Monday, April 04, 2011

Business Run Like a Family, Living as a Business

I heard a teacher in college once exclaim the following;

“If people ran their lives more like a business and businesses ran more like families everyone would have a better life.”

As a student I had no way to argue for it or against it so I just accepted that the teacher was a wiser person than I was. But now, I would dispute this. This statement is a statement only a politician who thinks he understands the discipline of sociology or only by a sociologist who wants to be a politician would make.

And I have just about as much respect for a sociologist as I do a politician. They both possess the same fault . They both believe that they can create the perfect society and each, with the help of the other, believe that this state of existence is an attainable goal.

And how do each try to create this perfect society? They believe that if the dominant sector of a society changes its attitude towards the subordinate sector of this society and treat them as equals then they will have a perfect society. And they see nothing wrong in the use of force to bring about this change in attitude.

And they justify this use of force by using the excuse they are just helping the less fortunate individuals of society. What they do not think about is that the word help does not permit the use of force to bring about change. Help, to be known as help must be voluntary and consensual on the part of both parties, the one being helped as well as the one doing the helping. Helping another by the means of force is the foundational basis of the meaning of being a slave.

For it can be said that by the use of force a slave is helping his Master. Yet, one thing must be noted, no one will ever use the word help in their description of a Master/slave relationship. In fact people will describe this relationship in a manner that not only decries the use of force but declares it an intolerable situation because of the use of force to not only create that relationship but also necessitates the use of force in order to maintain that relationship.

Now, granted, recognition of the difference between these two concepts does not change the behavior of either person but it does have an effect on the attitude of each person in regards to themselves and in regards to the other person. The reason being is that a person must do the same thing when aiding another person.

What neither realizes or fails to understand is the fact that in order to create this perfect society they must have absolute control over every aspect of the lives of every one of the members of this society. You can't explicitly declare that you are going to change the way a society is without implicitly declaring that you are seeking to change the individuals of that society. The same is true when a person is forced to do something for himself.

And the justification for this that there are people who knows what is the best thing to do for another person. In other words some people believe that they are much more wiser than others thus this justifies making decisions for them. This is treating people as if they are children rather than treating them as adults who have the ability to make their own decisions in life.

We make decisions for children because we know that they are not mature enough to make good decisions on their own. We also know that there must come a time to cut the umbilical cord and recognize that it is time they must be responsible for their own decisions even when we as parents feel that the decisions they make are not beneficial to them.

In both cases we have a “cannot” instead of a “can” situation. A slave cannot make his own decisions about his own life because he does not have the power and authority to do so. A child cannot make his own decisions because he does not have the sufficient maturity to do so. The big difference being is that enslavement is intended on being a permanent condition of life while childhood is known to be a temporary condition of life

That is the biggest problem with the equality principle. In order to achieve equality force must be applied. Equality can never be achieved on a voluntary and consensual basis even if it is accepted that people should be treated and behave as equals. The biggest reason being is that each of us has a different concept of the meaning of equality. The proof of this is seen in the fact of the many different segments of society demanding equal treatment from other segments and they demand this equal treatment without thought of the fact that it isn't being practiced within their own segment of society. How can you demand from others something that you do not practice yourself?

In closing I will only add this remark as a rebuttal to the observation stated in the beginning;

I would say that if families ran their lives more like a business they would realize just how much like a family a business is already run. This is one thing that a farmer's family learns first hand.


Lista said...

"They both believe that they can create the perfect society and each, with the help of the other, believe that this state of existence is an attainable goal."

I Disagree, for it is Only the Extreme Politician and the Extreme Socialist that Believes as you say. What you are Suggesting is that there is no such Thing as a Socialist or Politician who Strives only for Improvement and not Perfection and this is not so.

You have some Good Stuff in this Post, Griper. I'm Going to Have to Read it again in order to Tell you Exactly what it was that I Liked. Somehow I Seem to have more of an Eye for that which I Disagree with and I'm Sorry about that.

The Initial Statement that a Family should be Run Like a Business and a Business like a Family Implies Something Different, though, than I Think you are Talking about here. What I get out of that Statement is that Businesses should Contain more Love and Families should Contain more Organizational Structure and Discipline.

