's common mistake to believe that others have similar values and think the same way we do. Had I been offered a flashlight and extra batteries I would have been grateful enough to later return them with fresh batteries, thereby keeping good relations and the possibility of help in the future if needed.

My guess is that the mother and son never bothered to return the flashlight, even though it was given to them. Do you suppose they were also renters? (Not to paint with a wide brush here.) Some people live their lives for nothing more than immediate gratification, never investing in anything.

Akita
04-07-2012, 14:04
I can't believe how "nice" some of you people are. An offer was made, for her to take the cheap flashlight and batteries. If any complaint, offer would have been retracted and said persons sent on their way in the dark, no compassion for dushbags.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

I'm with Clyde.
Also, you just had 2 new volunteers for your list.

kenpoprofessor
04-07-2012, 14:07
I'm with Clyde.
Also, you just had 2 new volunteers for your list.



:wavey::supergrin:

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

DaveG
04-07-2012, 14:32
I'm with Clyde.
Also, you just had 2 new volunteers for your list.

This is not the first time that being "nice" and not following my instincts may have gotten me in a spot I didn't want to be. You guys may be right. What does "2 new volunteers" mean?

Bolster
04-07-2012, 15:19
Here's a trick I've used to good effect with panhandlers. Maybe it would work in this situation too.

At the point you've given your spare flashlight away, you immediately make a counter-request of greater value: "I am really light on funds this month, can you spare me $100?" Then keep making your request over and over. "I really need $100, do you have any cash?" Suddenly the shoe is on the other foot. When they say no, you can challenge them: "What do you need your cash for?"

This works great for me with panhandlers. They slide up and say, "Hey buddy can you spare $5? See, I have this problem...blah blah blah" and I say, "I was just going to ask you the same question! I need to fill my gas tank to get home, do YOU have any spare cash you could give me?" Generally they reverse engines quickly and make tracks away. You always have the option of hectoring them for not being generous, if you like: "Hey! I asked you politely, and now you're treating me like some homeless person! Hey! You need to spread the wealth around!"

The trick here is to appear angry and entitled. Like the other person is offending your morality by not giving you what you ask for.

lawman800
04-08-2012, 01:10
I get that everyday and it's not SHTF. I was with my friends at dinner tonight. I was waiting out front, he went inside to get a number. On the way out, he opened the door and some people walked in while he was holding it and didn't say thanks. He was like whatever. I didn't pay it any attention.

Later, when I walked in, I pulled the door open and was ready to walk in, 4 people walked out, blocking me and made me back off to the side while they all exited... none looked me in the eye, none said thanks.

I was like... whatever happened to common courtesy with each other?

In the OP's scenario, I would not even bother to justify myself. I hate it when people talk to you and make you defend your decision to have YOUR stuff... which also happens very commonly when someone borrows your money and you have to ask for it back by explaining how you are short or you need YOUR money back for whatever reason. It's your money, why do you feel the need to justify why you need it back? Makes no sense.

Lowdown3
04-08-2012, 06:52
Be the FIRST TO ASK.

Just like with your loser friend that is always asking you for $50. on Wednesday to tie him over till payday on Friday. You just KNOW when you see him that he is GOING to ask you to bum a couple bucks till Friday.

So next time when you first see him you start off with a 2 minute tirade about how rough times are now, all your bills, and then immediately- without stopping- you ask HIM for $50. till Friday.

Do it the following week until he stops. Eventually he'll stop talking to you.

Similar concept.

I talked 15 years ago about having a hand painted sign- "will trade firewood for food" outside your gate next to a measelely looking pile of sticks (the firewood).

Then if someone asks, the VERY FIRST YOU SAY is "do you know where I can get some food? You need any firewood? Got any food?"

This is where the people that think they will be the "hero of their subdivision" are going to get tripped up. Cause they want the perceived power of doling out stuff. But it's not really power.... This is why you see the chest thumping posts with crap like "they'll have to haul all the manure out of my chicken pen, till the garden by hand and chop me 10 cords of wood for 2 mouthfulls of rice" type ridiculous statements on the net.

We have to understand human nature if we are going to survive. In today's world, people resent ANYONE they think has more than they do. Don't kid yourself on this. Look at all the people that brag on the quantities of their preps on forums. A few suck up to them but overall, everyone hates them. That's human nature, people envy what others have.

So by all means if you are lead to help others, help them, but help them in a way that security comes first and charity second.

But DO NOT expect that handing out a bucket of rice, can of beans, etc. is going to win you friends and allies. Maybe two hundred years ago when everyone knew suffering and doing without. NOT TODAY. Today you would just be CONFIRMING YOURSELF AS A TARGET.

And as such- if you give out stuff you will appear weak to them.

If you act a hardarse, then you give them justification to steal from you, to see you "fall on a knife 18 times backwards" etc.

This is why the idea of being the only prepared person around countless unprepared people won't work.

Lowdown3

UneasyRider
04-08-2012, 07:36
I get that everyday and it's not SHTF. I was with my friends at dinner tonight. I was waiting out front, he went inside to get a number. On the way out, he opened the door and some people walked in while he was holding it and didn't say thanks. He was like whatever. I didn't pay it any attention.

Later, when I walked in, I pulled the door open and was ready to walk in, 4 people walked out, blocking me and made me back off to the side while they all exited... none looked me in the eye, none said thanks.

I was like... whatever happened to common courtesy with each other?

In the OP's scenario, I would not even bother to justify myself. I hate it when people talk to you and make you defend your decision to have YOUR stuff... which also happens very commonly when someone borrows your money and you have to ask for it back by explaining how you are short or you need YOUR money back for whatever reason. It's your money, why do you feel the need to justify why you need it back? Makes no sense.

That is my pet peeve! My wife and I always talk about this and it really ticks us off. She is a school teacher and always has her students hold the door for the next one in line and say please and thankyou. Then we go out to eat at decent place and while I am holding the door for 4 people behind me and they don't even make eye contact with me.

After reading this thread I told my wife that from now on I am going to ask the ones who don't say thanks for $5, loudly and persistantly. If they ask why it's "Come on... I held the door open for you... you tip doormen don't you? Are you to cheap to tip the doorman?" I'll stay with it until I get my $5 or until they give up but I'll make sure that they know it's because they didn't say thanks and I want my $5!

OP I learned a lot in this thread, mostly that we have to find a way to judge who will appreciate our help and start with them. The people who won't appreciate our help are technically beggars and we should treat them accordingly. If there is anything left over after the harvest, it's available for charity.

DustyJacket
04-08-2012, 08:30
.. An offer was made, for her to take the cheap flashlight and batteries. If any complaint, offer would have been retracted and said persons sent on their way in the dark, no compassion for dushbags...

I feel exactly the same way.
And I would offer no explanations why I want to keep my stuff.

Bolster
04-08-2012, 08:42
DO NOT expect that handing out a bucket of rice, can of beans, etc. is going to win you friends and allies.

Agree with your post, but this point here actually depends on how it's done. What you want to build is a "web of reciprocity," if possible, with responsible people. Giving too much, and not taking in return, leads to resentment. But giving and taking and giving and taking is the model that leads to a stable relationship. So my advice is, if you think the relationship is worthwhile, and you give something, be sure to ask for something in exchange of roughly equivalent value. Then you aren't the "evil benefactor," you are merely engaging in mutually beneficial trade.

For the OP, sounds like any sort of relationship with the flashlight stealers would not be beneficial. But there will be other neighbors that are worth helping...and who will help you out in return.

pugman
04-08-2012, 10:14
They're known as Socialists. Or as Obama voters, same thing. 52.9% of the population in 2008.

This would be 52% of voters....

I think Wisconsin's upcoming Governor recall vote will help set the tone not only for this state but the nation.

In 2008, Wisconsin went blue but voted in a Republican Governor who the very Democratic public worker's union is desperately trying to get recalled.

Let's be honest - a lot of s*** has happened in the past 4 years.

If the recall is successful I give up all hope for this country. Walker basically eliminated a nearly $4 billion deficit by asking union workers after how many decades to pay 25% of their own medical and pension benefits. Ironically, these people are too stupid to realize without this contribution the state may very well not exist financially to meet this obligation in 30 years. While some people call this tinfoil hat thinking when 75-80% of a state's budget solely goes to pay for its staff (who make up less than 6% of the state's population) and not buildings, computers, equipment, etc something is wrong.

To put this into perspective, I work for a Fortune 50 health insurance company - by law 85% of our premiums need to go to pay for health claims. So where we get 15% of revenue to pay for salaries AND computers, buildings, etc state agencies get upwards of 80% to pay for salaries alone.

Puts credence in the fact the average Wisconsin state employee salary and benefits package ($53703 PLUS $18000 in benefits) is double the average public sector's

If Walker loses the recall vote - Wisconsin will once again go blue

Dexters
04-08-2012, 10:37
I think Wisconsin's upcoming Governor recall vote will help set the tone not only for this state but the nation.



Good points.

I would add the Supreme court vote on Obamacare.

OK - the slide into oblivion happens fastest

Cancels some provisions - slide fast

Cancels all - slide slowed but not by much. 15T deficit and growing is the sword over all our heads.

Lowdown3
04-08-2012, 13:04
Agree with your post, but this point here actually depends on how it's done. What you want to build is a "web of reciprocity," if possible, with responsible people. Giving too much, and not taking in return, leads to resentment. But giving and taking and giving and taking is the model that leads to a stable relationship. So my advice is, if you think the relationship is worthwhile, and you give something, be sure to ask for something in exchange of roughly equivalent value. Then you aren't the "evil benefactor," you are merely engaging in mutually beneficial trade.

For the OP, sounds like any sort of relationship with the flashlight stealers would not be beneficial. But there will be other neighbors that are worth helping...and who will help you out in return.

That was kinda what I was envisioning when I mentioned that- we call them "Takers." It's all about them, they are the usual people out there now.

Yes sometimes little "gifts" can be helpful to the right people. These are NOT the "right people" that we are talking about though :)

racerford
04-08-2012, 22:05
........We have to understand human nature if we are going to survive. In today's world, people resent ANYONE they think has more than they do. Don't kid yourself on this. Look at all the people that brag on the quantities of their preps on forums. A few suck up to them but overall, everyone hates them. That's human nature, people envy what others have.

..........

Lowdown3

I think you are doing a bit of projecting, or over generalization.

I don't resent people that have more than I do. I am part of the 2% and I know what it takes to get there. It involves a lot of work and/or sacrifices for the vast majority of those that get there. I could probably climb higher up the chain, but I chose not to continue to make the sacrifices to to do it.

There are people on here that have a LOT more preps than I do. I don't hate them. I don't envy them. Some I admire for what they have accomplished. Others I shake my head, and say, I would not have made the choices they did. I would not have made the sacrifices they did, to prepare for some of the least likely to occur things, versus the some of the much more likely things (retirement?). But perhaps they know they won't live to retirement so they are preparing, so that their family to be prepared to live on after their death.

We all live our lives and make our choices. I admire those that worked for their success, I have no ppity for those that choose not to take action they are capable of to get our of their situation. I do pity the those that end up in bad situations through no real fault of their own.

Luck goes to the prepared.

lawman800
04-09-2012, 00:13
That is my pet peeve! My wife and I always talk about this and it really ticks us off. She is a school teacher and always has her students hold the door for the next one in line and say please and thankyou. Then we go out to eat at decent place and while I am holding the door for 4 people behind me and they don't even make eye contact with me.

After reading this thread I told my wife that from now on I am going to ask the ones who don't say thanks for $5, loudly and persistantly. If they ask why it's "Come on... I held the door open for you... you tip doormen don't you? Are you to cheap to tip the doorman?" I'll stay with it until I get my $5 or until they give up but I'll make sure that they know it's because they didn't say thanks and I want my $5!

OP I learned a lot in this thread, mostly that we have to find a way to judge who will appreciate our help and start with them. The people who won't appreciate our help are technically beggars and we should treat them accordingly. If there is anything left over after the harvest, it's available for charity.

It's one thing to willfully hold the door open for someone. If I do that, then it's my call and I am doing it for a stranger, usually a lady or the elderly and if I get a thanks, great, if not, then whatever, I took it on myself.

In this situation, we were opening the door for ourselves and these people just bum-rushed the door while we were opening it so we had to literally move out of the way and wait for them to go through and none of them looked me or my friend in the eye and said a word. I would rather they give me a dirty look and flipped me off, at least that shows they know I am alive.

TangoFoxtrot
04-09-2012, 05:03
I story on here by a fellow member got me thinking about the ice storm that hit the Midwest about 3 years ago. I heard about the chaos that was around me, like folks fighting over water and generators and more than a few gas stations running out of fuel. But... one, little incident hit home for me. My wife and I were able to get by without going out, pretty much during the whole BAD part of the weather which was about 5 days and we were without power for about 9 days. I was using my Surefire flashlight a lot during the dark and it's got a BRIGHT led light. (awesome light, btw) A neighbor 3 houses down who I'd never met, asks to use it because apparently, they don't have a single flashlight. I do the neighborly thing, but not wanting to hand my favorite light over to her, I go down the way and light up her garage for her so she can see, then go back home. She knocks and asks to use it again a short while later with her son, so rather than giving them my $100+ LED light to her I tell her that she can HAVE one of the cheap Rayovac's that I have laying around the house. She turns it on, see's that is not as bright and says exactly this... "This one ain't good, I need that one." I said that I needed it for my house, and her son said "for what?" I basically explained that it was... well... mine, and I'd like to keep it for my wife and I, but she could HAVE the other one, AND the extra D-cells too. Her son stared me down for a bit, and she said "hmmmpfff" and after both acting first confused and then angry that I wanted to keep my better light instead of the old one I gave them, they left without a Thank you. Small details project big problems for the future. I'll be keeping my eye on them next time.

As soon as they copped an attitude about the flashlight I would have told them they should have been prepared and then my next words would have been " **** off!! First of all you put yourself in a bad position to leave your home and go down to their location. I hope you were armed. Secondly look out for number one if they don't have assets to share..shame on them.

cowboywannabe
04-09-2012, 05:05
a leach can not help but to be a leach.

Dexters
04-09-2012, 06:18
I think you are doing a bit of projecting, or over generalization.

I don't resent people that have more than I do. I am part of the 2% and I know what it takes to get there. It involves a lot of work and/or sacrifices for the vast majority of those that get there. I could probably climb higher up the chain, but I chose not to continue to make the sacrifices to to do it.

There are people on here that have a LOT more preps than I do. I don't hate them. I don't envy them. Some I admire for what they have accomplished. Others I shake my head, and say, I would not have made the choices they did. I would not have made the sacrifices they did, to prepare for some of the least likely to occur things, versus the some of the much more likely things (retirement?). But perhaps they know they won't live to retirement so they are preparing, so that their family to be prepared to live on after their death.

We all live our lives and make our choices. I admire those that worked for their success, I have no ppity for those that choose not to take action they are capable of to get our of their situation. I do pity the those that end up in bad situations through no real fault of their own.

Luck goes to the prepared.

