You Cant Force Involvement

From BoomerangEffect:

So what if I feel like I've got my life in order and don't really need all that much from society? I think that this is all good. I think it's great that people want to help others. I don't think it's great that people who want to help others think it's so great that they feel that everyone must feel great helping others, and therefore, everyone now must help others. Where is the help in that?

There is an interesting social program in Los Angeles, CA. A dear friend of mine works for a foreign credit card company in the downtown area. This area is nearby another known for it's "social" problems, most notably, the "Rodney King" riots. The program is as follows: any "bank" must each quarter donate the labor of some of its employees on a Saturday to paint the houses of the "impoverished" who live in this region. It's called "giving back to the community" or something like that. If none of a bank's employees are willing to donate their time, the bank is faced with some sort of legal action or assesment. However, a bank can't terminate its employees for refusing to donate.

My first question: if these people are so poor, why do they own a house? Why not sell the house, move into an apartment, and get an education in a field which will then pay for a new house in a better neighborhood?
Second: why is the bank punished for its employees not contributing to such a worthy cause?
Third: What did the bank take from the community in the first place? Doesn't it already provide many people in that community with jobs which they may or may not have had in the first place?
Fourth: do these "impoverished" people who get their houses painted for free every so often appreciate this? No. They treat these volunteers like crap, because they know that if any of these volunteers walks off, it's only three months before this poor person who got screwed by some angry volunteer gets his house painted again for free because the work wasn't completed the first time.

--EvanCofsky (A big thank you to whoever formatted this page properly. Yes you can't force that kind of thing but it's great when it happens, isn't it.) (I never said it wasn't a GoodThing. It is only a GoodThing when it is completely voluntary.)

The corollary to the BoomerangEffect is that if you don't put much effort into society, society won't put much effort into you. -- SunirShah

That is true. Everyone must be allowed to choose the extent of his/her effort. If the BoomerangEffect is a GoodThing, we'll find out soon enough without any sort of force. I think it is. I also wouldn't force anyone else to think it is or act as if it were. It's a personal choice and freedom to determine what, when, how much, and to whom to give. -- EvanCofsky

Would you be interested in being involved in one of the RobertTheobald citizen discussions? (Described in the book: ReworkingSuccessNewCommunitiesAtTheMillennium). Wiki would be a pretty nice place for discussion like that and for being involved.

Weird. I cannot stop thinking about this. If you see someone in trouble and that person does not seek help, you should not help her/him. Another way to put it, help will not be well received if not asked for. One learns quicker if he recognized that he needs help. What about someone that is not able to seek help? e.g.: Someone is drowning... -- JeanMarcHeneman (I am recognizing that my english may be awful, please correct me!)

Personally, I would. I'm sure there are people who wouldn't, couldn't, or both.

If someone needs help and can't ask, and someone else is willing to help, I don't think there is a problem there.
If someone needs help, and someone else is willing to force yet another person to help who is unwilling or unable to help, I think there could be significant problems there.

the above statement naively assumes that a person cannot both ask for help and still be ungrateful and angry when the help is received in a manner they do not desire. Anyone who has helped another work with a confusing user interface can attest to how this happens.

Would the person forced to help then be in need of help him/herself to prevent the imposition of force? -- EvanCofsky

If in doubt, help. I'm selfish enough to be more worried about me losing sleep wondering if I should have helped, than in someone being mad at me for unwanted intervention.

I think you are in the majority, which is why I also think such programs are completely unnecessary. If helping people in need is such a good thing, then people will help people in need. Otherwise, you can't force it, no matter how good it may feel when instituting such social programs. -- EvanCofsky

These last statements are just unsupported, and unlikely, assertions. There is no reason to assume that most people will do "good things" merely because they are good, nor any reason to believe that if they did they would do them in the quantities required. I didn't see nearly enough people trying to stop mass murder in Rwanda. And there is lots of evidence you can force people to do things. There isn't so much evidence you can make them like it, but that is a much different question.

What if the people in Rwanda don't want to stop fighting? What if there is a good reason for it? What if there isn't? What business is it of anyone else's? There is a large amount of evidence that "good" people do "good" things. Notice that an organization such as the Salvation Army is in existence. Notice United Way, Boy Scouts of America, and the like. These organizations are predominantly "good", and they do predominantly "good" things. Look at the large number of social programs which pass the democratic governments in the world. They wouldn't fly if there were no support for them. Hence, if people want to do something good, they will. The United States, for example, has a very large number of dollars contributed per capita. This is independent of taxes already paid for social programs, which were also approved by a majority of the population. So, people do good things, on their own. -- EvanCofsky

Now, I can't stop thinking about this. Changes. By helping people or countries, it implies that we want influence these countries and society by making changes. If you see someone in trouble and that entity does not seek help for changes, you should not influence it to change itself. One learn quicker if he recognized that he needs change. Is exactly as the same as helping? It probably raised the fundamental reason on why do you want the others to change: is it truely philanthropic? -- JeanMarcHeneman

Exactly. If you decide that you absolutely must help someone, you have decided, usually without consent, that that person needs to be more like your vision of what he/she should be. Whose business is it except that person's what they are, so long as they have no effect on you. If a person wants to change, let them. If a person doesn't, don't bother them. If you don't like what that person is, or does, don't look, or go somewhere else. If they are on your property, ask them to leave. -- EvanCofsky

Elements of solution/answer: Do not try to change them, genuinely listen to them, understand them (See StephenCovey). They will find out by themselves sooner or later... then they will seek for help. -- JeanMarcHeneman

I find this unbelievably fatuous. The people in Rwanda weren't exactly fighting. One set of people was being massacred by another set. They didn't volunteer to be killed. The only way I want them to be like me is that I would like them to still be alive. If I saw you being beaten to a pulp, I'd like to think I'd try to help, and not wonder whether you were enjoying it. Is it possible that I'd be making a mistake? Yes. But probably not, and waiting for certainty generally means waiting forever. I can always let you resume your normally scheduled beating later if it turns out that is a good idea.

I don't see anyone stopping you from going. AnonymousDonor

I think we are on different levels of help/change here. You are right about people that are killed. We should do something about that. When I was talking about understand/understood from StephenCovey, I was thinking about a level where people are ready to receive help or to change. I guess this is more an Abraham MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds thing. (http://www.accel-team.com/human_relations/hrels_02_maslow.html). Rwanda is a people that needs safety first. As a human being having this safety need almost fullfilled, I should be able these people to reach a level where they can work on their self-actualization or self-fulfillment. StephenCovey built his system as a whole and the listening principle (understand/understood) makes sense only if you pratice the 6 other habits. -- JeanMarcHeneman

"I should be able these people..."??