In Order to more Fully Understand that Statement, you have to Understand Balance, for there is a Balance Between Organized Discipline and Compassionate Love and this Balance should be Present in Both Families and in Businesses and this is what I Feel that Statement is about.

I'll Address the Slavery and Equality Issue Later.

Lista said...

Ok. I'm Reading your Post Again and Giving myself Permission to Complement.

I Find it Interesting that you are Criticizing Socialism, Griper, and when I Think about Socialism, Especially that which is Connected to Behaviorism, I Find that I have Issues with it Myself and the Reason is because it is all about Control, that is the Controlling of People's Behaviors through Rewards and Punishments.

The Problem is that some People Simply can not be Controlled and the Reason Why is because there are People who are Willing to Make whatever Sacrifices Necessary for the Sake of what they Believe and they will Endure the Punishment and/or Lack of Reward for the Sake of these Beliefs. This is the Reason why it is Necessary to Change the Way People Think and not just the Way in which they Behave. Only this can Result in a Change that will Actually Last.

Changing Beliefs, though, is Difficult as Well. In Christianity, we are Taught that it is God who Changes the Hearts of Men. In Light of this, any Real Change has to Come from God, so the Best that any of us can do is just Submit to Him and Pray for those who are Caught up in an Error.

The Reason Why I Liked this Post, Griper, is because I Think I am Seeing Growth in you. I don't Think you were Really Questioning what you were Taught in Sociology until Now. Perhaps that is all I Need to Say. Questioning what we are Taught is Very Healthy, especially since there are so Very Many Lies Out There. So a Commend you for the Questioning that you are doing in this Post.

Here's my thought, though. Neither Government, nor Sociology, nor even Psychology can Change the Hearts of Man. Only God can do that. And Even though that is not what you Said, Griper. That is what I Got from Reading your Post and then Exploring my Own Thoughts. Because of that, I have Decided that this is a Very Good Post. Thank You.

The Griper said...

thank you, lista, for the compliment of my post.

tho i might add one explanation that i think is needed. it is not control that bothers me about socialism. it is the use of force in order to gain and maintain control that does.

BB-Idaho said...

Perhaps the goals of a family are different than those of a business, although the comparison is appealing. Especially if
my family were like Microsoft....I'd have
88,596 children!

The Griper said...

a little hint for the both of you. business is all about the application of economics. think about what a business does in order to be successful. then compare what they do with what a family should do.

Lista said...

The Words "Control" and "Force" are Similar, Griper. I Often Think that you Make too Big a Deal about the Minor Differences between Similar Words than you should. I have to Really Think in Order to Ascertain what you Mean. Do you Mean that Control by Manipulation is Ok, as Long as a Person is not "Forced"? What is Force?

If we want to get Technical about Words, Griper, it could be Argued that even Rewards and Punishments, such as what is Stressed in Socialism and Behaviorism, are not Force. Even if the Punishment is Severe for Something that is Minor, it could Still be Called Something other than Force, if the Punisher Desires to Justify his Unkind Behavior.

As Long as the Person is not Forced through the Means of Physical Strength, it could be Called Something other than Force by the One who Desires to Justify Unkindness and even Cruelty to Someone who does not Wish to Obey the Will of the One who Controls.

Since you have a Tendency to not Communicate Clearly, Griper, I wish to Thank You for the Opportunity to Tell your Audience what it is that you Actually Mean.

It is good to Treat Employees like Family and it is also Good to Encourage and Reward the Responsibilities that are Required within Families. Making Money is at Least One of the Goals, or at Least one of the Necessities, within the Family and Making the House Run Smoothly Requires at Least some Organization just like a Business. Thus, Making at Least one of the Goals not Unlike that of a Business.

"business is all about the application of economics."

Just Because this is what is Stressed in Business and Economy Classes does not Mean that this has to be so. Another Noble Goal of a Business is to Make a Meaningful Contribution to Society. Such is a Value Regardless of how Small or Large the Financial Profit. Think about it, Griper. If what is Taught in School is Infallible Truth, then you would not be Taking Issue with what is Taught within Sociology.

