Thursday, April 30, 2009

No man is an island

What are the ramifications of the saying "no man is an island"? What conventionally comes to mind is that people depend on each other, are influenced by each other, etc. No one is self-made, no one is self-sufficient, no matter how one thinks one is.

All this sounds innocuous and wise. In the right context, it certainly is. But it cuts both ways. If we are surrounded by good people, we get a positive influence. If we are surrounded by bad people -- not necessarily evil people, but people with unhealthy outlooks and values -- then we are under a negative impact. If we are aware of this influence, we can take steps to avoid being "contaminated", but if it is deeply ingrained throughout our culture, then even if our hearts and minds remain independent, there are limits to how much we can live in a way that reflects who we are and what we believe in.

As an example, suppose you wanted to buy a house in Plano, Texas. You could spend $200,000 and get a 2000-square foot single family home. But what if you wanted a significantly smaller home -- say 800 or 1000 square feet? Because having more stuff isn't that important to you, and you'd rather the extra cash away into your financial independence stash. That choice is not available to you, because of the way the housing market has developed over the past few decades. Materialistic-minded people want bigger houses, so politicians subsidize it through zoning laws and interest rate manipulation while the developers build McMansions. Nothing wrong with McMansions, but you practically can't find an 800 or 1000-square foot single family home in a nice neighborhood anymore. So if you wanted a good place to raise your kids, you'd have to dish out $200,000 instead of $120,000 because all the people in your demographic are materialistic members of Boobus Americanus who believe in having more material goods than they need (and yes that includes their residence -- none of that "your house is an investment" BS on this blog).

Further examples:
  • You live in a workaholic culture where everyone works 50+ hours a week (Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Korea come to mind). You will end up working 50+ hours a week if you get a job there.
  • You believe in saving and becoming financially independent. The culture believes that spending drives the economy, saves very little, and racks up a lot of debt (America for the last ten years). Government bails out the debtors by either subsidies or inflation. Either way, you get penalized.
  • You live in a society with laws that forbid self defense, and a compliant populace that has accepted the idea hook, line, and sinker. (UK, and California to an extent.) Someone breaks into your house and is threatening you and your family. As he charges with a knife, you shoot and injure him, stopping the attack. You are put on trial and found guilty by the jury, which is full of people who believe it is the government's duty and not yours to use lethal force. So you go to prison for doing the right thing.
Does that mean you are forced to live in the way that everyone else is? No, you can always relocate to a place that allows you to live the life that you want to live (as I have done). But it takes the right mindset -- one that doesn't just blindly accept the shackles that society throws on you -- one determined enough to look for a way out. Sadly, too many people don't have that mindset, nor any clue of how different things could be.

No comments: