Greater Than Thou...Not.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Oh Gag

Kill altruism. Kill idealism. Such dangerous motives. Be sure and teach them in kindergarten so they learn right.

"We the people"....... will forever be in a state of debate about what is and is not a civil society, or best for all. (see collective)

There is nothing self destructive about tribes.

It is for the cause of survival. Whether it's primitive instincts to find food, aknowledge who the best hunter, so that even the weak can eat and his mother, your father's uncle can say thank you. Or looking to find the best ideas, so even the weak minded, my brothers, sons son can say thank you, and his sister will give you a seat at her dinner table.

Self interest for one self interest for all, isn't that an altruistic ideal in and of itself.

__________________________

It is the economy, stupid.

…………

Principle of Invisible Hand...`

Providing what the people want better than central planning is valid. So making a good living means you are providing services, better and cheaper food, entertainment, housing.....whatever.

It is interesting that diarist alludes to Fredrich Hayak, who was considered one of the fathers of economic conservatism, then called the Austrian School. What is interesting is he, unlike, those who now speak as his acolytes, had a deep appreciation for the vital necessity of government to police private enterprise.

He was also for a social safety net for the losers in the free market, something he was convinced could only be funded by the prosperity of such free markets.

I would be so much more comfortable if I felt our next President had a deep understanding of economic issues such as these.

………… parent

couple things...

first, thanks for the thoughtful comments.

Secondly, Hayek is in the name of the website of cited. Though yes, since you mention him directly, his views are somewhat relevant here when considering his book "The Road to Serfdom". Also, Hayek was not conservative...though yes...some of his views have been co-opted by the Right....often times quite selectively. The same can be said of Keynes.

His views on govt. are quite nuanced and his pragmatic acceptance of it for specific and limited roles should never be used to justify what he spent a lifetime fighting and warning against.

His fellow Austrian, Rothbard, is the anarcho-capitalist. They should not be blurred together on these deep details.

………… parent

Please...

So making a good living means you are providing services, better and cheaper food, entertainment, housing.....whatever.

You don't really believe that, right? There's no correlation between making a living and providing a service. What service does the criminal provide? What service the bureaucrat?

I would be so much more comfortable if I felt our next President had a deep understanding of economic issues such as these.

I'd be much more comfortable if we had a president who realized that economics is an infantile field of knowledge, incapable of making even the most rudimentary prediction with better than 50/50 odds. Consequently economists should be in universities refining their field, not opining about matters.

__________________________

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

note to arodb...

be sure to specify that you mean law-abiding citizens in voluntary exchange next time. It doesn't go without saying...apparently. ;)

………… parent

No it doesn't.

Funny that.

But more to the point there are any number of non-illegal and yet utterly useless if not harmful, and yet also profitable careers we can point to.

Enron, anyone? W.R. Grace? Union Carbide?

Robbers, and murders, but the legal (and profitable) kind.

__________________________

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

Fraud

is illegal.

………… parent

Sure

But plenty of what Enron did, how it made its money was perfectly legal. It was also perfectly corrosive because like a great deal of big business it was nothing but a parasite.

Look at any brokerage. Their entire existence is one of pure parasitism. And yet brokers can make very good money.

As before- there is no correlation between making a living (even a legal living) and providing a service or benefit to mankind. Very often livings are made by exploitation, which is by definition harmful.

__________________________

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

So why, exactly, are you working for a parasite?

You don't believe that you derive any benefit from your employer? Why do you work there then?

Let this incongruity sink in a bit and get back to me.

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Value

Wealth earned by one's living is corrolated to the subjective value placed on that service.

………… parent

Key word being "subjective"

in other words wealth and value have no real relationship, which is what I've been saying.

__________________________

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

And if you notice,

such a claim to the contrary was never made by me as an iron-clad corollary.

I was just adding a wrinkle to the discussion.

………… parent

You forgot to use your real-world to Tlaloc-world translator ...

:)

__________________________

Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree

………… parent

Well yes

Something got twisted somewhere along the way in the message when you say,The Fredrich, had a deep appreciation for the vital necessity of government to police private enterprise.

This is the piece of the puzzle that gets left out.

Some seem to have an irrational fear public servants. It can be a higher calling and 'we the people' are tasked with making it so.

It is human nature to look for a leader of the pack as a way to provide, maintain cohesion, and protect from danger.

This is my disagreement with the piece, the rank cynicism towards public service, as if someone might force you to do something you don't want to.

