Are you responsible for what happens in your life? Pt2

A bit more about responsibility in your life. First some easy questions.

Would you agree, if I said, in general, successful people are responsible people and not victims?

Would you agree, if I said, in general, successful people make things happen and things don't often happen to them?

Do you want to be a successful person?

So you want to be a successful person and you see that most successful people are responsible people?

Then you agree that there is value in not being a victim?

Now you don't get to be both in life, you are either a victim or you are not. The choice is, you happen to life or life happens to you.

What we say and how we say it give an indication as to whether we are playing the victim game or not. The victim will say the cop wrote me a ticket. The empowered person will say I got a ticket or better yet I earned a ticket. Both will tell you why. One to complain about it, the other just to describe the event. The first example distances oneself from what happened and makes it about the officer. The second puts the blame squarely where it belongs with the receiver of the ticket.

Do you see yourself as a responsible person?

Would you like to learn to take more control of your life and to be able to better steer events towards turning out more beneficial to you?

The first step to doing that is realizing where you are currently. Out of every ten things that happen in your life, how many do you actually own up to? Out of every ten events in your life how many do you make happen and how many happen to you? On a scale of 1-10, how responsible are you for what goes on in your life? All three questions are worded differently but mean the same thing.

Take a few minutes and rate yourself. Think of your general habits and patterns. Do you find yourself often blaming other people or life in general for things that happen and saying that they happen to you? Does it rain? Or does it rain on you?

If something happens that you realize you could do something about and you choose not to, if it turns out negatively for you, that is an example of you acting like an idiot and not an example of you being a victim.

A one means you are a complete victim, with no control over your life. Everything simply happens to you whether you want it to or not. And a ten means the opposite. You take complete responsibility for everything that happens. You realize that you control what happens by how you respond and by what you choose to participate in and what you do not. A five means you have a fair amount of both in your life.

Alright, so now you have your personal responsibility rating. Now, go ask three other people that know you very well and whose opinions you trust how they would rate your willingness to take responsibility for the things that happen in your life, on a 1-10 scale.

Did those other people rate you about the same as you rated yourself?

And finally an exercise to assist you in taking more control and responsibility for the things that happen in your life.

For the next week, set aside some time at the end of each day before going to sleep, ten to thirty minutes should be enough time. During that time, think of everything that happened during the day, from the moment you woke up until the moment you start this exercise. For each thing that happened, think about and find three things you could have done to make the end result different. Find one thing you could have done to make the result better, one different thing you could have done to get about the same result and one thing you could have done to make the result worse, no matter how good or bad things actually turned out for you.

The purpose of this is to show you that there is always always always something you can do to change the outcome of events. Of course you can't change things that are in the past. But going over what has happened in the past can assist us in coming up with better ways of handling things in the future.

Power and responsibility

"With great power comes great responsibility."

This quote is often attributed to Stan Lee, as it is a quote from one of the characters in the ever popular Spiderman comics and movies. That exact phrase may have come from him, but the sentiment did not start with him. A similar phrase is attributed to Voltaire in the 1800's. And there is a passage in the bible that uses different verbiage but says essentially the same thing.

But what does it actually mean? Having power means you can do whatever you want right? Or else what is the point of having power? Being king, president or politician means you get to rule and tell other people what to do does it not?

Wrong on all accounts. The above quote means that power comes with an obligation. Once you have power, yes, you do have an ability that those without power do not. But that ability is not free. It is a two way street. There is both give and take. In most cases the obligation is keeping safe and improving the lives of yourself and those whom you oversee.

In essence presidents and politicians are either on par with or generally are a lesser form of king. So we will use kings as the template for a ruler.

Originally there were no nobles and no peasants. All men were more or less on even footing. Some men were more aggressive and warlike than others. They would raid and pillage and plunder. Other men decided to band together to protect themselves. One man would declare or be declared leader over them. They would defer to him and his leadership, following his orders as long as he continued to keep them safe. When he did not he would be replaced.

Each small area would have one of these leaders who would be called a chief or some equivalent. Over time multiple areas would start to work together to be safer from larger and larger enemy groups. At some point all of the chiefs would get together and pick one to be chief among them all. And that is more or less how the first kings came to be. Their job was the same for a much larger amount amount of land and people as it would have been for their own small piece of land and people. To provide for them and to keep them safe.

In return a tribute would be paid from each of the other chiefs, that was some form of tax from their own lands and people. The king was allowed to use this tribute as he saw fit as long as he was taking the best care of all of the people under his care that he could.  In such a way, the feudal system came into being with all it's lords and ladies and so on.

Kings became wealthy people with the ability to wield great power. Many of them abused it. And when they did, it eventually came back to haunt them. The people that give a leader power will only put up with that abuse for so long before they stop following him or replace him by whatever means necessary.

The purpose of a leader is not to rule. Every leader is a public servant. Or to put it more correctly, to rule properly is to serve. The reason that a group of men lend one man their strength and resources is because they believe that he can accomplish things with them that they themselves are not willing or not able to.

A good king collects taxes so that he can afford to maintain a force to protect his people and to have stores of food kept in reserve in case of disaster. A good king also makes laws designed to protect the rights and lives of his people. It is his job to negotiate with leaders of other lands for the safety and prosperity of his people.

