So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[HudsonHawk]

Here the terms get grey. Insurance is a form of socialism (in the sense of pooling risk), but when it's in the private sector, an individual can chose to take it or not; hence, private insurance (with "mutualized" or, if you like, "socialized" risk) is fine IMHO as it doesn't infringe on individual choice. When it's done at the gov't level, my main issues are (1) it is forced on you as it is not a choice you can make of your own free will, (2) in many add on ways, it also infringes on individual freedom and (3) overall, I believe capitalism (not crony capitalism) - free markets - is immensely more efficient at providing services than the gov't.

This is really what I was interested in. I interpreted (incorrectly) your objection to "socialized medicine" to be the "social" aspect of it, ie that Person A ultimately subsidizes Person B's healthcare. I think for many, that *is* their main objection, at least on the face. I agree that there is a loss of personal choice no matter which direction we choose, but at least with private insurance there is the general choice to decline it. We still have the problem of many people *saying* they're willing to live in a "die in the streets" world, but few actually accepting it when it happens for real.

We're living in interesting times, with respect to healthcare and the free market. I guess historically there's always been some market aspect to it, but it's become so much more transactional and less personal in the last say 50 years.

 

[Fading Fast]

...We're living in interesting times, with respect to healthcare and the free market. I guess historically there's always been some market aspect to it, but it's become so much more transactional and less personal in the last say 50 years.

I think part of the reason is because we've made so many advancements in medicine. My mom said, growing up in the '30s, there was so much less doctors could do and it wasn't that specialized that you went to the GP for most things and that was that. Now, it's almost always off to the specialist and off for several (costly and involved) test once you have something that isn't very basic. To some extent, we paid less back then - and it felt more personal - as you had less things to pay for and you went to your GP for so much more.

Even growing up on the '60s and '70s - and not being a go-to-the-doctor family - we pretty much went to one doctor and that was that. I remember my dad had a really bad ear infection that the GP couldn't seem to cure, so he sent him to a "specialist," which seemed very, very strange to us. Now, as mentioned, unless it's something pretty simple, you seem to almost always be sent to a specialist today (and for multiple tests). I know that's just part of it, but I think it is part of why it feels less personal and more transactional today.

 

[tonyb]

A Somali immigrant fellow of my acquaintance tells me that from his perspective clan identity is at the heart of the problems plaguing his homeland. It’s as if people would rather increase their own suffering than do anything to alleviate that of their adversaries. They’ll get behind a “leader” from their clan just because he’s “one of us,” no matter how unfit he might be otherwise.

It’s as common a human trait as any. We identify with, and distinguish ourselves from, other humans, mostly to impose meaning on our mortal existence. We want to believe in something larger than our individual selves.

It troubles me to see our society fracturing along ideological, racial, religious, etc. lines. Those lines have always existed, but I don’t think I’m just imagining that they’ve become more pronounced in recent years.

I now have some understanding of Marshall MacLuhan’s prediction that electronic media would foster a “re-tribalizing” of society. It seemed downright loopy to me when I first read of it, way back when, but it appears time (and technology) has borne him out.

Who benefits from this? Some do — financially, politically. Divide and conquer, and tally up the spoils.

But to what end? So we can bury our dead and say we won? And that those liberals or conservatives or socialists or libertarians or Christians or Muslims or whoever didn’t?

I say dump your identity, or at least don’t wear it on your sleeve. And don’t plaster the back of your Prius or F-350 with stickers proclaiming your ideological identity, no matter what it might be. It’s not changing any minds. Indeed, it likelier leaves people thinking you’re personally insecure.

 

[LizzieMaine]

McLuhan was far ahead of his time. If he had lived to see the gutter tribalism of Twitter, he'd have shaken his head and said "I told you so."

It's not just technology though. It's been a steady progression thruout the postwar era -- the Cold War couldn't have existed without tribalization -- and it's gotten sharply worse over the last thirty years or so. Talk radio, echo-chamber cable news, the internet, all have contributed to it, and as soon as some new technology emerges, it gets swept into line with the trend. Aside from making class exploitation that much easier, there's also good money to be made in fostering a We Versus They mindset.

