Saturday, May 6, 2017

Sanction of the Victim

So we recently had Moose calling us more Conservative folks "Morally Bankrupt" and Laurie said we are "proponents of the prosperity gospel in life and healthcare"...

Thanks to my reading Atlas Shrugged I understand the trap that these comments set for the hard working productive person.  People who are capable, independent, driven and motivated to succeed are susceptible to the trap, and Liberals rely on this.

It would be pointless to taunt slothful incapable people of low moral standing because they would not care, and could not provide what was needed if they did.  So the goal of the trap is to appeal to the work ethic and moral standards of the producer to motivate them to keep working harder so others can take more and more.  Ironically the producer / enabler can only be free once they decide to ignore those voices.

Since I am blessed to have many skills, am a workaholic and my nature is to assist people.  I bought into the guilt, taunting, name calling, etc for a long time before I learned about "Sanction of the Victim" the hard way.  If you don't remember the story, in 2004 I suffered a major panic attack in Paris France that set my nervous system bouncing between anxiety and depression. (it sucked big time...)

On the upside, it probably saved my life.  I had been letting too many people pull my strings for way to long and was burning the candle at both ends and in the middle.  And the worst part was that I had NO IDEA that I was walking on the edge of a big cliff...  So this terrible experience made me aware of many things and gave me motivation to learn / change.

In the past I gave people permission to mistreat and demand things from me. (ie Sanction of the Victim)  And usually my reward for doing so was more requests, guilt trips and little true appreciation expressed for my efforts.  

Today... After counseling, reading, learning and some lively confrontations, I have set much firmer boundaries and learned to not let the comments of others control my sense of self, happiness, etc.  By the way, my relationships are fine and I still help everyone.  The difference is that I don't let myself get manipulated or guilted into doing so. If I am doing something for you or giving you something it is because I truly want to.

21 comments:

John said...

I suppose I should tie this to our current events...

Just watch and listen to the comments of the Liberals as they use name calling to try to guilt the producers / investors into sanctioning the taking of their money for the "good of society". It could fit perfectly into Atlas Shrugged...

Hopefully the successful people who create the jobs, new inventions, etc ignore those self centered voices and continue to create more jobs so the less fortunate folks can become employed... And not have to live as dependent shells off the efforts of others...

Anonymous said...

I try to be reluctant in seeing the issues we discuss here in moral terms. It's one of the upsides in being a moral relativist, I think. There is, in fact, a lot of agreement issues on these issues. I do believe, for example, that there is a moral dimension surrounding the issue of providing care for pre-existing conditions. But there doesn't seem to be a lot of disagreement on that issue. Trump seems just as emphatically in favor of that as I am. It's how to go about it, is where the difference lies.

--Hiram

John said...

Those details of how to accomplish things definitely cause a lot anger, name calling, etc.

Anonymous said...

I think people personalize the debate when they have a sense that they are losing. For myself, I have never been able to understand how a position gets worse just because I take it. It really isn't about me, hard as that is to imagine.

I do think Republicans got lazy over the last 8 years, and I think they took a direction that hampers them now that they control all three branches of government. Their opposition to Obama, it seemed to me, was reflexive. They opposed what he did without ever understanding that they seemed to commit themselves to positions that they didn't hold, that were even untenable. One example is the business about "Democrats didn't read the Obamacare bill." Well, the fact is, Obamacare was chewed over in various forms for nearly two years. The debate was public and transparent, for whatever that is worth. It was scored by the CBO. Contrast that with what Republicans did with regard to AHCA. There were no hearings, no text of the bill available within even the parameters the Republicans set for themselves. There was no waiting for CBO scoring. Lots of Republicans admit they didn't read the bill. Now there are lots of reasons for all of that, and that aspect of things doesn't matter much. It's the bill that matters. But what is clear is that Republicans set standards for Democrats that they had no interest at all in applying to themselves. if Republicans don't believe in what they are saying, why should anyone?

--Hiram

John said...

Good points.

jerrye92002 said...

I am a bit puzzled. Does anything the Democrats are saying about health care square with the "rational self interest" of the rest of us? That is, are people going to start dying in the streets because the individual mandate is repealed? And without a moral component to the question, why is that any of my concern?

John said...

I think the answer is that yes people will die from a lack of reactive healthcare and thorough treatment.

John said...

Free clinics and ER treatment are not good replacemts for life long care.

John said...

I agree with many of Ayn's concepts, but I think she took the "rational self interest" concept too extremes to prove a point.

jerrye92002 said...

"yes people will die from a lack of reactive healthcare and thorough treatment."

So since Obamacare has offered no increase in the number of health CARE providers, and limited payments and raised premiums such that the newly-insured or -uninsured do not have the "thorough treatment" they need, how is the AHCA going to be worse than Obamacare? Seems it cannot help but be better, to some degree. For that matter, somebody explain to me how Obamacare was better, as far as people "dying in the streets" than was the status quo ante? After all, the number "uninsured" is still something like 35 million people.