Your first sentence applies to you also "(I think you are doing a bit of projecting, or over generalization.")

That you think that way does not mean that a significant number of people do also. I think many on this forum would hold your opinion but only a small percentage in the general population.

In the USA, immediate gratification rules. Shows like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars re-enforce that everyone's opinion counts - even if they do not know anything about the subject.

I've read similar posts as yours before - first person projections. I'm guessing that if a person can post one contrary opinion they think it negates the op's premise - it does not. The key factor is if a significant number of people hold that opinion.

I agree with Lowdown3 about understanding human nature and the point he mentioned is one among many.

jason10mm
04-09-2012, 08:20
I like the idea of offering to SELL the flashlight to make them reorganize their priorities.

I firmly believe there are a group of people that have intimidation so deeply ingrained into their psyche that they have ZERO qualms or sense of shame about "asking" total strangers for stuff. They know that a hint of confrontation is uncomfortable to many folks and that they can be "bribed" to go away. So they drift through life with little future preparation secure in the knowledge that they can get what they need from others around them.

The problem is that just turning these folk away can cause problems as well, they can retaliate in a hundred small ways that generate endless grief for folks like us, but our internal sense of honor prevents us from striking back without direct confirmation.

But we hate to think of ourselves as push-overs, so capitulation is also not the answer, besides it just encourages repeat business. So turning the tables by asking for something in return seems to be a good way to avoid having to give something away (or at the very least you are getting compensated for it) but not creating as much resentment as just denying the request.

lawman800
04-09-2012, 09:02
I see that a lot nowadays. Youths just straight up ask you for money and not say why. Not in a mean or aggressive robbery type of way but just straight up ask as if they know you. Asking for something in return might be the ticket.

racerford
04-09-2012, 09:05
Your first sentence applies to you also "(I think you are doing a bit of projecting, or over generalization.")

That you think that way does not mean that a significant number of people do also. I think many on this forum would hold your opinion but only a small percentage in the general population.

In the USA, immediate gratification rules. Shows like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars re-enforce that everyone's opinion counts - even if they do not know anything about the subject.

I've read similar posts as yours before - first person projections. I'm guessing that if a person can post one contrary opinion they think it negates the op's premise - it does not. The key factor is if a significant number of people hold that opinion.

I agree with Lowdown3 about understanding human nature and the point he mentioned is one among many.

Lowdown 3 used the phrase "people resent ANYONE they think has more than they do" That is an all inclusive state,ment. It is on its face a false statement if even one person does not resent everyone that has more.

He also said "A few suck up to them but overall, everyone hates them." The bolding is mine. Again an absolute statement that is false. He has shown animosity towards at least one person that has a lot of preps. Just because he feels that way does not mean EVERYONE else does.

If someone is going to use absolutes, they should use them carefully, and in the correct circumstances. This was not one of those circumstances.

It is not that a significant number, or a majority, or even most don't feel that way, but EVERYONE does not. It is that absolute that makes it a projection (Lowdown3 feels that way so EVERYONE does) or an over-generalization (using EVERYONE when you mean many, most, or almost all).

I notice that you were careful not to use absolutes, bravo.
Lowndown3 should have done the same thing, so as to not negate his premise.

I did not project, I spoke for myself. You should note that repeatedly used the pronoun "I". I never said a significant number of people felt the way I did, only that I did. You on the other heand suggestted that maybe many on this board did. Since the audience of Lowdown3's post are the readers of this board he should taken them into account in his statements One should consider their audience in their communication.

I hope you have a great day.

Dexters
04-09-2012, 09:13
Lowdown 3 used the phrase "people resent ANYONE they think has more than they do" That is an all inclusive state,ment. It is on its face a false statement if even one person does not resent everyone that has more.

He also said "A few suck up to them but overall, everyone hates them." The bolding is mine. Again an absolute statement that is false. He has shown animosity towards at least one person that has a lot of preps. Just because he feels that way does not mean EVERYONE else does.

If someone is going to use absolutes, they should use them carefully, and in the correct circumstances. This was not one of those circumstances.

It is not that a significant number, or a majority, or even most don't feel that way, but EVERYONE does not. It is that absolute that makes it a projection (Lowdown3 feels that way so EVERYONE does) or an over-generalization (using EVERYONE when you mean many, most, or almost all).

I notice that you were careful not to use absolutes, bravo.
Lowndown3 should have done the same thing, so as to not negate his premise.

I did not project, I spoke for myself. You should note that repeatedly used the pronoun "I". I never said a significant number of people felt the way I did, only that I did. You on the other heand suggestted that maybe many on this board did. Since the audience of Lowdown3's post are the readers of this board he should taken them into account in his statements One should consider their audience in their communication.

I hope you have a great day.

"Absolutes" seriously.

You are proved my point.




I've read similar posts as yours before - first person projections. I'm guessing that if a person can post one contrary opinion they think it negates the op's premise - it does not. The key factor is if a significant number of people hold that opinion.



Obviously, you didn't understand the above at all.

racerford
04-09-2012, 09:26
"Absolutes" seriously.

You are proved my point.



Obviously, you didn't understand the above at all.

I understand the English language. I guess you don't.

One cannot project one's feelings onto others when they use the pronoun I. "I" means you are speaking for yourself.

You seem to be upset that people expect others to not to claim to speak for EVERYONE.

He seems think he his speaking for everyone. You seem to be trying to defend him. You have failed. You have been shown to be wrong and yet you still assert that you are right.

You should let him speak for himself, unless you are saying you are him posting under another name.

Have a great day.

NecoDude
04-09-2012, 09:32
Good post that really illustrates the potential for aggravation in trying to do a neighborly deed. People that feel entitled really pith me off, there has always been these types of people but I think they've grown exponentially in the last 10 years.

I think it's basically true that if you offer to help someone you are perceived as weaker, I'm not a tough guy but the post illustrates that we all might need to be hard cases when the SHTF. Or at least be very selective in our offers of help. Something to ponder for sure.

Bolster
04-09-2012, 10:17
...they've grown exponentially in the last 10 years...

Past three, for sure. You can't keep pushing socialism from the top, and expect the bottom to respect property rights. Boiled down to its essence, socialism is the thievery of all by all. They see society as "unfair" until everyone's reduced to the lowest common denominator.

"When nobody has any flashlights, we'll all be happy."

sebecman
04-09-2012, 10:54
I story on here by a fellow member got me thinking about the ice storm that hit the Midwest about 3 years ago. I heard about the chaos that was around me, like folks fighting over water and generators and more than a few gas stations running out of fuel. But... one, little incident hit home for me. My wife and I were able to get by without going out, pretty much during the whole BAD part of the weather which was about 5 days and we were without power for about 9 days. I was using my Surefire flashlight a lot during the dark and it's got a BRIGHT led light. (awesome light, btw) A neighbor 3 houses down who I'd never met, asks to use it because apparently, they don't have a single flashlight. I do the neighborly thing, but not wanting to hand my favorite light over to her, I go down the way and light up her garage for her so she can see, then go back home. She knocks and asks to use it again a short while later with her son, so rather than giving them my $100+ LED light to her I tell her that she can HAVE one of the cheap Rayovac's that I have laying around the house. She turns it on, see's that is not as bright and says exactly this... "This one ain't good, I need that one." I said that I needed it for my house, and her son said "for what?" I basically explained that it was... well... mine, and I'd like to keep it for my wife and I, but she could HAVE the other one, AND the extra D-cells too. Her son stared me down for a bit, and she said "hmmmpfff" and after both acting first confused and then angry that I wanted to keep my better light instead of the old one I gave them, they left without a Thank you. Small details project big problems for the future. I'll be keeping my eye on them next time.