 

[vitanola]

Respectfully, that is not what I object to. To wit, I've argued that if we won't let people die in the streets - as, overall, we don't (at least in NYC where hospitals have to treat everyone who shows up regardless of if he or she can pay or not) - then we should require everyone to get insurance and we should subsidize those who can't afford it. I'm willing to live in a die-in-the-street world, but since that is not politically acceptable, I think Obama was correct in requiring everyone to get insurance, since, otherwise, the rest of us who do get insurance subsidize those who don't. Unfortunately, Obama didn't make the argument that way.

What I object to (to your implied question) - which is only one of the reasons why I oppose socialized medicine - is that it all starts out sounding nice, but one of the next potential steps is - as was implied in the post I was replying to - to start controlling everyone's "healthcare" decisions. So, for example, of course you have to wear a seatbelt / stop smoking / eat healthier because these are no longer just individual risk / life decisions, they effect "all of us," as, if you get sick now, everyone pays. So, socialize medicine becomes an infringement on personal freedom and choice and takes away our rights to make risk decisions for ourselves. I think that freedom is worth more than the (putative) benefits of socialized medicine - which, I don't believe is truly a benefit.

One, if the bartenders think this post is too political - please delete. I only posted in response (and tried to stay consistent with many other posts in this thread re their amount of political comments), but that's not an excuse - if it's over the line - kill it. Second, I am not trying to change anyone's mind, just responding to the post. I don't think FL is the forum to debate these things, so if you don't agree with me, please say and post anything you wish against my ideas, but I do not plan to respond because that would just turn into a political debate.

You make good and strong points. There are many areas where it is sheerest folly to assume that "both sides" have reasonable arguments, but in the discussion of health care every "improvement" involves important trade-offs, and reasonable, intelligent folk have good reason to differ as to which trade-offs, which infringements of personal liberty, are acceptable and which are beyond the pale. Politics is the mechanism whereby we as a people have historically decided just where the trade-offs should be, and just which infringements of personal liberty are acceptable. Unfortunately, our political system, which has by design always been just a little bit messy, and which was intentionally innefficient, seems to have reached one of those occasional inflection points where it is not properly addressing important issues.

At such times it is wise, I think, to take comfort in Stein's Law.

 

[HudsonHawk]

McLuhan was far ahead of his time. If he had lived to see the gutter tribalism of Twitter, he'd have shaken his head and said "I told you so."

It's not just technology though. It's been a steady progression thruout the postwar era -- the Cold War couldn't have existed without tribalization -- and it's gotten sharply worse over the last thirty years or so. Talk radio, echo-chamber cable news, the internet, all have contributed to it, and as soon as some new technology emerges, it gets swept into line with the trend. Aside from making class exploitation that much easier, there's also good money to be made in fostering a We Versus They mindset.

Tribalism is as ancient as human existence. In an evolutionary sense, it's hardwired into our DNA. Being able to tell friend from foe, quickly, was a necessity for survival, so we have developed this instinct to trust and align with others who are familiar to us and avoid and distrust those who are different. This is shown over and over again in politics, social cliques, even in choosing mates. I think it's magnified by technology...kind of the same line as before the internet at least the village idiot stayed in his own village.

 

[LizzieMaine]

There are many things wired into our DNA that we make a specific effort to overcome -- otherwise there'd be no such thing as civilization. The question is when will we evolve sufficiently to suppress that tribalism gene. It's not an easy thing to do, especially when it's as monetized as it is. But either we do get it out of our system, or we don't survive. One World Or None, as the saying used to go.

 

[tonyb]

There’s no liberty, nor pursuit of happiness, without there first being life.

That “well, duh” observation is employed by those opposed to legalized pregnancy termination as well as advocates of universal health care. Those factions rarely align on anything.

I cite it to illustrate how any aphorism is of limited applicability in a messy world of conflicting interests and desires. People find their own “truths” in the very words in which others find quite contradictory truths. So it’s not the words at all; it’s what we make of them.

