|
Yesterday I was reading a story about an author (A J Jacobs) that spent a year living according to the Bible. I can't find the link now, but the article referred to two types of individuals: Those who life as their rights and entitlements, and those who view life as a responsibility.
My wife refers to this as "service to self" vs. "service to others".
I have always viewed this as some sort of continuum where everyone falls somewhere between the extremes, and while I am still confident this is true, I have noticed (as have others) that everything seems more polar now. It is part of the "with us or against us" mentality. I think everyone sees it on DU, at least time to time. Loyalty to a Representative, Senator, or even party seem to go only as far as their most recent vote or comment about an issue.
The problem I see in the polarization of the rights and entitlements vs responsibility arena is that it causes people to test their limits. Several major items of discussion in GD recently have demonstrated this polarity, and other discussions have noticeably demonstrated rights vs responsibility in the past.
Showing your receipt at Circuit City, the Southwest Airlines dress issue, wearing of a circuit board on your shirt at an airport, and one of my old favorites, ordering a sausage pizza in your workplace where the owners have expressly forbidden pork on the premises, are all about people testing the limits... either intentionally or unintentionally.
In each of these cases, there seems to be a law that governs the behavior. That, in my view, is the crux of the problem. Laws can be changed.
I think it can be fairly well determined by the postings that blowing past the receipt checkers at Circuit City or even Costco and Sam's is legal. People who do so are not doing me any favors. They are not standing up for, or preserving my right to do this, since I seemingly already have it. They are drawing attention to that right, and in some respect could well be endangering it. It is a STATE law, or a LOCAL law that seemingly forbids the stores from stopping us when we do it. To me, that means that a STATE law, or LOCAL law could be changed if the behavior becomes a big problem. After all, a state could (and maybe some have) enact laws where it is legal for the receipt checker to detain you. I suspect that if everyone suddenly started blowing past these people exiting the store, that such laws would be enacted.
The lady who made the stink about Southwest Airline's lack of a dress code is perhaps the start of things to come. The reporter that called and informed everyone that SWA said she could fly in a bikini did me no favors (long term, I admit it might be an interesting month to fly). That means, that I could fly in just a Speedo, and let me assure you, no one would look at that as a favor, long term or short term. It is a matter of time before some "patriot" tries, and I suspect that SWA will develop a dress code as a result.
It is not just these individuals. The SWA flight attendant wanted to inject his "right" of demanding that she leave the plane, where clearly a simple adjustment of her garments was an equitable solution for the airline was testing as well. The Circuit City store manager wanted to assert his right to detain a suspected thief. It takes two to tango. In a polarized society, it seems we will be seeing that dance quite often in the future.
I suppose we have the right, and entitlement to drive within a quarter inch of the dividing line on a two-lane highway. I think we have the responsibility not to.
|