Sterling Terrell

smart ideas from books

Taking Away Rights

Taking Away Rights

Taking away rights is problematic for both parents and nations. Why? Because the result is the same.

It fosters dissent.

For parents, taking away a long-held right of a child is like a slap in the face to them. It breaks trust and fairness in one swoop. The defiance that results can, of course, come in many forms. General disobedience. Whining. Crying. Etc.

For nations, this can be much more difficult. Because taking away the “rights” of adults often leads to riots in the streets and politicians losing their jobs. History shows that politicians prefer to inflate the currency rather than take away established rights that are no longer fiscally possible.

Let’s also be careful calling economic goods “rights.” Ok? They can’t be.

Understand: Inconsistent parenting causes rebellion.

The lesson applies as well to the politics of family as country. The parent who grants privileges or enforces rules erratically invites rebelliousness by unwittingly establishing freedoms for the child. The parent who only sometimes prohibits between-meal sweets may create for the child the freedom to have such snacks. At that point, enforcing the rule becomes a much more difficult and explosive matter because the child is no longer merely lacking a never-possessed right but is losing an established one. As we have seen in the case of political freedoms and (especially pertinent to the present discussion) chocolate-chip cookies, people see a thing as more desirable when it has recently become less available than when it has been scarce all along. We should not be surprised, then, when research shows that parents who enforce discipline inconsistently produce generally rebellious children.

-Robert Cialdini, Influence

Scarce Goods For What Reason?

Scarce Goods For What Reason?

Before you go off chasing some more scare goods and services. Stop. Let’s talk about this first.

Why do you want this thing?

  • Do you want a certain car because you need to get from point A to point B, or is it about status?
  • Are you considering a certain subscription because you cannot find the information for free anywhere else, or because enrollment is closing soon?
  • Do you want a Louis Vuitton purse because it’s the best, or because it is unattainable for so many others?

This is of course “scarcity” in a psychological sense. Most things are economic goods, after all.

Let’s just be aware that:

We want some things for what they do. We want other things for how they make us feel.

Therein lies an important insight. The joy is not in experiencing a scarce commodity but in possessing it. It is important that we not confuse the two. Whenever we confront the scarcity pressures surrounding some item, we must also confront the question of what it is we want from the item. If the answer is that we want the thing for the social, economic, or psychological benefits of possessing something rare, then, fine; scarcity pressures will give us a good indication of how much we would want to pay for it—the less available it is, the more valuable to us it will be. But very often we don’t want a thing purely for the sake of owning it. We want it, instead, for its utility value; we want to eat it or drink it or touch it or hear it or drive it or otherwise use it. In such cases it is vital to remember that scarce things do not taste or feel or sound or ride or work any better because of their limited availability.

-Robert Cialdini, Influence