"Me" vs "We"

People tend to see their thinking dominated by one of those words or the other. To be sure, no one in the realm of 'normal' thinks fully in one term or the other, but they do lean a certain way pretty consistently.

The words really do form a moral concept, though, don't they?

I tend to be a "we" person. It seems to me that anyone who considers him/herself a willing member of society is a "we" person.

Most of the Democrats I know are more on the "we" side, too. Not all. But most.

Most of the Republicans I know are "me" types.

I don't like "me" types.

"Me" types don't get along well in society. They tend to be, at best, grudging members.

I like me, but I like even better being a "we".

most repubs I know are of the "I got mine, fuck everybody else" philosophy.

May also be good for sorting out Democrats and DINOs!

I think you'd like it!

http://www.amazon.com/Value-Values-Thinking-Differently-About/dp/0131461257/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196780219&sr=1-9

Now, I'm a "them" person. Everything I do, I do for them.

Everybody else can go fuck themselves. (just kidding)

Yet it is celebrated by many (most?) dems. Do you really believe we can be take-no-prisoners cutthroats in the economic sphere, but communitarians in our private lives?

As anyone can observe, this simply doesn't (and cannot) happen.

an over simplification. The vast majority of people in America are "me" types. I think the measurement is in not what you say, but what you do. Do you donate your time to help those less fortunate then yourself on a regular basis? How about your money? When you see someone in obvious distress, say a single mother by the side of the road with a flat tire, do you stop and offer your help? Would you willingly give up your own wants to fill a need in someone else's life. If you know a friend is in need of emotional support do you go out of your way to provide it or do you avoid them until the problem has passed? Being a "we" type is not about supporting government programs to help others, it's about giving of yourself to help others.

the OP IMO refers to supporting the greater good of society as a whole, not sending a few bucks to the Salvation Army every year and patting yourself on the back for it.

I am not talking about "ending a few bucks to the Salvation Army" I am talking about truly giving of yourself by giving of your money as well as your time. Placing your own wants behind the needs of others. Stopping to change a tire for someone who needs help even though it's raining and doing so will make you late, seeing a need in someone else's life and rather than buying that new LCD tv taking the money to provide for that need, spending time with a friend who has is going through some "stuff" even if you had tickets to that game or concert you really wanted to see. Being a WE person is about self-sacrifice not about how much money you give.

and you are still completely missing the point.

An excellent interpretation.

Even Wal Mart makes charitable donations. So that's clearly no measure of a "we".

it's the difference between driving by a house fire and getting out of your car to put it out, and funding a fire dept. to put out the fires that you don't happen to be driving by.

Something tells me that it's not Homeland security that makes you unhappy, but Welfare and Social security. This grudge stems from dislike of your fellow man. By saying "I want to give - rather than the government" (Poppy's 1000 points of light), you're saying: I don't any others to benefit from my money. Unless it's when and were I decide it.

I think of this all the time. It has extremely far reaching ramifications. It's literally why we have global warming. I know that may be difficult for some to see. This is a great subject.

Now my aching head must have coffee.


Oh, last night I came to the obvious conclusion that people create government as a means of SHARING. And why else would conservatives hate it. And I think this came from the other realization that reality is liberal. We help each other. Unless we are damaged goods, like Bush. And his evil mother. The entire concept of government centers around WE.

There's so much more to discuss with this subject. It's the basis for almost everything. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That's talking about WE.

Another thing- as population increases, there is a phenomenon that forces us to go from Me to We. Not only that, but as you can see there are also increases in laws as population grows. That also forces us to conform to We rather than Me. In the beginning, there was only Me. Well, that's not even true if you believe in Cain and Abel. But now it's We wherever you look.

There's a lot of stuff in this concept.

the bill of rights is about me. the rest of our government structure is about we.
laws should not be being written about me. we should not have an energy policy that is about ken lay and bandar bush. we should not have a post katrina recovery plan that is about halliburton and blackwater. (corporations are people, remember. :eyes:)
we should not have laws about what "me" should do with my body.
i could go on and on. you get the idea.

NOW I can go have my coffee.

You opened my eyes on that one. Thanks.

"I value my family, not yours."


In Jared Bernstein's book, "All Together Now" he talks about the YOYOs vs the WIITs. YOYO equals Your-On-Your-Own & WITT equals We're-In-This-Together. It's a quick read with interesting observations about the two different world views & how they regard the economy.

http://www.amazon.com/All-Together-Now-Economy-Currents/dp/1576753875/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196783696&sr=8-1

... talking about the countries with universal health care, free college tuition etc...., when he says "they live in a world of 'we', not 'me'."

Two related concepts:

The Tragedy of the Commons:

o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

"Takers" versus "Leavers", as expressed in Daniel Quinn's novel Ishmael

o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_%28novel%29

Tesha

As long as there is no conservation after the advances in efficiency. But then if you were going to conserve, there would be no need for greater efficiency in the first place. Whatever you end up saving through efficiency will be used up by more people taking advantage of greater efficiency. Jevons paradox and all that.

Great post.

However, IMO there is a step beyond the dichotomy of "me" or "we."

That is to recognize that social concern is ultimately the same as self-interest. They are not mutually exclusive.

A society in which everyone has an opportunity to advance, and that also provides a collective safety net and solution to problems that the "markets" don't address is in both beneficial on the social level and on an individual level.

In contrast, a society in which everyone is only concerned with themselves is ultimately bad for everyone.

A mutually supportive society is in everyone's self-interests. It is even in the interest of those who are high up the food chain, because they are as affected by crime, pollution, shrinking middle class and other implications of a totally "me" orientd society.

That translates into specific policies and values in many ways.

Ultimately "The better off everyone is, the better off EVERYONE is."

that society depends on to exist?

"A society in which everyone has an opportunity to advance, and that also provides a collective safety net and solution to problems that the "markets" don't address is in both beneficial on the social level and on an individual level."

So everyone has an opportunity to advance, but nobody has an equal opportunity to fall? Doesn't that type of setup eventually result in destruction of anything that isn't within that society?

The same could be said in reverse about nobody being able to advance beyond a certain point, but everyone able to fall as far as they can possibly go. That could basically be destructive to anything that is within that society, since whoever is leading the society could impose their own ideology onto everyone.

Then you could have a society with limits both on top and bottom. It gets tougher and more complicated to govern that type of setup with the more people you add to it though(same with any type of system). It becomes more distant, and people would be less likely to voluntarily give up their own advance potential. It then requires force to do so, and we get back into the problem area.

Can everyone have everything? Will there be a habitat if there is no limit to how much someone can have, but at the same time a limit to how much someone can't? Every time someone gets more, that raises the bottom up another rung on the ladder. Can more and more people fit on the ladder? Is the ladder infinite? I've never seen an infinite ladder. Would the weight of the ladder topple over at some point?