To one degree or another all of these things that apply to a king apply to a president or politician. Taxes, decisions about the military, the making of new laws, they are all part of the responsibility that a leader bears for the well being of their citizens. Unlike a traditional king though, It is even more important for presidents and politicians to use their power for the benefit of their people. This is because they are voted into office and can be much more easily removed than a king.

I am sure you can see by now that in ruling a land, power brings an obligation to those who give you that power. How do you think this same concept would be reflected in a business? Or a religion?

Arch-nemesis

Chances are, if you are like most people, there are other people and things in your life that you do not like. But, if I were to ask you who your worst enemy is what would you say? Would you tell me about the evils of the company that holds your mortgage note? Or maybe you would sell me on the idea that your boss is the devil. Maybe your spouse's best friend or some co-worker drives you up the wall. Perhaps you think the biggest negative influence in your life is the government.

There may be unpleasant things about each of these things I mentioned. But, I promise you, your worst enemy, your arch-nemesis, the greatest foe of your life, is you. There are outside influences that affect your life. They are real. But they serve as challenges and things to overcome. But it is what you think and do about those challenges that determines the course of your life. The only limits that exist are those that you allow to be placed upon you.

For example, the bank putting your home into foreclosure isn't something designed to ruin your life. They are not out to get you. For them it is simply business. When you fail to make the payments that you have agreed to make, it is not their fault or their problem when the foreclosure process starts. They are committed to making money and to following whatever course of action they need to in order to continue making money.

We want to blame others and make things their fault. It is not like the bank tricked you. You have a contract with them that clearly states that you owe them a specific amount of money and how much you are to pay them and when. It is common knowledge that when a "homeowner" does not make their payments they do not get to keep their home. It is not a surprise that there is a consequence to not making payments. Vilifying the bank over this is not fair to them

However, it IS your fault that the payments did not get made. Letting things happen in such a way that you did not create the additional income required to keep your payments up to date is your fault. It might have been a tremendous task to undertake but I guarantee, if you were fully committed to it that it was possible for you to find a way to come up with the money necessary to keep your home. But it is easier to blame the bank.

Let's say you take your car out for a drive and get a ticket for speeding. After the fact, it is pretty common to act with outrage and to blame the officer who wrote the ticket. Why? He was just doing his job. You know that there are consequences for your actions. He did not generate the circumstances that caused you to get a ticket. You did.

Every circumstance in your life for which you blame someone else for messing up your day or trying to destroy you is really a circumstance in which you play the victim. You tell yourself a lie that the other person took away your power. The truth of the matter is that no one can take your power away from you. You have to give it to them. You are directly responsible for nearly every bad circumstance in your life. How you react to what happens to you determines what you will get out of life. Blaming someone else creates an external face to wear the mask of evil. But the truth is, they are just an excuse that you use to hold yourself back so you can validate your reasons for not being successful.

Be honest with yourself. Stop blaming others. Take responsibility for the choices and mistakes that you have made that have had less than favorable results. Once you do this you can learn from those mistakes and begin to move forward, making new and better choices. Then instead of making excuses for failure you can start succeeding in all aspects of your life.

Being an adult

The other night we had some friends over.  And the actions of one led to the damaging of property belonging to the other. The people involved were two different guests who are acquaintances and while not the best of friends, they do generally get along.  It was completely an accident but damage still occurred.

We, the people that own the house, are going to pay for the repairs incurred. Why? Shouldn't the person that took the action that caused the damage be responsible for paying the cost? Yes he should. But ultimately we are responsible for everything that happens under our roof. If we had not invited person A to our home, he would not have been here to damage person B's property. Likewise if person B had not been here, their property would not have been here to damage. We may not have physically done the damage, but we are responsible for setting up the circumstances by which the damage occurred.

I am however somewhat bothered that person A did not at least offer to pay for the damages. He directly took an action that caused the damage and then said he didn't really feel bad about it because he just knocked over an item that should not have been where it was. He is correct that it should not have been there.  But, I just don't get the mind set. If I go to a house belonging to someone else and I knock over or break something, I feel bad about it and immediately offer to make reparations.  It is just common courtesy. Then again, I guess that is just a logical fallacy, that courtesy is at all common.
Part of being a mature responsible adult is owning up to your mistakes and making reparations for any damage caused. If you are not going to take responsibility for what guests do when they are at your home, you should not invite guests into it. And if you are not willing to take responsibility for your actions when you are a guest, you should not be a guest.

We need to have a conversation about this with person A. This is not the first time something like this has happened with this specific person.  In the past he has accidentally damaged something belonging to us and we shrugged it off. This is the first time that he has damaged property belonging to another guest. And the repair may be hundreds of dollars. We can and often will make the choice to shrug off damage done to us. We can not and will not shrug off damage done to the property or self of someone under our care.

He needs to know that we are going to pay for the damage done to our other friend's property because we are fully responsible for anything that happens inside our home. And then he needs to let us know what he intends to do about the fact that he damaged property that was, at least temporarily, under our care. Whether he wants it to be true or not he is fully responsible for every action he takes. If he refuses to accept that responsibility, then perhaps the nature of our relationship with him will need to change. I really do not want to see that happen, but if it must it must.