I LOL'd.

She comes from 3 houses down to "borrow" your surefire? Surely you knew her beforehand?

What she didn't even have a car she could start and turn the headlights on to see her garage?

Kieller
04-09-2012, 11:20
Unfortunately I have the feeling that several of my neighbors would be the same as those in your post OP. Maybe not with a flashlight but with other items.

I think you handled the situation well and I can't say that I would have done really any any different.

I think a lot of folks are coming to the mindset of jealousy or hate for those that have things they don't, but not everyone. Personally I like talking with those that have something(s) I want so I can figure out how they got there, what they like about it...etc...

I know there are folks on this board that know more than I do or have much more than I do. That doesn't mean I am jealous/angry at them, it just means I want to learn from them. :supergrin:

wjv
04-09-2012, 11:43
All your flashlight are belong to us

Chindo18Z
04-09-2012, 11:56
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4855757403326790&pid=1.4&pid=1.4

"Jabba has no use for Preppers who drop their flashlights at the first sign of an Imperial cruiser. What have you in trade for the Surefire?"

Lowdown3
04-09-2012, 12:58
Lowdown 3 used the phrase "people resent ANYONE they think has more than they do" That is an all inclusive state,ment. It is on its face a false statement if even one person does not resent everyone that has more.

He also said "A few suck up to them but overall, everyone hates them." The bolding is mine. Again an absolute statement that is false. He has shown animosity towards at least one person that has a lot of preps

If someone is going to use absolutes, they should use them carefully, and in the correct circumstances. This was not one of those circumstances.

It is not that a significant number, or a majority, or even most don't feel that way, but EVERYONE does not. It is that absolute that makes it a projection (Lowdown3 feels that way so EVERYONE does) or an over-generalization (using EVERYONE when you mean many, most, or almost all).

I notice that you were careful not to use absolutes, bravo.
Lowndown3 should have done the same thing, so as to not negate his premise.

I did not project, I spoke for myself. You should note that repeatedly used the pronoun "I". I never said a significant number of people felt the way I did, only that I did. You on the other heand suggestted that maybe many on this board did. Since the audience of Lowdown3's post are the readers of this board he should taken them into account in his statements One should consider their audience in their communication.

I hope you have a great day.

Thank you for the grammar lesson, my apologies. Only got a "C" in Creative Writing and Comp classes, my apologies.

Sorry for the absoluteness of my statements. I'm sure their are some (hope you don't have a problem with the use of that word also) that defy human nature.

Again I would say the point of the OP was NOT discussing "people here" or even like minded people- although you interact with enough of them you WILL find that attitude also, but the OP was talking about sheeple, specifically "takers."

Just because he feels that way does not mean EVERYONE else does.

Now I think YOU are making assumptions with this. I recognize HUMAN NATURE- the general concept I was discussing. But for you to say "I" feel that way is a stretch also. See I can split hairs also.

So anyways, back to the subject at hand ;)

Dexters
04-09-2012, 13:18
Sorry for the absoluteness of my statements. I'm sure their are some (hope you don't have a problem with the use of that word also) that defy human nature.



Just use the words 'many people' instead of everyone and people such as racerford won't have (much of) anything to say.

wjv
04-09-2012, 14:32
Reading this “entitlement” thread and the “bully” thread started me thinking about how we have all of these systems set in place in today’s society to deal with (or interfere with) every stupid issue that comes along.

So while I personally don’t think that we will deteriorate into a Mad Max scenario unless we get hit by a big a** meteorite or a pandemic, If something did happen that cause a major government services disruption, I have to wonder how most people would cope without big brother/sister “watching out” for them. .

Meaning, what if:

- The courts
- Unions and Union grievance processes
- Affirmative action laws
- Equal employment/rights laws
- Social services
- Handicap laws
- Public Defenders
- Miranda
- I'm "offended" commissions/laws

And such, all went away overnight.

I’m not talking about welfare and handouts, but more about that fact that most people seem incapable of resolving issues without the help of the government. 30 years ago if your kid got in a fight with another kid at school, both kids would have just got a hard whack on the a** and sent home with a detention. Today we need the police, courts, social services and psychologist to all get involved.

I just have to wonder how many people would mentally be unable to cope with a disaster of continental or global scope, once they realize that there is no government left to step in and solve their problems.

Add in how many millions and millions of people are on medicines for perceived psychological issues such as depression or stress and wonder how those people would be able to cope if the was a major SHTF. note: yes I realize that there are many people with GENUINE issues who require such medicines, but anyone who looks at the numbers honestly realizes that a huge number of people are on such meds because they simply makes life “easier” to deal with. .

How many will sit and wait for someone to come along and help them?
How many will become predators?
How many will actually use their brain and start solving problems for themselves?

lawman800
04-09-2012, 14:42
Most people nowadays in America would not be able to operate without all the social safety nets.

Donn57
04-09-2012, 14:56
They're known as Socialists. Or as Obama voters, same thing. 52.9% of the population in 2008.

Well, not really. That was 52.9% of just those that actually voted which was only 56.8% of those eligible to vote. In 2008, about 236M people were voting age. Of those 236M only 132M people voted. Of those, 52.9% or about 69M voted for Obama.

lawman800
04-09-2012, 18:30
It also wasn't the landslide that Dems said it was. Reagan won by a landslide. Obama didn't.

racerford
04-10-2012, 13:48
Thank you for the grammar lesson, my apologies. Only got a "C" in Creative Writing and Comp classes, my apologies.

Sorry for the absoluteness of my statements. I'm sure their are some (hope you don't have a problem with the use of that word also) that defy human nature.

Again I would say the point of the OP was NOT discussing "people here" or even like minded people- although you interact with enough of them you WILL find that attitude also, but the OP was talking about sheeple, specifically "takers."



Now I think YOU are making assumptions with this. I recognize HUMAN NATURE- the general concept I was discussing. But for you to say "I" feel that way is a stretch also. See I can split hairs also.

So anyways, back to the subject at hand ;)

Thank you for clarifying your statements. I do not like being included in amoung unsavory people, without my choosing to do so.

My experience tells me more than a few people feel this entitlement. I would say it is a lot of people numerically, but maybe not the majority. I like to be optimistic.

You are right I assumed you felt that way, if not I apoligize. I assumed it because you made the statement, and did not qualify it with some, many, most people feel this way. This would have converted it to more of a 2nd or third person group that may not have included you. However, since you included the word "everyone" that is an all inclusive group that would include you. Since it was an all inclusive and you stated it, one would be correct to assume you felt that way since you made the statement all inclusive.

I am not the only one that took the statements the way I did (see above) so it is good that you clarified.

Stevekozak
04-11-2012, 05:55
Reading this “entitlement” thread and the “bully” thread started me thinking about how we have all of these systems set in place in today’s society to deal with (or interfere with) every stupid issue that comes along.

So while I personally don’t think that we will deteriorate into a Mad Max scenario unless we get hit by a big a** meteorite or a pandemic, If something did happen that cause a major government services disruption, I have to wonder how most people would cope without big brother/sister “watching out” for them. .

Meaning, what if:

- The courts
- Unions and Union grievance processes
- Affirmative action laws
- Equal employment/rights laws
- Social services
- Handicap laws
- Public Defenders
- Miranda
- I'm "offended" commissions/laws

And such, all went away overnight.

I’m not talking about welfare and handouts, but more about that fact that most people seem incapable of resolving issues without the help of the government. 30 years ago if your kid got in a fight with another kid at school, both kids would have just got a hard whack on the a** and sent home with a detention. Today we need the police, courts, social services and psychologist to all get involved.

