Enraged

July 1997. Prime minister Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz visits sites damaged by the flood of millennium and concludes: this is yet another incidence which bears out one should be prudent and take out insurance, alas this truth is still not common. Nothing hurts like the truth. Mr Cimoszewicz’s utterance has become a nail to the coffin of his party in the coming parliamentary elections and has gone down in history as a symbol of insensitiveness to other people’s misery.

In fact only extreme liberals have the courage to admit Mr Cimoszewicz’s statement was hitting nail in the head when speaking about lack of foresight among humans. Those words might have been out of place, if spoken out among people who had lost all their belongings in the flood, but look at it from a different perspective. One person pays insurance premiums for years and when their house is destroyed by a flood, they collect a compensation. Another person, if they have luck be one of many victims of a natural disaster, gets aid from the government = taxpayers. What is your sense of justice telling you now? Should there by any differentiation between forward-looking citizens who take out insurance and those who reckon when it comes to the crunch the government will step in and help? There are several ways out. First one – the government does not help anyone, the insured get money, those who failed to insure against flood are left out in the cold. Second one – the government gives money, but only to those who have not bought insurance policies. Those who paid insurance premiums learn they are suckers sinking money into insurance policies for years and their reckless neighbours are free-riders whose lack of prudence is rewarded. Third option – the government gives money to anyone aggrieved, no matter insured, or not. Those without insurance get relief, while when comes to the insured ones, there are two options – either they get a compensation from their insurance company and in effect are better off (counting out the hassle to rebuild their houses and arrange them) after the flood, or insurance companies refuse to pay out compensations, as benefits from the government have the same character. In both cases somebody grows richer at taxpayers’ expense – the insured flooded or insurers…

The considerations above arise from the widespread belief government is omnipotent and is capable of influencing events at its discretion. This conviction is abjectly dangerous as it implies firstly citizens are infantile creatures not capable of taking care of themselves and should be incapacitated, secondly the government can be blamed for virtually everything, since it can control everything.

When politicians of PiS blame government for everything, it is not just an element of their political strategy which assumes no matter what the PO-led government do, good or bad, must be slated right away, but also an exemplification of their view of the world. Mr Kaczyński’s advocates deeply believe if Kaczynski was in power, all the problems would disappear. They deeply believe people in power are capable of turning things around whenever they wish. And this is dreadful. This also engender claimant’s stance – a way of thinking “I deserve”, “the state is duty bound to provide for…”. “Mnie się należy”, “państwo ma dać”, “państwo ma obowiązek, dbać, zapewnić, etc.”, „co państwo zrobiło”... Rigns a bell? Makes me want to puke…

In fact how a society functions, all social plagues, shortcomings, criminality, etc. is mainly a sum of millions of individuals’ behaviours, attitudes, moral spines. Other factors shaping workings of society are formal and informal sets of rules which tell us what is acceptable and what not. There is legal system, including penal code, which deters individuals from engaging in unacceptable practices, but what really can discourage people from wrongdoing are enforceable social norms. It is not a potential punishment of let’s say ten years of imprisonment for drunk driving that should prevent us from sitting behind the wheel when intoxicated, but the strong conviction this is dangerous and will be condemned by any upright citizen.

You cannot blame government for everything. Can we blame the government for Amber Gold scandal? Partly yes, as it did not amend regulations which did not oblige prosecutors to instigate proceedings against the fraudulent company immediately upon receiving request from Financial Supervision Authority. The state should ensure all scams are detected early and their masterminds imprisoned, but the state will not prevent you from entrusting your money voluntarily to a crook.

Can we blame the government for bankruptcies in the construction sector? Terms of contracts, including payment terms, as proposed by Road Construction Agency were often unfavourable for contractors but they all in concert bid the lowest prices. They all agreed for conditions set by Gdaka, but when everyone cries about bankrupt subcontractors (doing business means taking risks), why does nobody mention millions or zlotys saved from the public purse? Intense competition among road builders has finally brought costs of road construction to a level comparable with European ones. Why does nobody mention relief to taxpayers and lower public debt?

Your fate lies in your hands. Many times people’s misery is not their fault, but many times they work hard for their predicament. As someone aptly summarised recent summer’s woes of clients of Amber Gold, OLT Express, or bankrupt travel agencies, this can be all put down to Polish greed, tight-fistedness, low level of wealth or simply dziadostwo. We chase bargains by seeking out promises of high yield, low-lost travels, without minding credentials of our counterparties. And when it falls down, we blame regulators, government, bad people, but never ourselves, our naivety, greed, lack of foresight and judgement.