Devotees of any political philosophy, the true believers, are generally but a short step removed from cultism. They’re given to quoting their favorite sayings from, say, Ayn Rand or Thomas Sowell, Bertrand Russell or Noam Chomsky, as though those utterances, witty or “intelligent” as they might be, somehow settle any matter at all.

 

[tonyb]

There are many things wired into our DNA that we make a specific effort to overcome -- otherwise there'd be no such thing as civilization. The question is when will we evolve sufficiently to suppress that tribalism gene. It's not an easy thing to do, especially when it's as monetized as it is. But either we do get it out of our system, or we don't survive. One World Or None, as the saying used to go.

Yup. Young men (I was one once) are hard-wired (pun intended) to shtup anything that will hold still for it, voluntarily or not. The survival of the species once depended on that, too.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

There are many things wired into our DNA that we make a specific effort to overcome -- otherwise there'd be no such thing as civilization. The question is when will we evolve sufficiently to suppress that tribalism gene. It's not an easy thing to do, especially when it's as monetized as it is. But either we do get it out of our system, or we don't survive. One World Or None, as the saying used to go.

As I say too often, you can take the chimp outta the jungle but you can't take the jungle outta the chimp. Our closest relatives on the evolutionary ladder are as political & tribalistic as we are. It's an ape thing. Even with selective breeding it would be impossible to remove it from the human genome.
Civilizations are dependant on tribalism, exploiting the human need to belong to a group or a clan, persuade them that this civilization is better than any other & then they will be only too happy to devote themselves for the greater good.
It would even be impossible to remove tribalism from our everyday lives as nearly everything we do has some kind of tribalistic origin, not always obvious at first glance, from brand fidelity to religious beliefs & political convictions. There is nothing more tribalistic than supporting a particular sport's team for example. If you put three people into a room, two will form a clan against the third, it's human nature to agglomerate into separate groups like turds in a toilet bowl.
Tribalism isn't rational though, it's emotional & instinctive, thus easlily manipulated. " Rally 'round the flag boys."
Most of us can get along or rather we are obliged to get along with the help of laws & social conditioning but this apparent peaceful cohabitation is only skin deep & the thin veneer of 'civilization' is easlily scratched to reveal the violent tribal primate within. Even the most placid & erudite amoung us, will inevitably feel the occassional urge to reach for their spears to defend their symbolic tribe.

 

[GHT]

There are many things wired into our DNA that we make a specific effort to overcome -- otherwise there'd be no such thing as civilization. The question is when will we evolve sufficiently to suppress that tribalism gene. It's not an easy thing to do, especially when it's as monetized as it is. But either we do get it out of our system, or we don't survive. One World Or None, as the saying used to go.

We will never eliminate tribalism while we have faith schools.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The thing with supporting sports teams, though, is that we *know* it isn't rational -- we know we're rooting for shirts -- and for the most part, football hooligans and Frankie Germano excepted, we can keep it under control. It's a more or less harmless outlet for such attitudes. When you start taking it so seriously that you beat up people who root for the other team, though, it ceases to be harmless fandom and mutates into something closer to blind, stupid nationalism. Fighting over a shirt is no different from fighting over a flag.

Nationalism, in whatever form, may be the single most pointlessly destructive force in human history. It has contributed nothing to the progress of humanity and more lives have been thrown away in its name than any factor or belief. I don't agree that such things are essential to civilization -- if anything, they're an impediment to it. How many "civilizations" have been lost in its name? How many will yet be lost in its name?

 

[KILO NOVEMBER]

And don’t plaster the back of your Prius or F-350 with stickers proclaiming your ideological identity, no matter what it might be. It’s not changing any minds. Indeed, it likelier leaves people thinking you’re personally insecure.

Tony, if you drive an F-350 or a Prius, you've already made a proclamation of your identity. No stickers necessary.
Now, I would get a chuckle if I saw one of those "My other car is a ..." bumper sticker on the back of a Prius if it said "My other car is an F-350" or vice versa.

 

[tonyb]

Tony, if you drive an F-350 or a Prius, you've already made a proclamation of your identity. No stickers necessary.
Now, I would get a chuckle if I saw one of those "My other car is a ..." bumper sticker on the back of a Prius if it said "My other car is an F-350" or vice versa.