I just have to wonder how many people would mentally be unable to cope with a disaster of continental or global scope, once they realize that there is no government left to step in and solve their problems.

Add in how many millions and millions of people are on medicines for perceived psychological issues such as depression or stress and wonder how those people would be able to cope if the was a major SHTF. note: yes I realize that there are many people with GENUINE issues who require such medicines, but anyone who looks at the numbers honestly realizes that a huge number of people are on such meds because they simply makes life “easier” to deal with. .

How many will sit and wait for someone to come along and help them?
How many will become predators?
How many will actually use their brain and start solving problems for themselves?
Good post!

Lowdown3
04-11-2012, 06:57
(Bell rings) "Grammar lesson is over now children. Let's get back to Psychology." ;)

HexHead
04-11-2012, 07:04
Practice saying "Sucks to be you" and closing the door.

TangoFoxtrot
04-13-2012, 05:05
Most people nowadays in America would not be able to operate without all the social safety nets.

What? Are you kidding me? :upeyes: Most people go to work everyday and work hard for lower wages to support their families. Its a small percentage that don't want to work and leach on the sytem. They live better than those who actually work.

thesurefire
04-13-2012, 09:04
What? Are you kidding me? :upeyes: Most people go to work everyday and work hard for lower wages to support their families. Its a small percentage that don't want to work and leach on the sytem. They live better than those who actually work.

The problem is that small number is growing. I honestly do believe some people should get welfare, injured vets for example. I don't believe it should be a permanent way of life for more than .001% of the population.

The issue is it used to be 1% leeched off the other 99, then 2, 3, ect but now realistically its about 15% leech in some direct way. Thats not counting the millions of illegals, uninsured and such. The problem is moving in that direction the strain on the workers is that much greater, with less of them to contribute.

All else being equal, moving from say 3% of your population on welfare to 12% means the average strain per worker increased by 4 times while also the amount contributing dropped by 9%, which make the total figure about a 4.4 fold increase. For someone making 50k a year that means they're asked to go from contributing ~100 dollars a month to about 440. That's 340 dollars every single month that is taken from you and given to someone else at no cost. That is pure and simple wealth redistribution. These numbers should scare you.

In a SHTFS of dire circumstance, I think the numbers would continue to skyrocket.

All the people that are saying they arnt jealous of those who have more than they do fail to take into account that they've eaten many, many more than 10 meals in the last month. Go for a month not being able to find food to eat with frequency and see how you feel. Now take into account you started out firmly rooted in the side of "I'm not jealous of others stuff" and most people will start somewhere near the middle.

Our genes are basically a code to survive and replicate. Like it or not it's human nature to try to get a little bit more than the next guy. For anyone with multiple children similar in age, look at them. You tell them they each get one piece of cake, while in the age before they realize the cake will still be there later, both siblings say its unfair because the other one got more.

Of course in simple, pretty meaningless circumstances you can easily brush it off. And pre-SHTF most of what we encounter is simple meaningless circumstances. Examples like those posted in this thread show just how dangerous the entitlement mentality has the potential to be.

ArmoryDoc
04-13-2012, 09:41
"Anyone" who is without the basic necessities, or feels threatened to be without those basic necessities, can become desperate and lose civility very quickly. Entitlement is tied directly with basic needs, or what one percieves to be important to them for survival (or comfort).

Whether people want to admit it of not, most people draw a "needs foundation" at what their daily lifestyle consists of. Start quickly removing these amenities and civility can deteriorate at lightening speed.

You'll see the ugly side of people when this happens. Don't let it suprise you.

fletch_man
04-13-2012, 10:46
"Anyone" who is without the basic necessities, or feels threatened to be without those basic necessities, can become desperate and lose civility very quickly. Entitlement is tied directly with basic needs, or what one percieves to be important to them for survival (or comfort).

Whether people want to admit it of not, most people draw a "needs foundation" at what their daily lifestyle consists of. Start quickly removing these amenities and civility can deteriorate at lightening speed.

You'll see the ugly side of people when this happens. Don't let it suprise you.

This is absolutely the finest post on this thread. This is the absolute truth. Well spoken Sir. And the sad thing is, we'll all probably get to see it happen. I tell people if you want to see what Armageddon looks like, watch all the old news reports from "Katrina". Thanks again, Sir.

Bolster
04-13-2012, 11:11
Entitlement is tied directly with basic needs, or what one percieves to be important to them for survival (or comfort).

I take your point but I'd respectfully disagree.

The issue of entitlement derives from the psychological variable called "relative deprivation."

People feel deprived, not based on what their basic needs are, but on what their neighbors have. In poor countries where everyone's needy, you don't have a sense of entitlement. Rich countries breed senses of entitlement.

For all the belly-aching and betching we get here in America, you'd think people were deprived. But we have the fattest, laziest, most over-fed population imaginable...who are fuming mad that richer people exist.

In a complete inversion of thousands of years of human history, the poor in America are fatter than the rich!

Entitlement is tied directly to what the neighbors have, not basic needs.

(Which is why it's such a problem for preppers.)

Donn57
04-13-2012, 11:14
All the people that are saying they arnt jealous of those who have more than they do fail to take into account that they've eaten many, many more than 10 meals in the last month. Go for a month not being able to find food to eat with frequency and see how you feel. Now take into account you started out firmly rooted in the side of "I'm not jealous of others stuff" and most people will start somewhere near the middle.

Our genes are basically a code to survive and replicate. Like it or not it's human nature to try to get a little bit more than the next guy. For anyone with multiple children similar in age, look at them. You tell them they each get one piece of cake, while in the age before they realize the cake will still be there later, both siblings say its unfair because the other one got more.

There is a difference between being jealous and our built-in drive to survive. If I have no food and I attack someone who has food, it isn't out of jealousy, it is out of a need for survival.

And our drive to survive doesn't make us jealous of those who have more. Survival isn't about having a little bit more than the other guy, it is about, well, surviving.

Your perception of people is based on yourself and your experience. That you are envious of those who have more than you doesn't mean that I or anyone else has that same flaw.

Bolster
04-13-2012, 11:24
As I review video of "deprived" people looting in Katrina, I don't see them looting food and water.

Looters in the US don't (OK, very seldom ever) loot to survive. That's not the motive.

Same story in the LA riots. Nobody was stealing basic necessities for survival (unless that's all that was left).

Relative deprivation.

Donn57
04-13-2012, 11:30
As I review video of "deprived" people looting in Katrina, I don't see them looting food and water.

Looters in the US don't (OK, very seldom ever) loot to survive. That's not the motive.

Same story in the LA riots. Nobody was stealing basic necessities for survival (unless that's all that was left).

Relative deprivation.

That's true, but then the number of people looting is usually relatively small in the overall scheme of things, so their behavior is not indicative of people in general.

lawman800
04-13-2012, 11:34
What? Are you kidding me? :upeyes: Most people go to work everyday and work hard for lower wages to support their families. Its a small percentage that don't want to work and leach on the sytem. They live better than those who actually work.

Nope... not saying they are all USING them at the present time, but imagine if you had to go to work or live with none of the social safety nets put in place by government.

We don't think of it the same way but the government has put up things all around us so that we just live and work normally without thinking about what could happen if something went wrong. Without a lot of these government apparatuses in place, there would be a lot more people out on their butts without recourse or remedy.

Think about things such as:

Worker's Compensation
Unemployment Insurance
Public Retirement systems
OSHA
USDA
Emergency medical services
Various FMLA or government protected leave laws
Department of Labor rulings and regs

There are lots of other things, and whether or not I personally agree that some may be government overreaching into people's lives, I know that our lives would be pretty different without these things which provide a safety net for our modern existence.

