NationStates Jolt Archive

The human race is governed by self interest. Whether we know it or not, when we wake up in the morning we're all asking ourselves: "Is this worth doing? For me?" If it is, we do it. If it's not, we up and split and go do something else: it's just how our minds work. Laws based on self preservation and personal choice are the ones hardest to argue against. Laws like "Don't murder other people" and "Don't steal other people's shit" are edicts that not even the most 'Altruist' state could exist without. Things like Welfare and Social Security on the other hand, are very easy to debate and pick apart.

The closest thing that comes to a contraversial self-rule law IMO are abortion statutes. Pro-life activists will tell you [every time you give them a chance] that the self interest of the mother needs to take a backseat to the rights of the unborn, but according to what standard? Religion?

Ah, then its a whole new can of worms isn't it? All of a sudden it's not an issue of self interest anymore, it's what God thinks is right, and it's what God wants you to do. So in making that argument, you're essentially throwing everything but your religion out the window, and all of a sudden its you're trying to appeal to your opponent's morailty as opposed to his reasoning. Religion has an inherent contradiction in its very premise anyway: telling us to avoid our base impulses and to shun our self interest; yet it also tells us that it's in our best interest to read $RELIGIOUS_TEXT and go to heaven. So essentially religion doesn't do much to tell us whether self interest is good or bad: it basically just reminds us that it's there, which doesn't serve much of a purpose in the first place.

Therefore, I suppose that since we are primarily goverened by said self interest, our State should be governed thusly as well. A popular misconception surrounding the ideology of the Egoist is that under our system it encourages $CORPORATE_HONCHO to fuck us over even more than he already is. The problem with this supposition, of course, lies within the fact that Egoism promotes rational self interest. Rational self interest is something like mowing the grass before it gets too long because you don't want to keel over trying to push the mower when the shit's 18 inches long. Rational self interest is something like buying something because you want it: it's not hurting anybody.

Because, when you think about it, the traditional liberal view of the corrupt, power hungry maniac of a CEO really isn't rational self interest on the part of said CEO. When you think about it, you're being irrational when you hurt other people, since the chances are very good that something unpleasant will happen to you as a result. Punch someone in the face and they punch you back: it's how the universe works.

We are where we are today because of self interest, and it's an instinct that needs to be fostered. If humanity had no individual drive to succeed and flourish, do you think we would have cell phones? Would we have computers? The Internet? Socialists love to talk about moral responsibilities to the remainder of whatever egomass you happen to belong, but the greatest advancements have always been made by people who were out to line their own pockets. So he gets rich and I get myself a cell phone. What's wrong with that?

I agree with you completely, but I just think it is a ridiculous idea to put society over the individual.

Ah. An interesting topic.

First, appeals to altruism are not necessary appeals to religious morality, just to get that straight. They can be an appeal to a sense of ethics, compassion, solidarity, etc...

I would argue that, if our instinct is towards self-interest, we require a government that balances that impulse by leaning towards altruism.


Because, when you think about it, the traditional liberal view of the corrupt, power hungry maniac of a CEO really isn't rational self interest on the part of said CEO. When you think about it, you're being irrational when you hurt other people, since the chances are very good that something unpleasant will happen to you as a result. Punch someone in the face and they punch you back: it's how the universe works.


I beg to differ. Many people believe they can get away with such excessive self-interest, and hurt other people in that aim, confident that those people cannot hurt them back. When you're sufficiently powerful, you can get away with it easily. It is that drive of self-interest which, in my belief, the State should regulate, control, and repress to a significant degree.


So he gets rich and I get myself a cell phone. What's wrong with that?


Because other people get poor and sometimes lose the most basic rights (food, water, shelter) in the process. (And your cellphone is not, incidentally, a necessity.) I cannot accept the idea that one person's self-interest should outweigh the essential needs of others. A government should exist to guarentee the rights of the people, ensure the satisfaction of their needs, and therefore, when necessary, repress that drive towards pure selfishness.

A society requires solidarity; it's inconceivable without it. So if the individual's instinct is towards selfishness, then government should counterbalance it in order to ensure the functioning of society, and the protection of those in need.

tag and http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=411171 may be of some interest :)

Government by Rational Self-Interest requires Rational beings. Most people (both on the right, and on the left) are strongly irrational.

If people (in groups) were Rational, we would need no government at all.

They're not. Then again, as Madison said, "If Men were Angels they would need no government, if men were governed by angels, Government would need no limits."

Government by Rational Self-Interest requires Rational beings. Most people (both on the right, and on the left) are strongly irrational.

If people (in groups) were Rational, we would need no government at all.

They're not. Then again, as Madison said, "If Men were Angels they would need no government, if men were governed by angels, Government would need no limits."

If men are not rational beings, then what entity would be?

Ah. An interesting topic.

First, appeals to altruism are not necessary appeals to religious morality, just to get that straight. They can be an appeal to a sense of ethics, compassion, solidarity, etc...

I would argue that, if our instinct is towards self-interest, we require a government that balances that impulse by leaning towards altruism.



I beg to differ. Many people believe they can get away with such excessive self-interest, and hurt other people in that aim, confident that those people cannot hurt them back. When you're sufficiently powerful, you can get away with it easily. It is that drive of self-interest which, in my belief, the State should regulate, control, and repress to a significant degree.



Because other people get poor and sometimes lose the most basic rights (food, water, shelter) in the process. (And your cellphone is not, incidentally, a necessity.) I cannot accept the idea that one person's self-interest should outweigh the essential needs of others. A government should exist to guarentee the rights of the people, ensure the satisfaction of their needs, and therefore, when necessary, repress that drive towards pure selfishness.

A society requires solidarity; it's inconceivable without it. So if the individual's instinct is towards selfishness, then government should counterbalance it in order to ensure the functioning of society, and the protection of those in need.

The mention of religion in that context was just an example: I'm not basing my comparisons to Altruism based solely on the leanings of the church. It's just something I wanted to point out.

I beg to differ. Many people believe they can get away with such excessive self-interest, and hurt other people in that aim, confident that those people cannot hurt them back. When you're sufficiently powerful, you can get away with it easily. It is that drive of self-interest which, in my belief, the State should regulate, control, and repress to a significant degree.

Whether they think they can get away with it or not is irrelevant. I agree with the concept that the government should strive to protect the rights of the individual: this goes both ways, and liberals love to ignore that.

And why shouldnt one's self interest outweigh societal interest? If a person truly has no drive to glorify the Self and thinks only of others and how to help them, he would have no job, no house, and no possessions. He'd be a bum. It seems to me that the liberal ideal teaches us to stop caring for ourselves in a manner at least nominally similar to this.

So I ask: If one claims to have only love for his fellow man, and none for himself, an implicit lack of self respect is fairly obvious. Then, if one does not respect himself, how the hell do we suppose he can respect others?

Artificial Intelligences of course.
They showed that collaboration routines always beat competition ones in the long term.

And why shouldnt one's self interest outweigh societal interest? If a person truly has no drive to glorify the Self and thinks only of others and how to help them, he would have no job, no house, and no possessions. [. . .] So I ask: If one claims to have only love for his fellow man, and none for himself, an implicit lack of self respect is fairly obvious. Then, if one does not respect himself, how the hell do we suppose he can respect others?

You're taking it to an extreme. Obviously everyone needs some measure of self-interest (I agree with your point about a job, for example), but my point is that it should be counter-balanced and outweighed by altruism, so as to ensure that the selfishness of one individual does not damage the essential rights of others.

In a society promoting self-interest as the upmost value, how do you ensure those rights and needs are respected?

You're taking it to an extreme. Obviously everyone needs some measure of self-interest (I agree with your point about a job, for example), but my point is that it should be counter-balanced and outweighed by altruism, so as to ensure that the selfishness of one individual does not damage the essential rights of others.

In a society promoting self-interest as the upmost value, how do you ensure those rights and needs are respected?

Ah, but the preservation of the rights of the self are implicit in Egoism already. Saying that laws should be "outweighed by altruism, so as to ensure that the selfishness of one individual does not damage the essential rights of others" is a bit ridiculous since that belief is already contained in Egoism anyway. You don't fuck with other people's stuff. Period.

As for your last point, you'd do it the same way any other government in human history has done it: by making and enforcing the applicable laws.

that belief is already contained in Egoism anyway. You don't fuck with other people's stuff. Period.


Let me take a concrete example, then. When a company lays off employees in order to sustain its profits and satisfy its shareholders, that's an act of selfishness which damages the rights of others in the persuance of non-necessary, selfish aims.

Right. But see the thing is, that company is, in fact, property. The owners can do what they want with it. Firing people sucks, yeah, but its the way the world works.

Right. But see the thing is, that company is, in fact, property. The owners can do what they want with it. Firing people sucks, yeah, but its the way the world works.

But that's my point. It's a case of the damage caused by selfishness. Whereas, in an altruistic perspective, the needs of those employees would be respected, and deemed more important than any selfish desire for increased profit. An altruistic legislation would limit or prevent such occurrences. I dispute the idea that the owner of a company should have the unlimited rights you claim for him, if those rights are blatantly damaging to the essential rights of others.

Artificial Intelligences of course.
They showed that collaboration routines always beat competition ones in the long term.

A link?

This is a study I would want to read about.

If men are not rational beings, then what entity would be?

Individually, most people are fairly rational-but gathered into large groups, and there is almost a "Locust Effect" in which the relative rationality approaches lowest-common-denominator. You can't trust groups to be Rational, though you can trust individuals to act rationally.

But why? Why are the same people not raising a fuss abotu small business owners making the same policy decisions? The employees are only part of the equation: companies are what they are primarily on virtue of the decision making policies of those in charge. Sure, the rights of the employee should be examined closely and upheld, but only to a point.

What happens when you talk about employee rights vs owners rights, is you're holding each group to a different standard. If you're going to get really hardline with employee rights, basically what you're doing is you're punishing success by saying "Your company is successful and has a lot of people working for it, thus you're not allowed to fire them." Bullshit. Just as I'd like to be the one to decide who lives in my house, I'd also like to be the one who decides who works for my company and who doesn't.

ahhhh rational discussion.how i dont see you enough.
anyways.

we have 20 people,each as self intrested as the last.one of these people controls all nessisitys and pleasure(ie money) by definition of self intrest he will deny as much as he feasibly can to the other 19 people.these people cant gang up on him because he can pay members of them,or outside people to beat the snot out of the others.he is in effect invincable.
self intrest inherently breaks down.people will screw eachother to death.

ahhhh rational discussion.how i dont see you enough.
anyways.

we have 20 people,each as self intrested as the last.one of these people controls all nessisitys and pleasure(ie money) by definition of self intrest he will deny as much as he feasibly can to the other 19 people.these people cant gang up on him because he can pay members of them,or outside people to beat the snot out of the others.he is in effect invincable.
self intrest inherently breaks down.people will screw eachother to death.

That is why you create laws.