What a person’s ownership of an F-350 tells me about that person is that he or she owns an F-350.

Which is not to say you’ll not likelier find stickers proclaiming one political perspective or another on an F-350 or a Prius.

FWIW, I happen to be acquainted with a fellow, a relative by marriage, a retired cop with decidedly rightist views, who uses a Prius as a daily driver. He owns other vehicles, a pickup among them, a 1960-something International, but that’s mostly a toy.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

The thing with supporting sports teams, though, is that we *know* it isn't rational -- we know we're rooting for shirts -- and for the most part, football hooligans and Frankie Germano excepted, we can keep it under control. It's a more or less harmless outlet for such attitudes. When you start taking it so seriously that you beat up people who root for the other team, though, it ceases to be harmless fandom and mutates into something closer to blind, stupid nationalism. Fighting over a shirt is no different from fighting over a flag.

You think like that because you are an intelligent person with a certain control over your primal instincts. You can also depend on your intellect to kick in when necessary. Many people can't since they don't have the required distance or cultural references to be able to stand back & question their fanaticism.

Nationalism, in whatever form, may be the single most pointlessly destructive force in human history. It has contributed nothing to the progress of humanity and more lives have been thrown away in its name than any factor or belief. I don't agree that such things are essential to civilization -- if anything, they're an impediment to it. How many "civilizations" have been lost in its name? How many will yet be lost in its name?

By their very nature, all civilizations are destined to fall & their demise is usually multifactorial, the absence of tribalism when the masses realize they have been duped is sometimes one of the causes.
There can be no civilization without tribalism, without the adherance of a populace convinced of the superiority of their civlization & so work blindly to maintain it, to fight for it in wars, to defend the governing elite & to sacrifice the weak. It can also be argued that a civilization could not exist without enemies, rival tribes trying to take what is ours & so ensure the essential tribal allegiance of it's citizens or subjects. If there were no enemies beyond the gates then people may start to ask if there were alternatives & that is the last thing any civilization or tribe wants to happen.
It would be great to live in a world described by John Lennon's 'Imagine' but it would have to be a world without people. Some people are wired wishing to make the world a better place, to cultivate what is best in human nature but alas, far too many are not & their tribes have mighty powerful medicine.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Yup. Young men (I was one once) are hard-wired (pun intended) to shtup anything that will hold still for it, voluntarily or not. The survival of the species once depended on that, too.

I'm not suggesting that we should tolerate tribalism, or sexual assault for that matter, only pointing out that it is not a new phenomenon nor a creation of modern technology.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Tony, if you drive an F-350 or a Prius, you've already made a proclamation of your identity. No stickers necessary.
Now, I would get a chuckle if I saw one of those "My other car is a ..." bumper sticker on the back of a Prius if it said "My other car is an F-350" or vice versa.

For the record....just because I live in Texas, drive a pickup, own a tractor and occasionally wear cowboy boots does not mean I'm part of a larger group of likeminded, foul, incessantly annoying simpletons...like, say Dallas Cowboy fans...

 

[Lean'n'mean]

For the record....just because I live in Texas, drive a pickup, own a tractor and occasionally wear cowboy boots does not mean I'm part of a larger group of likeminded, foul, incessantly annoying simpletons...like, say Dallas Cowboy fans...

Your tribe is better than theirs.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Ask not upon whom Calvin pees, he pees upon thee.

 

[tonyb]

For the record....just because I live in Texas, drive a pickup, own a tractor and occasionally wear cowboy boots does not mean I'm part of a larger group of likeminded, foul, incessantly annoying simpletons...like, say Dallas Cowboy fans...

I wear cowboy boots, too. (And Converse All-Stars.) I’m in blue jeans most every day. I’ve owned trucks and likely will again.

As an older, bald-headed, somewhat overweight lifelong American fellow of predominantly Northern European extraction, I find people — mostly younger people — making wildly erroneous assumptions about my personal history, my political views, my aesthetic preferences, etc., etc.

Call it lingering tribalism, I suppose. People see what they expect to see.