So think if the government pretty much just provided the minimum for an orderly society... such as, maintain roads and postal services and police and fire response services and some public libraries and that's about it. No workplace regulations, no public hospitals for emergencies that you may have at home, no unemployment when you get laid off, no worker's comp when you get hurt at work, no job protection when your wife has to stay home for pregnancy, no overtime or meal break regulations, etc.

What kind of society would we have at that point?

Bolster
04-13-2012, 12:05
That's true, but then the number of people looting is usually relatively small in the overall scheme of things, so their behavior is not indicative of people in general.

Granted, but relative deprivation is indicative of people in general. Relative deprivation may even re-elect a substandard president this year. BO's campaign is based on this bogus "99 percent" idea, of people (who have their basic needs covered) feeling relative deprivation when compared to the wealthy.

Relative Deprivation is BO's primary campaign strategy, and a good one, since it is so very, very easy to make humans feel deprived (relatively). It's a reliable "divide and conquer" strategy. But it relies on people not realizing that BO is very much the cause of their rel dep. So it's not a slam dunk.

The 2012 campaign (much like the 2008 campaign) will be a sort of smart-or-stupid test for the American people. We failed in 08 with a solid "stupid" score, and I'm not seeing much improvement in the past four.

But I get a little crazy when I hear talk of how people are hungry and thirsty in the USA, and that's why they engage in crime. That's not the basis of crime in the US. Steal upscale shoes? A flat-screen TV? An Escalade? Yes. Steal water, bread, firewood? No. Americans aren't stealing to survive.

racerford
04-13-2012, 13:52
.......
So think if the government pretty much just provided the minimum for an orderly society... such as, maintain roads and postal services and police and fire response services and some public libraries and that's about it. No workplace regulations, no public hospitals for emergencies that you may have at home, no unemployment when you get laid off, no worker's comp when you get hurt at work, no job protection when your wife has to stay home for pregnancy, no overtime or meal break regulations, etc.

What kind of society would we have at that point?

The one we had in the late 1800's with more technology? We had a LOT more charity hospitals. People felt more compelled to give to charity. Religion was a bigger part of life , some did it for fame as a sort of self promotion as a good person.

Once we had more taxes and more "social programs" and people were FORCED to provide for others that compulsion to give to charity shrank.

Strangely, being forced to care for people that you don't feel do what they can for themselves, makes some people resentful. It is like robbery. Isn't that what robbery is? You are forcely deprived of your property to support someone else (the robber and his dependents). There is little moral difference.

thesurefire
04-13-2012, 14:04
There is a difference between being jealous and our built-in drive to survive. If I have no food and I attack someone who has food, it isn't out of jealousy, it is out of a need for survival.

If someone else has food and you do not, than you are jealous of their ability to best you in the game of survival.
This is thus a very adaptive trait because it drives you to procure food, which in turns increases the likelihood of your survival. If you lack that personality trait that lets us improve both ourselves as people and our likelihood of survival I'm very sorry for you.

People don't look at someone who has food when they don't have food and say "Good for them.... well I guess I'll just die here." they look at them and say "How can I get food like they did, because I need food."


And our drive to survive doesn't make us jealous of those who have more. Survival isn't about having a little bit more than the other guy, it is about, well, surviving.

Does having more food, water, and preparations than someone else make it more or less likely you will survive?

"Survival" is relative. We're all going to die, I just plan to last as long as I can before that day comes. If you lack the trait that ever makes you jealous why wouldn't you just lay down and die? If you purely had no jealousy you wouldn't care that other people lived longer than you.


Your perception of people is based on yourself and your experience. That you are envious of those who have more than you doesn't mean that I or anyone else has that same flaw.

I'm not envious of you or anyone else, because I'm successful. Both you and I have a comfortable life. Food on the table, running water, shelter of some kind, luxuries ect.

The point in question is should that comfortable life turn into a fight for survival.....

Psychology tells us reward vastly increased behavior rates. Being comfortable and fed is in fact a reward, not a right as those of the entitlement mentality believe. I do everything in my power to make sure I have those rewards for as long as possible.

At a basic level envy causes us to seek those rewards and improve our quality of life (usually prolonging it as well). This happens daily around the world. It will continue to happen during, and after a disaster.

The question at hand is how to deal with that fact.

Looting in a temporary disaster shows that simply given an opportunity is enough for some people to steal things they dont even need to survive.

Imagine a situation in which people would die if they didn't take drastic action to survive.

The fact is in my lifetime I've seen a massive erosion of both moral integrity and personal responsibility. Those two things combined are very dangerous in a disaster :shocked: :shocked:

Bolster
04-13-2012, 14:09
Strangely, being forced to care for people that you don't feel do what they can for themselves, makes some people resentful. It is like robbery. Isn't that what robbery is? You are forcely deprived of your property to support someone else (the robber and his dependents). There is little moral difference.

Amen to that. I pay for the pensions of local teachers, yet have no pension of my own. Yes, I'm resentful about that. That's a gov't sanctioned form of robbery that deprives me of what I need to survive in old age.

Looting in a temporary disaster shows that simply given an opportunity is enough for some people to steal things they dont even need to survive. ... The fact is in my lifetime I've seen a massive erosion of both moral integrity and personal responsibility. Those two things combined are very dangerous in a disaster :shocked: :shocked:

And Amen again.

lawman800
04-13-2012, 14:48
The one we had in the late 1800's with more technology? We had a LOT more charity hospitals. People felt more compelled to give to charity. Religion was a bigger part of life , some did it for fame as a sort of self promotion as a good person.

Once we had more taxes and more "social programs" and people were FORCED to provide for others that compulsion to give to charity shrank.

Strangely, being forced to care for people that you don't feel do what they can for themselves, makes some people resentful. It is like robbery. Isn't that what robbery is? You are forcely deprived of your property to support someone else (the robber and his dependents). There is little moral difference.

I agree 100% with your statement. We live in a world of government sanctioned robbery. You WILL give your money at the point of the government gun (via the IRS) so we can use it to benefit others who can't or won't do for themselves.

Question is, can people now go back to the way it was without big government? Society has been conditioned now for generations and people can't imagine it any other way.

Bolster
04-13-2012, 15:26
I agree 100% with your statement. We live in a world of government sanctioned robbery. You WILL give your money at the point of the government gun (via the IRS) so we can use it to benefit others who can't or won't do for themselves.

This is the point at which Atlas Shrugs. Either the productive leave, or the productive become slackers. Nobody wants to be the hard-working fool who supports the slackers and gets nothing in return.

This is the "later" part of "...sooner or later you run out of other people's money."

http://cache2.artprintimages.com/p/LRG/10/1060/WTVL000Z/art-print/margaret-thatcher.jpg

Warp
04-13-2012, 15:31
I’m not talking about welfare and handouts, but more about that fact that most people seem incapable of resolving issues without the help of the government.

I think a lot of people are capable, but they know better than to try because if they do the government (and the sheep) will take offense to their ability to take care of themselves.

Donn57
04-13-2012, 17:29
If someone else has food and you do not, than you are jealous of their ability to best you in the game of survival.


That's pure conjecture.


This is thus a very adaptive trait because it drives you to procure food, which in turns increases the likelihood of your survival. If you lack that personality trait that lets us improve both ourselves as people and our likelihood of survival I'm very sorry for you.


Most people want to improve themselves, but that desire isn't necessarily based on envy.


People don't look at someone who has food when they don't have food and say "Good for them.... well I guess I'll just die here." they look at them and say "How can I get food like they did, because I need food."


Not true. I wish everyone had enough of everything to survive. My desire to also have food doesn't mean I'm envious of those who have food. It is simply based on my desire to survive. Under your logic, unless someone has food when I do not, I would not want food because I would have no one to be envious of which is what you contend is what drives people to have more.


Does having more food, water, and preparations than someone else make it more or less likely you will survive?


No way to know without knowing what I have. If I have enough to survive, then there will be no change in my likelihood of survival versus the person who has more.


"Survival" is relative. We're all going to die, I just plan to last as long as I can before that day comes. If you lack the trait that ever makes you jealous why wouldn't you just lay down and die? If you purely had no jealousy you wouldn't care that other people lived longer than you.


Again, your logic dictates that we have to have someone with more than us in order to motivate ourselves to prepare to survive. That's silly. The basic will to survive will drive a person even if they are alone.


At a basic level envy causes us to seek those rewards and improve our quality of life (usually prolonging it as well). This happens daily around the world. It will continue to happen during, and after a disaster.


If I am shipwrecked alone on a desert island and there is a coconut tree full of coconuts and I climb the tree and get a coconut in order to survive how does envy enter into the equation?


The question at hand is how to deal with that fact.

Looting in a temporary disaster shows that simply given an opportunity is enough for some people to steal things they dont even need to survive.

Imagine a situation in which people would die if they didn't take drastic action to survive.

The fact is in my lifetime I've seen a massive erosion of both moral integrity and personal responsibility. Those two things combined are very dangerous in a disaster :shocked: :shocked:

Some people live by stealing. Of course they're not going to steal food. They are going to steal small valuable things that can be sold or cash. Someone robbing a jewelry store isn't doing it so they have nice jewelry to wear. They're going to sell the jewelry and buy food, pay the rent, etc.

Warp
04-13-2012, 17:32
Lots of logic there Donn.

Stevekozak
04-13-2012, 17:57
Lots of logic there Donn.
Which will probably be lost on the person it was intended to educate.

Bolster
04-13-2012, 18:29
Most people want to improve themselves....

To which the appropriate response is:

That's pure conjecture.

Fault thesurefire for overstating his case, if you will; but envy (aka relative deprivation) has a massive effect on behavior, judgment, voting, and a whole raft of human responses. It fills the prison system and is the basis of an entire political voting block (and you know who I'm talking about).

I assumed someone would make the argument that thieves steal sneakers and TVs only to resell them. For the stuff they don't keep, that may be true, but thieves are not selling stolen or looted TVs, jewelry, or fancy shoes for bread and water--least not in the USA. Let's not attribute noble motives to a thief stealing to support a drug habit or to get a flat panel on his wall or rims on his car. Our thieves are not stealing to survive, they are stealing to get "equity" or "justice," as they define it.

"Other people got it, and I don't, that ain't fair, so I'm going to get me some." It's a fairness argument as far as the vast majority of US thieves are concerned, not a survival argument.

UneasyRider
04-13-2012, 19:39
Amen to that. I pay for the pensions of local teachers, yet have no pension of my own. Yes, I'm resentful about that. That's a gov't sanctioned form of robbery that deprives me of what I need to survive in old age.



And Amen again.

My wife is a teacher here in Florida, our state has a 100% funded pension plan. Every paystub shows the amount transferred to the retirement fund. It is the result of collective bargaining... Sort of, they have gone years without a contract or a raise.

My wife has 5 years to 30, then she can stay on or quit and get her monthly pension.

Here is the rub, let's say that we have currency devaluation (inflation) on a large scale, her pension would be as worthless as anyones money. I don't count on it.

kirgi08
04-13-2012, 19:51
That's a big gamble.'08.

UneasyRider
04-13-2012, 20:08
That's a big gamble.'08.

Yes, I mean that I don't count on getting anything of value since the country is broke.

kirgi08
04-13-2012, 20:14
Can you roll it inta pms ect.'08.

UneasyRider
04-14-2012, 06:49
Can you roll it inta pms ect.'08.

No, unfortunately this is a state pension and we have no control over it. She does have a 403B that we contribute to, but our fund options are limited there as well, although doing ok.

TangoFoxtrot
04-14-2012, 07:40
Nope... not saying they are all USING them at the present time, but imagine if you had to go to work or live with none of the social safety nets put in place by government.

We don't think of it the same way but the government has put up things all around us so that we just live and work normally without thinking about what could happen if something went wrong. Without a lot of these government apparatuses in place, there would be a lot more people out on their butts without recourse or remedy.

Think about things such as:

Worker's Compensation
Unemployment Insurance
Public Retirement systems
OSHA
USDA
Emergency medical services
Various FMLA or government protected leave laws
Department of Labor rulings and regs

There are lots of other things, and whether or not I personally agree that some may be government overreaching into people's lives, I know that our lives would be pretty different without these things which provide a safety net for our modern existence.

So think if the government pretty much just provided the minimum for an orderly society... such as, maintain roads and postal services and police and fire response services and some public libraries and that's about it. No workplace regulations, no public hospitals for emergencies that you may have at home, no unemployment when you get laid off, no worker's comp when you get hurt at work, no job protection when your wife has to stay home for pregnancy, no overtime or meal break regulations, etc.

What kind of society would we have at that point?

My opinion of gov't is not to take care of the people, the people will take care of themselves. The gov'ts job is to manage its (our) revenue, in a fair and professional manner which we all know does not happen.

If you want to fix american society.

1. Stop foreign aid to countries that give nothing in return in the long run.

2. Bring jobs (american mfgr) back to the U.S.

3. Close the U.S. borders to freeloaders!

4. Stop being the world police and occuping countries for years and years that don't financially benefit the U.S.

5. Have better oversight on welfare and freebee programs. Lets see that it goes to the folks who really need it.

6. Reviews on Senate and Congressional saleries and benefits. If we have to pay high prices on medical insurances ..So should the politicians! Why should "they" get a freebee on our dime?

7. Cutback on imports from China. If they say "wheres the money you owe us?" We say.. "Come get it MF!" Then China we can put in their place.

8. Then if you are not an American citizen, Get the hell out of our country. Cut out the free benfits recieved from american tax payers.

9. Heavily tax american corperations who send american jobs overseas. OVERSIGHT AND ENFORCEMENT is a must for this to work.

10. Give good tax breaks to corperation who create jobs for americans. OVERSIGHT AND ENFORCEMENT is a must for this to work.

11. Stop dependency on foreign oil!

Bravo 1
04-14-2012, 08:07
I would add,,,,,,


1: Teach what America means. What is is supposed to mean to be an American.

2: Term limits for the scumbags is congress.

3:Pull American troops from foreign bases. Let THEM take care of it for once. Time to take care of our borders.

4: Tell the U.N. to piss off.

5: Make it a constitutional amendment that a Federal budget MUST be passed. Period

Bolster
04-14-2012, 10:25
If I could have just this one I'd be happy:

(1) Congress and the President have to live by the same rules they make and enforce on the rest of us. They have to live like we do.

That would change EVERYthing.

lawman800
04-14-2012, 10:38
Agreed on all counts. Don't forget, cut back on the federal government so that it operates on what the Constitution authorizes and nothing else. No overreaching beyond the limits of the Constitution. The states need to step up and claim the 9th and 10th Amendment powers and tell the Feds, back off.

ICARRY2
04-14-2012, 14:57
I can't believe how "nice" some of you people are. An offer was made, for her to take the cheap flashlight and batteries. If any complaint, offer would have been retracted and said persons sent on their way in the dark, no compassion for dushbags.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

I agree 100%. :)

thesurefire
04-14-2012, 15:21
I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying, probably from this post here:

If someone else has food and you do not, than you are jealous of their ability to best you in the game of survival.

I'm not now, nor have I ever been talking about a "lost in the wild alone" situation. It has no relevance to this thread, which is about social interactions. I address this more below.

That's pure conjecture.

It is.


Most people want to improve themselves, but that desire isn't necessarily based on envy.

That's pure conjecture, which I happen to disagree with.

I'd agree that people want to improve themselves, but I think its contingent upon reward.

How many people do you think would spend 8 years in med school to make 8.00 a hour, more or less than do now?

My desire to also have food doesn't mean I'm envious of those who have food.
It is simply based on my desire to survive. Under your logic, unless someone has food when I do not, I would not want food because I would have no one to be envious of which is what you contend is what drives people to have more.

Im not saying other people having food is the only factor, Im saying that other people having food will be a factor that comes into play in interactions between people if food is scarce. I should have explained that more clearly.

If we're all starving together we are all less driven to get food than if some of us are starving and some of us are not. This is a fact.

This is currently not an issue because you and I we both get enough to eat. If we're hungry we can go to the store. This wont be the case after TSHTF and stores are barren for a week. Then it will become a major issue.

Bolster has explained relative deprivation theory well, I've tried to explain it at a simpler level, which didnt appear to work.

At this point I get the feeling that your more interested in trying to convince yourself and others that you're morally superior to everything that the last 50 years of social psychology research has shown to be true in dozen of cultures and populations all around the world.

The simple fact is how happy you are with what you have, and your drive to get more stuff is directly related to what you see that others have.


No way to know without knowing what I have. If I have enough to survive, then there will be no change in my likelihood of survival versus the person who has more.

This is short sighted thinking. More of a needed resource is better. It allows options to trade, sell, or even give away. It lets you enjoy excess if you desire.

Having enough food for 20 people to survive for 20 years is better than having enough food for 1 person to survive for 20 years because it brings more options to the table, forming a small group and being able to feed them for example.

In a survival situation my personal rule of thumb is learn to adapt or get ready to die. More options for adaption allows more flexibility which will lead to more desirable outcome in the end.


Again, your logic dictates that we have to have someone with more than us in order to motivate ourselves to prepare to survive. That's silly. The basic will to survive will drive a person even if they are alone.

If I am shipwrecked alone on a desert island and there is a coconut tree full of coconuts and I climb the tree and get a coconut in order to survive how does envy enter into the equation?

No, my logic certainly does not say that. If you'd look back and read what I already posted, I've addressed this issue here:


Our genes are basically a code to survive and replicate.


Which is agreeing that humans instinctively will act to survive when alone. We aren't talking about when humans are alone.

You're arguing about basic human nature (a will to survive) and I'm talking about human interactions pertaining survival (the topic the thread is about). The scenario you've listed doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand, which is a sense of entitlement.

For such a sense to exist the basic assumption is there is more than one person in the scenario. You cant feel entitled to something unless it's not yours to being with, which assumes at least one other person in the situation who has some property.

If you want to talk about being shipwrecked with two people, then we can talk about your envy and how it will affect the situation if the other person has a years supply of food and refuses to share with you.



Some people live by stealing. Of course they're not going to steal food. They are going to steal small valuable things that can be sold or cash. Someone robbing a jewelry store isn't doing it so they have nice jewelry to wear. They're going to sell the jewelry and buy food, pay the rent, etc.

I think you will be right in the start (usually the most valuable things per pound are the first to get stolen) but as the situation progressed people will take anything, including food and water.

A famous picture from katrina:

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/Lootie/OPPLOOTER.jpg

lawman800
04-14-2012, 16:42
That's racist!

emt1581
04-15-2012, 12:42
I story on here by a fellow member got me thinking about the ice storm that hit the Midwest about 3 years ago. I heard about the chaos that was around me, like folks fighting over water and generators and more than a few gas stations running out of fuel. But... one, little incident hit home for me. My wife and I were able to get by without going out, pretty much during the whole BAD part of the weather which was about 5 days and we were without power for about 9 days. I was using my Surefire flashlight a lot during the dark and it's got a BRIGHT led light. (awesome light, btw) A neighbor 3 houses down who I'd never met, asks to use it because apparently, they don't have a single flashlight. I do the neighborly thing, but not wanting to hand my favorite light over to her, I go down the way and light up her garage for her so she can see, then go back home. She knocks and asks to use it again a short while later with her son, so rather than giving them my $100+ LED light to her I tell her that she can HAVE one of the cheap Rayovac's that I have laying around the house. She turns it on, see's that is not as bright and says exactly this... "This one ain't good, I need that one." I said that I needed it for my house, and her son said "for what?" I basically explained that it was... well... mine, and I'd like to keep it for my wife and I, but she could HAVE the other one, AND the extra D-cells too. Her son stared me down for a bit, and she said "hmmmpfff" and after both acting first confused and then angry that I wanted to keep my better light instead of the old one I gave them, they left without a Thank you. Small details project big problems for the future. I'll be keeping my eye on them next time.

I hate to say it because I know it is not nice and seems like something George Bernard Shaw would say. But these people need to do without and, if need be, die. They serve little to no purpose and only make things harder on the rest of us. Even if you look at welfare... it's nothing more than freeloaders acting as parasites to those that work.

I know they are neighbors and all, and I've got maybe one or two families in my area like that. These are the ones that either have grandparents that have done well in life and invite their entire family to live with them (3 or 4 families under the roof) or they are 3-4 families that individually couldn't afford the rent/mortgage so they all chip in and live together.

I live the nicest area in my town. But the above mentioned houses are also the ones with the shopping cart somewhere next to their home and the bass blaring as their coffee can muffler hums by... again, they need to do without and die.

Get pissed at me because I'm prepared...and then try to get cute and take by force...they will meet the same end.

This is why the handouts need to stop....YESTERDAY!!!

Let's get going with it already...the longer it goes on the worse it will be!!

-Emt1581

Carry16
04-15-2012, 13:18
We may already be beyond the point of no return :steamed:

This is why the handouts need to stop....YESTERDAY!!!

Let's get going with it already...the longer it goes on the worse it will be!!

-Emt1581

emt1581
04-15-2012, 15:05
We may already be beyond the point of no return :steamed:

Well either the handouts stop and we enter a civil war (short or long as it may last) or we turn into a communistic state by default. There are no other solutions that I see.

-Emt1581

UneasyRider
04-15-2012, 15:31
Well either the handouts stop and we enter a civil war (short or long as it may last) or we turn into a communistic state by default. There are no other solutions that I see.

-Emt1581

Until it starts to cost us actual money there is no need to worry about it. When other nations, corperations and individuals no longer take U.S. dollars it will have ended, between now and then we borrow and spend without concern because we are giving colored paper for real "stuff."

You should not worry about it, just relax and let it play itself out. Prepare to defend yourself and your way of life as it will be a bumpy ride.

emt1581
04-15-2012, 16:00
Until it starts to cost us actual money there is no need to worry about it. When other nations, corperations and individuals no longer take U.S. dollars it will have ended, between now and then we borrow and spend without concern because we are giving colored paper for real "stuff."

You should not worry about it, just relax and let it play itself out. Prepare to defend yourself and your way of life as it will be a bumpy ride.

I dunno about that. The entitlement class seems to react even when they THINK something's going to happen. Sometimes they don't even need a reason to start acting up.

Again, these people serve no purpose... They just make life harder for the rest of us. Not saying it's time to break out the cans with "Gift" printed on them. But when the SHTF, the people will serve as nothing more than backstops or zombies for those of us who are unfortunate to fall victim to them.

-Emt1581