Augmented Post

Sometimes I have more to say. From a previous post:

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass 


It's called Sanction of the Victim.




Though Mr. Douglas is talking about governmental injustice the same applies at a more person-to-person level. People can also victimize you and you can give them that opportunity - in which case you, the victim, have given your sanction. There is a fine line here. If you think you have been victimized you need to follow these guidelines:


- Determine if you really are a victim. Considering yourself victimized is an easy way out. It places the blame on someone else - you don't have to be self-critical and so you personal integrity can be preserved (in your own mind anyway). It's is not fair, just, or moral to not shoulder some or all of the blame if you are the one who is indeed at fault. Life doesn't always go smoothly and many times you will find it is your own lack of education; your lack of skepticism; your mis-founded faith; your error in not checking your premises, that lead you to becoming a "victim."


- Could the person have avoided the "victimization"? If the boss didn't pay you because the business was closed due to bad weather then he did not victimize you - he had no control over the weather. If your agreement was to be paid for hours worked then he's off the hook. If you agreed to a monthly salary then he's on the hook (he took on the risk of bad weather).


- Did you "ask" for the victimization? There is a difference between being mugged on main street of the the small sleepy town and being mugged in what you know as the bad part of town with $100.00 bills hanging out of your pockets and gold chains proudly displayed. In either case the mugger should not have done the mugging but there is a significant difference in whether you are indeed a victim. You may have not given your sanction but you sure did act stupid and should shoulder some significant part of the blame.


- Were you lured into setting yourself up to becoming a victim? Did you build on the 100 year flood plain assuming that since you were not going to live another 100 years that you needn't worry, when in actuality it was only an estimate that it would not flood more than once every 100 years (which year nobody was able to predict)? Your fault for not being more skeptical. There is that probability that it would flood two years in a row.


- Did you have unfounded faith? Did the Mutual fund advisor recommend the fund based on past performance? You didn't read the fine print (the "past performance does not guarantee future performance" clause)? If your faith was unfounded then you caused the problem - take your lumps and learn from you short-comings. 


I'm tired of hearing the sweet young thing complaining about being raped when she walked down the alley with only her pubic hair holding up her pants. I'm equally tired of hearing the person who bought a house which flooded because the dike failed in a 50 foot storm surge nobody would have predicted.


Which leads me to my point: There is a difference between Freedom and Liberty, even though the words seem to be used interchangeably these days. One can limit ones own freedom. You are free to do stupid things but the prudent person limits their own freedom. I am "free" to flirt with every lady I meet though I limit that freedom willingly for the benefit of my marriage. My Liberty may only be limited by governmental bodies. I cannot limit my own liberty (nor would I want to). Often I see people endorsing limits on their Liberty thinking that it is the same as limiting their freedom. Not the same.


"Sanction of the Victim" as referred to by Mr. Douglas applies to Liberty, not Freedom.