If so, no wonder we posit the government should take responsibility for us, but consequently we deprive ourselves of freedom. But let’s ask whether freedom is actually desirable. Freedom is not the right to prance about in tight clothes on a gay parade (I have nothing against homosexuals, but I am not fond of flaunting sexual preferences), but freedom entails responsibility, means you are wise enough to take decisions regarding your life and suffer consequences of your deeds and this may be inconvenient for many.

My observations indicate people prefer to renounce responsibility and admit their infantilism by offloading responsibility to others. No matter if these were bankers who begged for bailout four years ago, or unemployed Poles blaming Mr Tusk for their joblessness, the trend towards giving up freedom in return from protection is disturbingly apparent…

PS. Bought a new camera today :)

Entrapped by the freedom

This is one of few postings that really fits the title of the blog. Prompted by Adthelad I finally found three hours to watch “The Trap” – a documentary by Adam Curtis, broadcast by BBC in March 2007. Instead of reviewing the film, I’ll have a try on commenting on most of the concepts outlined in it. Sorry for a bit chaotic post, high temperature combined with high air humidity is not conducive to writing, believe me…

1. Is the freedom we experience true or is it just an illusion?

2. Human nature – the authors of the documentary quote many theories, according to which humans are self-serving, dishonest, pursue their own advantages at the expense of others. It seems that a goal of an average man is to outwit his fellow man. No matter how true that notion is, the question which is still hard to answer is whether those bad traits are inborn or are they shaped over the course of upbringing? Some research carried out both in developed societies and in pristine communes prove the heart of human selfishness and cruelty lies in our genes. If those behavioural patterns are instinctive and all attempts to root them out are doomed to fail, the rational conclusion is to learn to get on with them and to harness them to make our lives easier. The answer according to some thinkers is to design a society based on natural leanings – if humans pursue their own interests, the most efficient system is such giving room for unleashing our obscure instincts and behaving rationally, on the basis of cool calculations. In such an environment, clever creatures surely are aware that their fellow men will try to outwit them, what results in social interaction based on mistrust and suspicions. Other people are your rivals, life becomes a race, the goal is to hit your enemy before he hits you…

3. Game theory – maybe this concept does not answer one of basic questions – whether people are good or bad by nature, but rather puts emphasis on readiness to cooperate. As some scientists point out, all our moves have to be in line with strategising – anticipating what other people will do or think. Game theory was put into practice on a large scale during the cold war and actually it founded the moves of both enemies on fear – but is fear bad? In finance – yes, in life – just take a look… Social and legal sanctions prevent us from committing crimes, not our conscience – the authors argue. So is it true that we don’t kill one another, don’t steal goods from one another mostly because punishments hold us back from doing it?

4. Politics – post-WW2 notions of the state stressed the importance of strong administration which would protect people from blows dealt by the invisible hand of free market (which, as said in the third episode of the film, doesn’t exist). A lean state can’t cope with all problems and control everything so an overgrown bureaucratic apparatus has to be created. With time, bureaucracy becomes an independent structure which pursues its own advantages and no longer focuses on helping people. Instead, a maze of procedures, regulations, laws, documents begins to hinder actions taken by the humans. In economics, some individuals get discouraged and have no more patience for striving for anything, what translates into lower economic growth rates. The way to overcome that tendency was introducing mechanisms which would make use of the dark side of human nature – so if state officials are indeed self-serving, their stance ought to pay off!

5. Performance targets – was a crucial tool harnessed to achieve the goal described above. Unfortunately, the creators of that solution probably failed to predict wicked humans would always find was to circumvent the rules of the system. Bank salespeople were walking around cemeteries and taking down names of the deceased to sell them credit cards. Hospital managers removed the wheels from wheelchairs to cut down on the number of patients on wheelchairs. In communism there were plans, przodownicy pracy and some other absurdities, figures in the plans were deliberately lowered to exceed it, now the race towards efficiency makes workers focus on the targets. The pressure to reach inflated goals creates temptation to tamper with figures. Thank God my job is assessed on the basis of quality, not quantity. A system of targets was meant to encourage individuals and teams to compete (like on constructions sites of socialism), in turn the outcome was often opposite as in the case of school rankings – rich children go to better schools, clever, but poor go to worse one and so the gap is growing!