For a Family to have a Similar Goal of Contributing Something Meaningful to Society is also Noble. Thus, Running the Family Like a Business. When a Couple is United in a Goal or Purpose, this Contributes to a Greater Level of Closeness.

For a Business to have the Goal of Making the Working Environment a Pleasant One for the Workers is also a Noble Goal. Thus, Running a Business more Like a Family.

The Griper said...

in business, an employee is either considered as an asset to the business or he is a liability to the business.

if he be an asset he continues to work there. if he is a liability he will lose his job.

in a family members of that family does not lose his place in that family for reasons you mentioned, love.

during economic recessions a business will lay off employees.

a family does not throw members of a family out during economic bad times. in fact some families will add to the household during economic bad times for the same reason, love.

employees should not ever consider their position in a business as a permanent position.

members of a family do consider their position in a family as a permanent position.

your ideas are the ideas of socialism, lista. they will use and do use your very arguments to promote it. if you understand Marx it was implicitly this very thing that inspired him on his ideas.
as for the difference between control and force, in my mind there is a big difference, lista.
force must always be outer determined while control can be inner determined. it is called self-control.

we cannot force ourselves to do anything but someone or something can force us to do something.

Lista said...

I have Studied Economics, Griper. I Know that you are Accurately Stating what it is that they Teach and a Person does have to Follow Some of this in Order to Stay in Business, yet it is not Against the Law for Someone whose Business is Doing Well to Occasionally Do Something to Help Someone Out, Within Reason of Course. Again, you have to Understand Balance in Order to Understand what I'm Saying.

For the Most Part, though, Treating Employees Like Family does not Entail Keeping People on that are Liabilities, but instead Caring rather or not they have a Decent Working Environment, Rewarding them for Good Work, being Encouraging and Supportive, rather then Insulting and Demanding. In Short, Being a Good Boss, rather than to Tyrant.

I do not Believe that Permanence was what was Meant by the Statement that Businesses should be Run more Like Families. I Think that you are Interpreting that Far too Literally. All it Means is that Employers should be Kind to their Workers.

As to Control and Force, When someone is Trying to Externally Control, yet another is Resisting and Exercising Self-Control, Sometimes there is an Emotional Sacrifice that Results as the Self-Control is Accomplished. The Submission or Lack thereof (that is Behavior) is Caused by the Decision of the One who is either Self-Controlled or not, but the Emotional Sacrifice is Caused by the One who is Imposing a Consequence for the Lack of Compliance.

No Body Likes it when Someone is Trying to Control them, Griper. It is Highly Annoying and if that Person has Something that can be Used in Order to Make their Lives Difficult in some Way, this can Cause Emotional Stress to the One who is Resisting the Controller and this Remains True even as they Succeed at Resistance, Non-Compliance and Self-Control.

I Really do Hope that your Audience Understands what I am Saying even if you do not. Control is a Negative, Griper, even without Physical Force.

The Griper said...

self control is a positive, lista. you may not accept that but it is true. and i understand perfectly what you are trying to convey.

and like i said a socialist would use your arguments against you to promote their way of life. and you'd have no argument against them.

profit is the bottom line to any successful business and an employer cannot allow love of his employees to cloud his decisions.

Lista said...

When I Said Control was a Negative, Griper, I was not Talking about Self Control. Of Course Self Control is a Positive. If you Understand me Perfectly, then why do you Think that I am Talking about Self Control when I am not?

I have no Idea what you Mean by your Second Paragraph. I have Explained my Argument against Control through Rewards and Punishments above and the Argument is Sound.

"profit is the bottom line to any successful business and an employer cannot allow love of his employees to cloud his decisions."

That Depends on how you Define Success. You have Accepted the Worlds Definition in this Statement.

Here's another Thought about Control and No, Griper, I do not Mean Self Control. I Mean Control through Rewards and Punishments in Order to Modify Behavior. If you Believe in Control, but not in Force, then in this Case, you Believe in something Moderate, but not in the Extreme, for Physical Force is the Extreme of Control.

And when I Got Thinking about This, I realized that since you Generally do not Believe in Moderation, for you to Believe in the Moderate and not the Extreme is a Contradiction.