My other disagreement with the is an undercurrent of disgust for those who seek the highest office, as if 'they' are to blame for all problems. It sort of absolves those who seek self interest of responsibility if they happen to fail.

__________________________

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

Off the mark on your analysis of my intent.

You're missing the forest for the trees.

………… parent

I can't read minds

but I can read.

Says Boaz:
"A greater cause," "community service" – to many of us, these gauzy phrases sound warm and comforting. But their purpose is to disparage and denigrate our own lives, to belittle our own pursuit of happiness.

Too true, whether they or we realize it or not.

"gauzy phrases used to denigrate our lives, and belittle your pursuit of happiness"

Excuse me if I don't buy that.

It would be just as easy to say that good strong businesses provide jobs, and that is a wonderful contribution to our society (the collective) that some chose over public service. Plenty of folks beat that drum, but a call for public service is seen as inherently threatening to liberty. *cough*

To say that calling people to think about community service is 'gauzy altruistic appeal' (to the collective) as if it is causing personal pain and suffering of denigrating your (selfish) right to pursue of happiness, is utter hysteria and reading intent that isn't there. Or in otherwords, complete bs.

__________________________

It is the economy, stupid.

………… parent

No you can't read minds

But you can read this:

me, downthread:

the point is not to shun the desire for altruism. The point is to not shun or devalue or belittle individualism and the pursuit of happiness...in whatever form it may take.

Besides, I don't pretend to tell people what the purpose of their life is. I think that's the overriding point Boaz is making. And I agree. I wish people all the happiness they can attain....whether it is through wealth, helping others, having children, researching for cures, serving in the military or just living a simple life of quiet zen. I can share my ideas of happiness with friends, family or anyone who asks but the difference is that I won't tell people what does and does not make their life more meaningful or valuable....

We all contribute to somone or something in our own way.

There is nothing more "liberal".

Was Boaz's reacction "utter hysteria and reading intent that isn't there">? Perhaps that's debatable.

But is there a over-developed sense of "needing" to serve the state or a "higher cause" of their framing conveyed by our candidates lest one be a lesser person? Yes, I would say so. Is this kind of rhetoric by the candidates a symptom of this tendency to convey such ideas? Yes, I would say so.

………… parent

Absolutely not

But is there a over-developed sense of "needing" to serve the state or a "higher cause" of their framing conveyed by our candidates lest one be a lesser person? Yes, I would say so.

Substitute "community" for "state" or any other non-government actor.

I'd have to say that someone who serves some higher cause for altruistic reasons are objectively "better people" than someone who goes into business, and has children or whatever makes them happy (as you say).

Simply encouraging people to do what makes them happy is not any noble goal. No encouragement is needed, since trying to maximize happiness is the human default. Encouraging people to do what sucks, but is necessary to make the world a better place is the noble goal.

In going along with my deontological ethics, one's intent makes the action good or bad. Bill Gates may have contributed more to making the world a better place than Richard Stallman favicon, but Stallman set out to make the world a better place while Gates just fell into it after he had more money than God.

Non-state entities (and to a lesser extent, government) should be doing more to push the idea of a common good. "Screw you, I've got mine" is not a moral way to live.

__________________________

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd
I'm listening to... favicon

………… parent

correct

"Screw you, I've got mine" is not a moral way to live.

And I agree and never said otherwise.

………… parent

Heartless Money Grubbing.....

I'm kidding. Excellent essay.

How ironic that there is convergence among the two parties in a two party system. Yet, it is what we now have, since "memes" or bumper stickers are the coin of the realm, not reading Adam Smith, Frefrich Hayak, or Karl Marx for that matter.

Americans just know what "sounds" right. "Winning" sounds better than "Surrender", and who cares whether the concept even applies to our Iraq Occupation. One thing that is common among Americans is we hate reading the small print.

So, our political system is imploding from both wings. "Framing" is the new way to win elections, not proposing policies that will sustain our Republic.

I wrote a diary here last week about the serious defects in the new GI bill, yet the substance of this bill has gotten little attentions here, or on a larger national level. The issue is reduced to "supporting the troops" or being callous.

Lately, after seven disastrous, fraudulent, partisan years in office, George Bush has gotten the fiscal responsibility religion. If only he hadn't waited until the end of his politicl career, it might ha ve been a more powerful example to those who still face elections.