Anonymous said...

Does anything the Democrats are saying about health care square with the "rational self interest" of the rest of us?

Sure. We all benefit from a more stable system. And the theory at least is, that by increasing the size of the insurance pools, the cost of overall health care goes down. Now that's a disputable view, but not an irrational one or without self interest.

The problem with Obamacare is that it is very close to the Republican plan, and so it follows that the Republican plan doesn't really solve Obamacare's faults. It's another example of Republican criticism. They attacked Obamacare for not having features that they were against providing.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

What is "stable" about a system with rapidly escalating premiums and rapidly decreasing numbers of insurers? And the pity is that all of this could have, should have been, and was foreseen before we "pass[ed] it to see what's in it."

John said...

Jerry,
Your opinions mean little without sources to back them up. I have seen several new clinics being built in rural mm. Where do you think all the tax money from ACA went?

John said...

I mean that was probably 500 billion dollars by now.

Anonymous said...

What is "stable" about a system with rapidly escalating premiums and rapidly decreasing numbers of insurers?

That's the sort of thing that happens in markets all the time, and they can still be stable. This line of reasoning is one of the examples I think of when I talk about how Republicans have criticized Obamacare for lacking features they oppose. The passage of Obamacare meant that we were going to accept a market approach to health care. Now it is true, that market was subject to rules and regulations, but then that's typical of markets. They are very rule heavy institutions. When markets are free, prices what insurance calls premiums, change a lot. They are largely set by market participants. That's what happened with Obamacare. But would that not happen with a Republican alternative? Would prices be fixed? Does that happen much in free markets? Similarly, in markets, companies enter businesses and leave businesses. Happens all the time. Is that something that wouldn't happen under a Republican market plan? Would they require companies in business to stay in business? Would it bar new companies from entering? Trump, actually, thinks this way. He complains when companies reallocate their resources, shifting or eliminating jobs. Is that really a Republican approach? This is the Republican problem with health care policy. They are so violently opposed to the policies that they so fervently support.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

The topic raises an interesting question w.r.t. the Obamacare wars. Suppose for the moment that the AHCA actually "repeals and replaces" Obamacare. Assume further that what it actually does is "fix" some of the worst aspects of Obamacare and delivers on some of the promises made for it, unlike the original ACA. The question will be, who will get credit for the successes, and who will be blamed for the failures? The Democrats seem to think they are off the hook for Obamacare's failures and "death spiral," and that they will gain politically by calling the AHCA "Trumpcare" regardless of what it actually does. Does that seem fair to anybody?

jerrye92002 said...

"Your opinions mean little without sources to back them up."

I don't post opinions, by and large. If you question what I post, find the contrary proof.

What "tax money"? The ACA was free, wasn't it? :-/

Did the ACA promise to build new clinics? And what fool would, given the limited financial incentive of the "Affordable Care Act"?

John said...

You post a lot of opinions that you believe are fact.

ACA was never free. It seized a Lot of money and funneled it into the American healthcare system. That is why many see rural healthcare being harmed when that funding goes away.

jerrye92002 said...

Not correct. Those things I believe, I post as if they were facts, so until I see evidence to the contrary they remain more than just my opinion. And the existence of other facts does not disprove mine, it simply indicates a difference of opinion as to which facts better describe what is, hopefully, some objective reality.

The other thing I have not seen recognized here is that, in politics, perception is reality. If I believe that Obamacare was and is a disaster, that is a FACT and I will vote accordingly. Perhaps it is why, in such complex situations, so few minds are ever changed by intelligent discussion, and why there is so little, it seems, of intelligent discussion at all.

Anonymous said...

The Democrats seem to think they are off the hook for Obamacare's failures and "death spiral," and that they will gain politically by calling the AHCA "Trumpcare" regardless of what it actually does.

Democrats, as the party of government, tend to get blamed when government fails. That's why it seems plausible to Donald Trump to blame his negotiation problems on the Democrats and why he looks to Democrats to solve them. It's why Donald Trump thinks that if a government program fails on his watch, he can blame Democrats.

Republicans are the party that wants to do nothing. Since nothing is easy to do, Republican administrations are generally successful. The Republican approach in Congress is to shift responsibility for health care away from the federal government. If difficult political decisions are required, they will be made by someone. That, incidentally, is the point of the Republican position that policies should be separated from how we pay for them. That's why Republicans are so eager to insist that in deciding how we pay for health care, isn't the same issue as how we provide health care.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

"Democrats, as the party of government, tend to get blamed when government fails."

Somehow I remember the "government shutdown" playing out entirely to the opposite. And when Democrats control the government, why is it unfair to blame them for government failures?

And per the topic, why do you believe that Obama forced the /unnecessary shutdown/ of the National Parks so Republicans could be blamed for the shutdown? Would you believe he ordered his administration to "make the shutdown as painful as possible"?