I Guess that you are Going to Tell me that this is Still not what you Mean, but you Know What, Griper, You Define Words in Ways that Make your Communication Impossible to Understand, so I do not Feel at all that my Misunderstanding is my Fault, nor is it My Responsibility to Understand that which can not be Understood without Excessive Amounts of Effort.

It just so Happens, Griper, that you have no Right to Place a Responsibility on me that I Choose not to Accept and Yes, People do have the Right to choose which of the Many Possible Responsibilities that are Out There, they are Willing to Accept into their Life. Fully and Completely Understanding your Confusion, though, Griper, is Only Worth a Certain Amount of Effort and that's just the Way it is.

If I do not Accept the Responsibility, then I also do not Accept the Blame. Perhaps you also do not Accept the Responsibility for Speaking Clearly, yet you Need to Remember Something, Griper. Not Being Understood is just as much Your Consequence as Mine.

And as to Compromise, there is Really no Valid Reason for Walking All the Way Across a Bridge for the Sake of Someone who is not Willing to Walk even as little as a Quarter of the Way Across the Bridge.

The Griper said...

"I have no Idea what you Mean by your Second Paragraph."

it means exactly what it says. every argument you have made so far in regards to the ideas of a successful business is exactly what a socialist promises if we were to give up the free enterprise system of economics and accept the socialistic system of economics.
"If you Understand me Perfectly, then why do you Think that I am Talking about Self Control when I am not?"

why did i think that? from this statement, lista;

"As to Control and Force, When someone is Trying to Externally Control, yet another is Resisting and Exercising Self-Control, Sometimes there is an Emotional Sacrifice that Results as the Self-Control is Accomplished. The Submission or Lack thereof (that is Behavior) is Caused by the Decision of the One who is either Self-Controlled or not, but the Emotional Sacrifice is Caused by the One who is Imposing a Consequence for the Lack of Compliance."

this statement makes it appear as if control regardless of whether it is other control or self-control is the negative because of the negative results.

i was always taught that positive means have positive ends and negative means have negative ends. apparently you learned a different concept of positivity and negativity.

so, if i misinterpreted that statement incorrectly, fine, i accept responsibility for the misinterpretation and you corrected me on it.

Lista said...

When we Disagree, Griper, the Issues are not all the Same, but the Underlying Thought Processes or Style of Argument is the Same, causing us to Continually Disagree for the Same Reason Over and Over Again and it has to do with Extremes.

What I have Argued, when Taken to Extreme, would be Socialism, yet to Assume that what is Negative in Excess can not be a Positive when more Balanced is a Fallacy of Thought. Extreme Control is not Only Socialistic, but also Communistic. Extreme Lack of Control, though, is Anarchy and that is also a Negative.

As to Business, to Focus Only On Compassion and not on the Financial Needs of a Business is not Wise, yet to Focus Only on Compassion would be the Extreme now, wouldn't it. It is not at all Necessary to Sacrifice ALL Compassion and Kindness, though, in Order for Businesses to Succeed. You Think too Much in Extremes and that is why you do not Get what I am Saying.

My Argument is Different then the Socialist Argument because I do not Believe in the Extreme, yet just because something is Bad in Excess, does not Mean that it is Bad. The Tsunami (Excessive Water) was Destructive, yet that does not Mean that Water is Bad, for We Need Water for our very Existence.

The Paragraph that you have Quoted Contains the Concept of "External Control" and the Concept of "Self Control". The Key Point though is that "The Emotional Sacrifice is Caused by the One who is Imposing a Consequence for the Lack of Compliance." and this Sentence is about External Control, which is the Negative, not the Self Control.

Lista said...

The Phrase "Caused by", as we have Debated about Many Times, is Referring in this Paragraph to the External Control and the Quoted Paragraph Explains the Reason. That Which Causes the Result is the Negative. The Person who is Succeeding at the Positive of Self-Control is Expressing a Positive. The One who is Imposing a Consequence because of Lack of Compliance is the One who is Expressing a Negative.

I Tell you, Griper. You do not Listen any Better than you Communicate.

