Points missed

Sometimes comments are what really counts... My dear anonymous contributor made me to use this comment as a starting point of another contribution. The original comments is written in italic.

Yet again there seems like a point is missed. A friend of mine always says "assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups"... Yes, there are many jokes on that. Especially related to economists. But of course: there is nothing wrong with assumptions. The problems always occurs when the assumption is uncoscious or well hidden. And that may be the reason why people uncovering assumptions are so interesting.

I am not saying that working in the private sector is not adding value to the society or is less efficient than the public. My point is aiming for a more general state of mind, how we look upon our surroundings and our being inside of that. I like abstract discussion. However sometimes it is also important to fully disclose the privat motivation or current circumstances which made us to open the respective topic. And I will try to do that later on.

Bells from Slovakia

I still have no conclusion but my question is more conretely (since I guess you want me to rephrase it): Is egoism really the answer to creating a good, valuable and if you want efficient society? Good question. My answer: to be honest, I dont know.

Not only because I would need a clear definition of egoism to be able to fairly answer the question. The other reason is that I dont know the other potential answers. This should not be regarded as opportunism ("if I dont have any other option I choose the one I have") but rather as an expression of real care. I am keen on contributing to the society. And it is really important to me. If I dont see other option I would probably vote for the proposed one even though I am not sure of that.

And I always become quite hesitating when being asked for support of any kind of collectivism - it is just a result of our historical experience which made for many people anything that could be marked as linked to collectivism highly suspicious. What is even worse is that the experience (and/or its consequences) are hampering us from objective reasoning on collectivism or egoism. Scandinavian experience is quite different I guess.

Second thing is that I do not call the will to work in the public sector, which to a great deal of people is not satisfying and enriching, egeoism/individualism. But ALWAYS putting your own will and needs in front of others is egoism but this is getting to far from the issue.

I dont think I understood the first sentence. So let me deal with the second one: to be honest I am convinced that most of things most people do is closely related to their satisfaction. Even doing something that can be valued as difficult, hard etc. can be satisfying. I dont think that there are many examples of deeds which would be done just on behalf of other without any sign of satisfaction. I even believe that such things happen only under really exceptional circumstances (e.g. you see somebody laying on a street and provide him with first aid - just automatically, without reasoning). This belief does not come from looking for arguments for egoism or so. And it even - at least in my eyes - does not decrease the value of work done by people in charity and the like.

I just wanted to point out that if you are really disappointed in how things you basically have these two options; 1. Complain about it and be angry and miserable, 2. Do something about it even if it will cost you a bit (maybe lower income???)

True. But let me add something: There is option 2a and 2b. 2a - do it immediately without thorough analysis. 2b - do it wisely. Example: my former co-worker become a deputy minister of the ministry of foreign affairs with 8-years experience in consulting including servic public sector clients including ministry of foreign affairs. This way he did not only enjoyed all the benefits of private sector but also is now in a position when he can really contribute to the ministry. Second example: if I am right Warren Buffet does not spend much on charity. He said that he would give most of his enormous wealth to charity after his death - this way the amount given to charity will the biggest possible.

Museum of Oravian village

So, if all the well educated people prefer to go for option one while they might have resources (physical, intellectual, charsimatical etc) to go for number 2 and make the foreign policy as Petr Robesjek would like them, then are they really the smart ones?
Or are they just shortsighted egoists not willing to work for change despite having the resources for it?
Here is maybe the crucial point. I dont think they would really have the resources: usually the public sector in the Czech republic (it could be different for instance in Nordic countries) is not ready for really exploiting the value of "young well educated". Usually if young people join public sector they work on stuff related to EU - which is usually managed by departments of mainly young people. So they are not hindered by all other rather older officers (this is sort of generalization but let's neglect it for the time being) who are afraid of their positions. One practical example: a friend of friend of mine joined one of Czech ministries (after his contract had been signed). It took 3 weeks to provide him with his computer and it took another 3 weeks to be told what he was supposed to do. When I joined my company I was given the computer in the morning of the first day and I jumped directly into a project. My contract was signed two weeks later... You may say that one should try to change the routines of the ministry - but my practical experience is that unless you are a deputy minister it doesnt made any sense.
So to conclude: I do believe that in general you are rather right. But the reality does not always look like "general".
I know why you prefer to work in the public sector and in your case I also think I understand why but I wont post it here in public....
Could you share it with me privately?
This is putting it quite harshly and I know it is not that simple in reality. What I want to say is that I prefer action to bitterness and counting the value of everyone and not only the assumed smart ones....

Everything counts...
I do what I can do. So that is why I was (and stil am) so much involved with ESN: I did something what I enjoyed and where I really could see some results. And one of the reasons I really enjoyed that was that the impact of what I did had quite broad scope - I did it on behalf of others.

PS Why then??? (they say curiousity killed the cat but luckily Im a bitch...)
You may guess. My personality is not that complex :-).

Hodnoty / Values

"The world as you can see from Rip" (mythical mountain/hill in Bohemia which is said to be the hill from which the mythical Czech grandfather oversaw the land and chose it as our homeland) is a book I read during my vaccation.

It is written by Petr Robejsek a political scientists with very sharp and clear opinions especially on foreign policy. Unfortunately it is all in Czech, however at least couple of thoughts or quotes from his book are worth sharing.
"Modern foreign policy must meet the highest requirements regarding its speed, adaptability and originality" (p.173). May seem obvious but making this dream come true is not that simple. For instance one of the obstacles which, in my opinion, especially post-communistic countries are facing is the fact that for such qualities of your foreign policy you need welel educated and smart people. But they usually prefer much better paid positions in the private sector.

However, the performance of foreign trade (which highly influences the output of the private sector) is quite affected by the foreign economic policy. Sort of vicious circle.

Talking about this foreign policy related issues always reminds me of the set of values of Estonian Ministry of Foreign affairs. And the interesting emotion I experienced when reading it for the first time - "God, this is the way the things should be".

Park v Ceskem Krumlove / Park in Cesky Krumlov

O dovolene jsem takrka jednim dechem prelouskal knizku Petra Robejska Svet videny z Ripu. Kdyz uz pro nic jineho, jsou v ni pekne citatky, alespon na ukazku:

• "V roce 1939 prohlasil admiral C.Woodward: 'Potopit lod pomoci bomby? To je proste nemozne.' Par mesicu na to se Americane u Pearl Harboru presvedcili o krute mylce cackeho generala." (s.49)
• "Pred lety visel na tabuli v budove varsavske univerzit nasledujici inzerat: 'Vymenim malo pouzivanou suverenitu za lepsi zemepisnou polohu.' " (s.53)
• "Nemame zadne vecne spojence a zadne trvale nepratele. Nase zajmy jsou vecne a je nasi povinnosti temto zajmum slouzit. Britsky ministr zahranici Henry Palmerstone (1784-1866)"

Ale vazneji. Libi se mi jeho slova o tom, ze "Moderni zahranicni politika musi splnovat nejvyssi pozadavky ohledne rychlosti, prizpusobovosti a originality" (s. 173). Pri tom si vzdy vzpomenu na "aha" moment, ktery jsem zazil, kdyz jsem se dostal na stranky estonskeho ministerstva zahranici. Vice bych to nerozvadel, protoze by mi zase stoupnul tlak a tak.
A tak aspon jedna tucne vytistena poznamka od Robejska sameho: "S jinymi staty spolupracujeme proto, ze mame (docasne) stejne zajmy, nikoliv proto, ze jsme cleny stejneho spolku. Spolek je pouze jeden ze zpusobu spoluprace, nikoliv jeji nutny predpoklad."