Just Me

Just Me
Look,I'm just sayin'

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

social consequence

 Yesterday I wrote about the sliding scale of money and its' value. I chose the title " old money " and it proved to be misleading. I was aware of the implication of that title but felt it appropriate anyway. I was pleased to receive a few comments and a small discussion ensued. That is always pleasing to any author, to have his or her topic given attention. Everyone agrees that the " old " money people were a different group altogether. I am among those that agree. I feel it is just a reflection of society in general. A few generations back those with " money " where expected to be cultured and display the proper proprieties at all times. Correct manners and a certain controlled , although somewhat aloof demeanor, was common. Polite, but distant from the " common " folks. The commoners were there to serve the needs of the wealthy. Everyone knew their place. Now our " moneyed elite " act like uncultured slobs and the common folk are getting " uppity. "
 If you think about this it runs parallel to the way children are being raised today. In my day, Dad and Mom were the boss. You were dependent upon them and you were taught to appreciate that. They were a bit " above " you, as any adult was, and remained a bit aloof . They could be approached with your needs or problems but you were not on their level. You certainly didn't get as familiar with them as calling them by name ! No, it was Mom and Dad. Mister or Miss was the proper way to address any adult encountered. When dealing with the rich folks we didn't call them by their first name either. That would just be a little disrespectful. It was an establishment of social position. Oh those rich folks could appear to us as pretentious, and that was an annoyance. It was tolerated however, as long as that respect was maintained. That is the tolerance we were taught, tolerance accompanied by respect. Each group was dependent upon the other. Many children today are taught intolerance as a virtue. They are " standing up for a cause " or part of a movement. They often speak of respect but do not understand it. Respect isn't getting your way. Respect isn't everyone agreeing with you. Respect isn't fearing you. Respect is a mutual understanding, not a grudge. You can't begrudge another their position in life and respect them at the same time.
 The " old " money folks knew and understood this relationship. Respect was given and respect was earned. This " new " money is a different breed altogether. They believe their money is their entitlement. It is that wealth that separates them from everyone else. They are like undisciplined children. Reprisal for them lies only in litigation. That wasn't so fifty years ago or so. The social consequences of inappropriate behavior was just as great. Those consequences occurred inside their circles and could spell disaster. No amount of money could negate that. Enough money can cancel litigation. You can buy your way out.
 It is this social consequence that maintained order. It is that way with children and with society. The more we attempt to remove all social consequence from our action the more chaos will ensue. Now we speak of prejudice, bigotry and social injustice as the enemy. These must be eliminated from society. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that they must. It is only with mutual respect however that it can be accomplished. You can not litigate respect ! If we continue to " reward " socially inappropriate behaviors and provide justification for those behaviors through litigation, the society will collapse. In the preamble to the constitution two statements explain this, " to secure the blessings of liberty " and "ordain " such. From whom the " blessing " may come is self evident, in my opinion, and the use of the word " ordain " verifies that. You could say the refusal to comply would result in the ultimate social consequence, banishment.