The Word "Positive" also Refers to that which is Moral and Noble. Self Control is Nobel. Standing Firm in Relation to Ones Values, In Spite External Pressure, is Highly Noble. Trying to Control someone though Rewards and Punishments and Move them in a Direction that Goes Against their Values is not Noble and therefore, a Negative.

Thanks, Griper, for Taking Responsibility for a Human Weakness in your Misinterpretation of my Words.

I don't Feel as Angry around you, as I Used to, but you Still Make me Feel Quite Frustrated and Tired. I Try to Understand and I Try to Speak Clearly. That is all that anyone can do and that is all that Accepting Responsibility really Means. We are Responsible to Try and nothing more than that can Ever be Expected.

Admitting Human Weakness, though, is Noble as well and I Admit that I am neither a Perfect Communicator, nor a Perfect Listener. Even though I can not Ever Fully Over Come my Human Weaknesses, if either of these Weakness ever Causes anyone Pain, I will most Certainly Apologize, cause that is Noble too.

The Griper said...

"Trying to Control someone though Rewards and Punishments and Move them in a Direction that Goes Against their Values is not Noble and therefore, a Negative"

what about this?
Trying to Control someone though Rewards and Move them in a Direction that Goes Against their Values.

is that still a negative?

Lista said...

You Know, Griper, You are Still Missing Something, for a Reward Once Given and Later Taken Away is no Different than a Punishment. Rewards such as Complements, Encouragement, Comfort and Other Types of Attention, Once a Person has Gotten Used to them, the Removing of them is a Significant Loss and therefore a Punishment.

It's just Like some of the Manipulators that Offer Rewards Free Until there is Some Form of Emotional Attachment and Physical Intimacy and then the Rewards are Removed as they become Controlling. This is Wrong in Every Way and Even Cruel.

In My Opinion, there is no Lower Negative other than that which is Against the Law.

Control is a Negative, Griper, and if you do not Think so, then you have a Serious Problem and have Blinders on.

The Griper said...

don't put words into my mouth, lista. i never said anything about taking the reward away. the only thing i did was eliminate the two words "and punishment" from your statement.

Lista said...

It's Still Wrong because Rewards Offered to Someone for the Sake of Moving them in a Direction that goes Against their Values would Fit into the Category of Temptation and the Tempter is an Accessory to the Crime. Being an Accessory to a Crime is in no Way Noble.

The Griper said...

then lista,
i have only one thing to say. by use of your own statement you can know i would have been able to answer BB's response on your blog.

the reason being, is that you have just given a good definition to the word "bribe". that is the sole purpose and intent of a bribe.

Lista said...

A Bribe is Only Wrong if it is Used for the Sake of Moving Someone in a Direction that Goes Against their Values. You are Taking that Totally Out of Context, Griper. Just Because a Bribe is Wrong when it Relates to Politics and Values. This in no Way Justifies an Out Right Refusal to Offer Anything in Return when a Person is Asked to do Something that is Personally for you, Your Values and Your Personal Preferences and Wants.

You are Back to your Normal Tactics, Griper, of Justifying Selfishness by Explaining Something Else that is Taken Out of Context and is Irrelevant to the Actual Question at Hand.

The Griper said...

i agreed with you on what constitutes a bribe, lista. so, i have taken nothing out of context.
and if i had responded to BB i would have shown why it fit also.

Lista said...

Also, as to Definitions, Since BB-Idaho is the One who Used the Word, "Bribe". He is the One who Gets to Define it, not you. You Can Not Discount Someone's Argument Based on your Own Definition of the Words that they Use.

I Can Absolutely Assure you that when BB Offered his Cat Tuna Fish so that he could Put Drops in his Ears, he was not Trying to Persuade the Cat to Go Against some High System of Values. The Cat was Just Uncomfortable and Annoyed.

It Just so Happens, Griper, that you Know much more about Justification of what is Wrong, than of Discovering what is Right. Justification is your Specialty, not Truth, and the Definition of Words is your Favorite Distraction to True Discussion.

The Griper said...

that would have to be determined after i made my response, lista.

and to offer you a hint i would not have used the cat incident in my explanation. you can't bribe animals. to be a bribe requires that both parties have values and there is no evidence to the fact that cats possess values or principles as far as i know.

Lista said...

Also, When BB's Friend Offered his Wife a "Bribe" in Order to Persuade her to Go on a Fishing Trip with him, this had Nothing to do with Values. She just has Personal Preferences that do not Include Fishing. To go on such a Trip would Therefore be a Favor to him, not her Own Personal Preference and Therefore, for her Husband to Offer her Something in Return for the Favor, or Out of Gratitude, is a Noble Thing to do.

You See, your Standard of Word Definitions is so High that it is Nearly Impossible to Speak in a Way that Accurately Meets your Standards and when we Use a Word in a Way that you do not Agree with, or in a Way that you Think Means Something Different than we Think it Means, for you to Then Say, "Therefore, I Rest my Case" is Totally Ridicules and does not Hold Up.

You are so Sneaky Bringing the Discussion from my Blog back to your Own Blog, but be Assured, Griper, I will Make Sure that BB-Idaho Knows that you are Assigning your Own Definitions to his Words.

Even if the Word "Reward" would have been a Better Word to Use than Bribe, So What? I Know what he Meant and I Know Very Well that you are the One who is Trying to Side Step what is Noble and True.

Lista said...

When you Say, Griper, that "by use of your own statement you can know i would have been able to answer BB's response on your blog.", you are Placing your Comment in the Context of BB-Idaho and therefore of what he Said, not of what I said. For me then to Explain to you that Nothing that is Being Said here is an Accurate Response to BB-Idaho is Totally Appropriate and Relevant to what you Said.

Because of this, it is BB's Definition that we Need to Be Concerned with, not Anyone Else's and Anyway, I in No Way Said in my Comment from 1:00 PM that I was in Any Way Defining the Word "Bribe". You are the One that Said this, not me, so there is no Agreement between us on the Definition of the Word "Bribe".

For me to "know you would have been able to answer BB's response on your blog.", I would have to be Concerned with BB's Definition of the Word Bribe, for in order for me to Know This, What You Said Next would have to Relate to BB, not Me.

In Order for you to Discount BB's Argument, you are going to have to Use His Definition of the Word Bribe.

"you can't bribe animals."

That Depends on your Definition of a Bribe. BB is not Defining it in the Same Way that you are. I Refuse to Let you Confuse an Issue by Defining a Word in a Way that Suits your Purposes. If you are not Willing to Use BB's Definition, then you are not Giving a Valid Response to him and this IS About Responding to BB. That IS what we are Talking About, so don't you go Trying to Claim Otherwise.

You are the Master of Confusion, Griper, not Clear Arguments and I Hope that All of your Readers Know This.

Lista said...

Let's Go Over This Again. The Context of this Discussion is Giving a Response to BB and this is Based on your Statement "by use of your own statement you can know i would have been able to answer BB's response on your blog." (1:24 PM).

My Comment that Followed this Quote (1:42) and Accused you of Being Out of Context when you said "the reason being, is that you have just given a good definition to the word 'bribe'. that is the sole purpose and intent of a bribe." was Totally Accurate because for you to Make my Words into a Definition of a Word that I was in no Way Defining was Outside of the Context of BB-Idaho's Definition of the Same Word and your Response to BB-Idaho is the Context of this Discussion.

It was BB who First Mentioned the Word Bribe and you were the First One who Mentioned the Word on this Comment Thread, not me and you Mentioned it in Relation to BB-Idaho, so Your Response to BB-Idaho is the Context of this Discussion, not your Response to me.

I Appear to Be Missing a Comment that I Wrote, Griper. Hopefully you are just Away from the Computer, because I Failed to Save One of my Comments to the Word Processor, so I Hope that you did Receive it. Oh Well, I'm going to Have to Worry about that Later.

The Griper said...

the fact that i can see a value that is being compromised in what he said and you and he do not see it does not mean it doesn't exist.

it only means that the both of you may be overlooking the value in question that i am not.

and the only reason i said something in regards to it was to give you a personal answer to your last question to me in regards to his response over there, nothing more. don't try to make anything more of it than that.

you and i came into an agreement in regards to what a bribe was and that is all that my question was meant to ascertain.


Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code


Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster