Wednesday, April 11, 2012
On Rational Self-Interest and Compassion
THEY'RE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE! I mean, I know that we have a lot of hard-core ideologues on the right (Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity) and on the left (Olbermann, Schultz, wd) who seemingly think that everything is some sort of either/or proposition and all but, COME ON! Think a little for Christ sakes!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
From a discussion of "greed" on "Rebirth of Reason" (Objectivist Forum) [commentor] I don't believe in the concept of greed as socialists term the concept.
Greed is a word made "dirty" in an attempt to foist unearned guilt upon those who work harder than most... To me greed is a virtue well earned by sticking to my other virtues of self interest... There can be no limit of wealth imposed by those men who earned it.
a) Not all libertarians are Randians. b) Nowhere is it stated in libertarian doctrine that one shouldn't be generous with the wealth that one through hard work acquires. c) The wealth that one acquires oft times also creates wealth, goods and services, and opportunities for others. Again, the 2 concepts are in no way mutually exclusive.
A) of course not.
B) Ayn Rand: My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue. [end excerpt from Ayn Rand quote]
I do consider helping our fellow man a moral duty. Also, we can ALWAYS afford to do so via our taxes (unless society collapses). Libertarians (aside from defense and a police force) largely consider taxes "theft".
Also, further on in the text from the Ayn Rand quote, she says: The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one's own rational self-interest and one's own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one's own happiness. [end second excerpt]
In other words, the giver should only give if they get something out of it. Even in their "generosity" Objectivists (the religion on which Libertarianism is based) they're greedy. And it involves judging people and assigning value to their lives. IMO all human life has value. Libertarianism is, IMO, a sick, sick ideology. Just like the woman who spawned it. Libertarianism is a sociopathic ideology.
C) It can. No wealthy person is under any obligation to spend their money in a way that it does. A better way to make sure these goals are accomplished is by doing them ourselves (via our government).
RE: "Again, the 2 concepts are in no way mutually exclusive."
..perhaps from a pragmatic standpoint. Theologically, they appear mutually exclusive: greed is one of the seven deadly sins and charity is one of the heavenly virtues. Probably depends on the
definition of 'greed'...
I don't consider rational self interest the same as greed, BB Idaho.......Not all libertarians bow at the God of Ayn Rand, wd. And neither are all of them purists (the same with Democrats and Republicans). In terms of calling it a mental illness, I think that that could be said about a strict adherence to any particular ideology (for instance, like you with progressivism)......And how do you help the poor, wd? My suspicion is that you don't do a damn thing but whine and try to get other people to carry the load. It sounds to me like you're plenty damn greedy, dude.......And the government isn't always "we the people". Sometimes it's "we the bureaucrats". I mean, are you just not watching the news these days, the abject waste of taxpayers' dollars by these despicable government assholes?
I wish the GSA had come to our place not the M.
I would have liked to get my hands on that 800 grand of tax payer moolah.Plus what those bozo's would have dropped on the casino floor....that would have been easy money,much better then kissing some whale's ass.
Rusty: Plus what those bozo's would have dropped on the casino floor.... that would have been easy money, much better then kissing some whale's ass.
Yes, I'm sure scam artists like the "easy money".
Those people in the video who are mocking the fact that they are wasting tax-payer money should brought before a court and charged with theft.
Easy Will,what the GSA did was exactly redistribution of wealth that the left loves so much....take what others have earned and spend it at your own discretion.Over 48% of the population pays zero federal taxes so it stands to reason the 835 grand spent by the GSA came from the 1% or very close to it.It was redistribution at its basic best...party on Garth...on someone else's dime.
Some of us "scam artist" work for a living WD and we also pay federal income tax...a concept I'm sure you're unfamilar with.
So,being that I contribute to your existence the next time you're in Las Vegas stop by my house and either sweep the driveway or weed the flower bed.
Whoa, whoa, Russ. You're going to make him work for the money? How dare you.
Sorry Will,I lost control for a moment there.
WD,you just stay seated...we will bring you your benefits...do you want cash or direct deposit?
"Yes, I'm sure scam artists like the "easy money"."
A description which perfectly applies to the ruling elites, especially the GSA. Not the gaming industry.
Will: Whoa, whoa, Russ. You're going to make him work for the money? How dare you.
No kidding. Rusty has some nerve, given the fact that Rusty doesn't work for his money... at least I certainly wouldn't call tricking poor saps into handing over their hard earned cash and getting absolutely nothing in return for it "working".
btw, I've never been, nor do I ever intend to visit, Las Vegas.
Also, how dare YOU, Will. Apparently you allowed Rusty to look at that copy of my employment record you have? Or perhaps (and this is much more likely), both of you, in your extreme arrogance, are making wild guesses about the life of a person you've never met and know almost nothing about? And you're both concluding that you're better than me?
I wonder how quickly dmarks will jump to call you out on this. He's been offended by arrogance in the past, certainly he can't let this extreme case go without comment.
Ah, rational self interest. Quite a valid (and) uplifting concept when understand. Something of which wd is not guilty off.
Rational self interest is how Libertarians rationalize greed. I understand it.
You wd are f'ing deluded. Either that or, oh Nevermind
Les, I was going to make a cogent point on this but I think that I'm going to go back to your site and look at that Ashley Judd picture again instead. Cogent point later.
Rational self interest *IS* how Libertarians rationalize greed. "Rational" says I'm deluded -- which I presume means he's saying I'm wrong, but he CONFIRMS it on his blog.
In the comments section for a post "Rational" wrote about Ayn Rand, blogger "Gorges Smythe" wrote, "In Atlas Shrugged, I found it interesting that she had some of her characters helping one another when it really was NOT in their best interest".
"Rational", citing his having read the tedious tome THREE TIMES, vehemently denies that any character acted in this manner.
Conclusion: Libertarians do NOTHING to help their fellow man unless it benefits them in some way. Clearly "Rational" was offended at the suggestion.
Fact is, Ayn Rand viewed poor people as lice and parasites. She wrote a book titled, "The Virtue of Selfishness". According to Objectivist Alan Greenspan, "If [people] place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral".
I'm deluded because I STRONGLY reject this SICK ideology? I think not.
Do you also reject the sick ideology of Communism?
No, I reject your false characterization of it. Strictly as an ideology, I mean.
Will has made no false characterization of communism. Which means that there is absolutely nothing for WD to object to.
"Fact is, Ayn Rand viewed poor people as lice and parasites"
This is much more true of Marxists, who actually treat poor people as lice and parasites, and exterminate them in huge numbers.
Randism is a relatively harmless non-assertive ideology.
He won't reject Communism. There it is, folks.
Will: He won't reject Communism. There it is, folks.
And I saw your "gotcha" coming a mile away. Which is why I said I didn't reject it as an ideology. I do reject it as a means to run a government. It doesn't work.
Randism, if it ever became the guiding principal by which a government was run, would be extraordinarily harmful (I'm talking about mass poverty and starvation).
Also, I find it extremely telling that Will believes Communism (strictly as an ideology) is "sick" and should be rejected... when it's simply "a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole".
Oh my God, how absolutely EVIL! not. Actually it sounds like the opposite of the "selfishness as a virtue" nonsense that Randians use to justify greed.
As opposed to the non mass starvation that happened in China, North Vietnam, and North Korea.......And you don't reject it as an ideology but you do reject it as a government and admit that it doesn't work. Methinks that you really haven't thought this one through very well, wd.......And, yes, I totally reject communism and respect private property. Hello!
You are so far out in left field wd your floating where there is no reason. Enjoy your hopium travels.
I think, no, I know you are deluded and high on hopium.
Will: Methinks that you really haven't thought this one through very well, wd
Methinks you are wrong. And that you totally don't know what you're talking about. If a dozen people (for example) got together in the US and decided to form a commune... you'd send the cops in to break it up and force them to divide their communal property?
As for the comments of "Rational", no I am not high on "hopium", by which I assume you mean a unfaltering belief in Barack Obama. Liberals, if you have not been following this, are a little disappointed.
No, wd, if a dozen consenting adults want to get together and form a commune, there's nothing evil with that. I thought that we were talking macro-economics here, sorry.
Well, that's not a "total rejection" then, is it?
What if one of the 12 consenting adults turns out to be a free-loader, wd? Can the other 11 penalize him/kick the sucker out, or are they stuck with him?.......And I TOTALLY reject communism as I believe we discussing it, as an economic system system for a nation state.
You're right about the 7%, John, but if you look at the graph above it (if in fact we're at the same site), you see that the bottom 80% still have 15% of the total net worth - no, not quite as boffo as you as a liberal would like but it sounds a little less dire to me.......And I'm not entirely sure that we can blame all of this on the Republicans. Globalization and the fact that the rest of the world is finally starting to catch up to us is also a factor. So, too, is that reality that our own educational system, despite the fact that we continue to outspend every other country in the world other than Switzerland, is an unmitigated disaster. We really need to clean up that situation heading forward.
Will: can the other 11 penalize him/kick the sucker out, or are they stuck with him?
That would be up to them, obviously. If you want to ask the same question in regards to Communism as an economic system system for a nation state... then, no, the person can't be "kicked out", although the "sucker" could, perhaps, be penalized in some way.
In regards to concern about Globalization, the answer is tariffs.
But if they kicked him out, wouldn't that be "blaming the victim"?
Post a Comment