6. Having touched upon the schooling, the film raises also the issue of social mobility, limited in the culture of freedom. Here what comes to mind is a question about the role of government in fighting inequality. In my view, governments should target inequality and keep it on optimum level, that is not so big that it hampers development (the poor stand no chance of social advancement, so there is no incentive to even try) and not so low that there is no incentive for striving any goals. On optimum level, the state offers opportunities for those who are too poor to receive proper education but have potential to grow and then leaves them alone as grown-ups. A sustainable development is in long-term impossible with high inequalities – those disadvantaged will sooner or later vote for populists who will point at the guilty of their misery and the effects of toppling the old system will be piteous.

7. Maths and numbers generally have become a new deity for the advocates of the new system. But think if everything can be measured and calculated – quality, satisfaction, happiness, freedom? Can we use complex mathematical models to describe economy? Would they prove useful on stock markets where prices are driven by decisions of millions of investors, which in turn are driven by thousands of more or less rational premises? My take on the issue is that psychological phenomena generally are very hard to measure and sometimes bringing in numbers might bring more harm than good.

8. Who the hell has the right to adjudicate what is normal and what not? Human character and psyche are too complex to be described with numbers and even if someone does so, it would mean unification – the same model for all people, when people are so different. Who wants to kill humanity by killing diversity, when beauty of mankind consists in diversity. Who created a culture of happiness, ideal traits, perfect people, etc? The pursuit of the ideal pushes millions of people into mental disorders every year. Young, ambitious, creative, flexible, clever, slim, brave, dynamic, enthusiastic, open-minded, sun-tanned, well-travelled, well-dressed, go on for hours… There is an image of ideal woman / man, but when the pursuit of ideals contributes to our development and when it leads up to obsessions? If you don’t fit in, should you feel worse off? Are those who want to break away from the rigid codes of happiness labelled mad?

9. And finally, let’s ask what the freedom actually is. There is a distinction between positive and negative liberties. The former is identified with leftist concept of freedom, the latter with the rightist. This has not been mentioned in the film, but notice that right-wing and left-wing politicians define freedom in different ways. Lefts will say you’re free to have an abortion, rights will tell you should be free from tax burdens… The most absurd thing is that freedom can be imposed – as no one can be forced to be happy, no one can be forced to be free. Freedom is not built in to many cultures and people have been getting on with it for centuries, as in Muslim societies, now somebody wants to step in and say he knows better. Attempts of imposition of freedom ended up with violence and cruelty. I also think military interventions were not launched to liberate suppressed nations but for other ends. And end justifies the means…

WARNING - The passage above is quite obnoxious.

Imagine dear reader you and I sit in a bar, sip beer, but you’re despondent, have some problems and can’t really enjoy the meeting. Your face shows sadness, but I want you to have fun because it’s good for you. You can’t overcome the sadness so I shout at you and tell you I want to see a f**king smile on your f**king face. When you don’t smile I grow impatient and beat you to a pulp and finally you smile, out of pure fear that in the next bout of anger I may break your limbs, crunch your ribs, scoop out your eyes. Is what is written above normal?

So what the word ‘freedom’ means? For me – RESPONSIBILITY, readiness to be bear consequences of my deeds and decisions, not the right to do whatever I want and not pursuit of my happiness. And the role of a government is to protect me, but not from myself, but from other self-serving people.

Many threads are deliberately unfinished just to trigger a discussion.

Where are the limits of freedom?

“On your knees, dog!”, a young man with a face untainted with a single thought aims a gun at a policeman. What does it look like? A scene from a film, a passage from a next coverage of tragic event in Warsaw? No, a new advert which appeared in one of Polish skateboarders’ monthlies. As the author of the picture and co-owner of a textile company which ordered this ad, there is nothing reprehensible, since the idea of threatening a policeman with a gun hatches in every young skateboarder’s head.

Now let’s take his reasoning apart. He claims a normal teenager dreams about killing or at least humiliating a policeman in service. The taste of revenge is for sure sweet, so every mentally healthy person would get their own back on their persecutors – is this how it works.
It’s just an innocuous joke, remember about it when you see a similar scene on a street. Just pass by and don’t try to react. Let guys have fun.

Everything has its limits. Everything but the human folly. And what are the limits of freedom? Other men’s freedom and, in any society, generally accepted social norms. In Poland, although it is still catching up with the West, people generally agree that people who aim guns at policemen are criminals.

So what can be done about this. The advert was published only in a niche magazine, I don’t know whether it has to comply with ethical standards of advertising. In my view the punishment should be the most severe, what in my books means financial. Those who have come up with the idea and those who have allowed it to be published should be fined heavily. If those retards who had thought it up had to pay one million zlotys for this stupid ad, the likes of them would think twice before they would something equally silly.