Here's the GI bill article if anyone is interested:
http://swordscrossed.org/node/2219

…………

well said

………… parent

I'd expect that from a Randian

Boaz challenges the notion, implicit or explicit, put forth by the presumptive nominees which states that we as citizens should commit ourselves to higher national causes.

I'd actually go one further. The overriding goal of life itself is to leave the world better than how you left it. Every once an a great while someone who is in it for themselves manages to make the world a better place as a side effect. These people should not be commended any more than a terrorist trying to kill civilians accidentally kills any particularly distasteful person.

I suppose you could make the argument that being a good global citizen need not require one to commit to a national cause, but, generally speaking, those who would shun the more altruistic of us tend to just hate helping people rather than the institutions we use to further our goals.

__________________________

I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd
I'm listening to... favicon

…………

easy there, stiney

the point is not to shun the desire for altruism. The point is to not shun or devalue or belittle individualism and the pursuit of happiness...in whatever form it may take.

Besides, I don't pretend to tell people what the purpose of their life is. I think that's the overriding point Boaz is making. And I agree. I wish people all the happiness they can attain....whether it is through wealth, helping others, having children, researching for cures, serving in the military or just living a simple life of quiet zen. I can share my ideas of happiness with friends, family or anyone who asks but the difference is that I won't tell people what does and does not make their life more meaningful or valuable....

We all contribute to somone or something in our own way.

There is nothing more "liberal".

………… parent

"How it is"

...is a convenient excuse of personal failings.

If you are going to write a tribute to self centered greed at least try to get some style. Michael Douglas provided the template in Wallstreet:

I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator of them! The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much.

You might pause to consider just how much your philosophy, constantly droned, serves as a self fulfilling prophecy. And whether that's really a legacy you want to be part of- the prostitution and debasement of all mankind to the pettiest shallowest meanest existence imaginable.

__________________________

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

…………

Vaya con Dios, Tlaloc

what else can I say?

That's kinda tough to respond to. I wouldnt know where to start.

………… parent

That's a hint, John.

When you are rendered speechless it's because you hit the wall of your preconcieved notions.

It's a sign that the world is bigger than your philosophy.

__________________________

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

………… parent

you're right

it is a hint....just not the one you think it is. ;)

………… parent

I guess I don't see the problem

It's not like Obama said not to chase after the big house and the nice suits, etc. He's merely suggesting that that is not all there is to life. And if happiness is the ultimate goal, then it's pretty damn good advice to make sure that your life isn't all about money and material possessions. After 7 1/2 years of a president whose most inspiring message is "go out and shop," I see rhetoric like this as a huge step in the right direction, actually.

It's not clear to me what this is in the statement above. Are you saying that most of our happiness comes from our jobs? If so, I respectfully disagree. That certainly may be true for some people, but I don't think it is true for most.

I just don't get why anyone would have a problem with a leader, of a country, an organization, or whatever, suggesting to members of that group that happiness can be found through helping others.

You've said before, John, that "do no harm" is a good place to start, and I agree. But it is at best an adequate place to end. And it is not a bad characteristic of a leader to inspire others to be more than adequate.

__________________________

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

…………

Couple things, SL

What I'm saying can best be described in my comment above favicon.

On the quote, what I'm saying is that self-interest, and yes: that's part of individual freedom, and individualism and the voluntary action therefrom, has inadvertently done more for the human condition than calls to noble collective action or "answering a higher cause", IOW: putting the state before yourself, has.

It's not a "leader or head of whatever" that causes the problem for me, it's a leader of government belittling private everyday human action in favor of a cause that glorifies the state or service to them or their chosen causes. Our state is, by design, neutral on matters of individual happiness and that feature is undermined by politicians trying to make their existence mean more than it should.

It's not the act of helping others that I quibble...not at all. That should be clear.

………… parent

No, I know

I know you are not saying altruistic behavior is bad. I understand your point, I just don't entirely agree with it. I haven't listened to the entire commencement address that Obama gave, but in the WSJ article, it says "it was interesting how long he went on discussing various kinds of nonprofit activism" (emphasis mine). I don't see this as a leader of government "glorifying the state."* I see it as basically a counterpoint to the prevailing cultural idea that materialism is what it's all about. There is certainly no lack of voices out there telling college graduates to go forth and be profitable. Any voice that offers alternatives is a good voice, in my opinion.

*I'm not sure I could as easily defend McCain's "patriotism, not profit" rhetoric, nor do I particularly care to.

__________________________

We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki

………… parent

though I also McCain's comments

to be far worse, they are two sides of the same general coin.

………… parent