While listening to Chris Hedges, author of Death of the Liberal Class, I could not help but agree that education in America is "vocational training for drones." As I read through the comment section, I came across a person talking about the innateness of human greed:
The comments were from user: @bapyou and read as follows: ““"human beings are naturally selfish" There is no evidence that this is the case. Our capitalist economy teaches selfishness as a virtue -- the main component of the 3rd rate philosopher Ayn Rand, a woman whom every conservative nutcase on the planet worships as a goddess. In fact, there is far more evidence that the opposite is true.
Human beings are not naturally selfish: capitalists wish we were, & so spend ungodly amounts of money convincing us that it is the case.”
I agree that human beings are not entirely innately selfish. Once we have attained what we need to survive, the rest is dependent on our environment and intellectual and emotional comprehension of actions and reactions. I consider myself a caring, loving, and compassionate man, and I try to live by principles. I am also a proponent of free-market capitalism. Those who oppose capitalism think my previous statements are mutually exclusive, and that is what I hope to overcome. A philosophic and philanthropic argument can be made from many opposing views. This means that you can have people living by the same principles, yet they look to address the same societal problems in very different ways.
I believe it is both ignorant and fallacious to allege first that every conservative worship Ayn Rand. Labeling the person you critique as a nut job is counterproductive and immature. But more importantly, It should be acknowledged that viewing capitalism through a lens focused on psychopathic, emotionally disconnected, and shallow people is a poor way to judge a socio-political philosophy. Those of us who desire the intangibles know and understand the better of others are, the better we are.
The government is force and violence; it hinders the spirit of comradely and selflessness while promoting a sense of entitlement. We all agree that social participation and helping one another is the answer. The difference is that some believe assisting others should be done out of love and understanding, while others think charity should be forced.
This would not be an issue if people knew and understood the complexities and need for social welfare to reach the highest quality of living. It is because we are not educated and act out of ignorance and self-seeking motives that we fight one another. The left views the right as greedy and selfish, while the right views the left as lazy, greedy, and selfish. The right views the left as being poor and uneducated, while the left sees the right as being born into wealth and unintelligent. Is it possible that both are close-minded and lack empathy and understanding of opinions outside of their reality tunnel? Is it not also true that the more educated a person is, the greater their capacity for the harm they possess? Education is worthless to those unwilling to put the knowledge into action, and giving it to those with nefarious intent is very dangerous.
If I know my neighbors and have a community garden, I have empowered myself to be less dependent on corporations and the government. If I help those in my community who are having a hard time, I strengthen my community, thus increasing my safety and well-being. Without defining a selfless act, we may find ourselves in disagreement, for I do not accept the idea that it is possible to do anything that is not in self-interest. What is important to understand is that those who wish to have the most out of life and have the cognitive wherewithal to understand that exploitation and hurting or infringing on others' ability for self-improvement is counterproductive to those ends. People are not inherently evil, nor is capitalism inherently bad. All forms of government are susceptible to exploitation by those with little or no balance in their lives.
"Different men seek after happiness in different ways and by different means, and so make for themselves different modes of life and forms of government."
Aristotle
The comments were from user: @bapyou and read as follows: ““"human beings are naturally selfish" There is no evidence that this is the case. Our capitalist economy teaches selfishness as a virtue -- the main component of the 3rd rate philosopher Ayn Rand, a woman whom every conservative nutcase on the planet worships as a goddess. In fact, there is far more evidence that the opposite is true.
Human beings are not naturally selfish: capitalists wish we were, & so spend ungodly amounts of money convincing us that it is the case.”
I agree that human beings are not entirely innately selfish. Once we have attained what we need to survive, the rest is dependent on our environment and intellectual and emotional comprehension of actions and reactions. I consider myself a caring, loving, and compassionate man, and I try to live by principles. I am also a proponent of free-market capitalism. Those who oppose capitalism think my previous statements are mutually exclusive, and that is what I hope to overcome. A philosophic and philanthropic argument can be made from many opposing views. This means that you can have people living by the same principles, yet they look to address the same societal problems in very different ways.
I believe it is both ignorant and fallacious to allege first that every conservative worship Ayn Rand. Labeling the person you critique as a nut job is counterproductive and immature. But more importantly, It should be acknowledged that viewing capitalism through a lens focused on psychopathic, emotionally disconnected, and shallow people is a poor way to judge a socio-political philosophy. Those of us who desire the intangibles know and understand the better of others are, the better we are.
The government is force and violence; it hinders the spirit of comradely and selflessness while promoting a sense of entitlement. We all agree that social participation and helping one another is the answer. The difference is that some believe assisting others should be done out of love and understanding, while others think charity should be forced.
This would not be an issue if people knew and understood the complexities and need for social welfare to reach the highest quality of living. It is because we are not educated and act out of ignorance and self-seeking motives that we fight one another. The left views the right as greedy and selfish, while the right views the left as lazy, greedy, and selfish. The right views the left as being poor and uneducated, while the left sees the right as being born into wealth and unintelligent. Is it possible that both are close-minded and lack empathy and understanding of opinions outside of their reality tunnel? Is it not also true that the more educated a person is, the greater their capacity for the harm they possess? Education is worthless to those unwilling to put the knowledge into action, and giving it to those with nefarious intent is very dangerous.
If I know my neighbors and have a community garden, I have empowered myself to be less dependent on corporations and the government. If I help those in my community who are having a hard time, I strengthen my community, thus increasing my safety and well-being. Without defining a selfless act, we may find ourselves in disagreement, for I do not accept the idea that it is possible to do anything that is not in self-interest. What is important to understand is that those who wish to have the most out of life and have the cognitive wherewithal to understand that exploitation and hurting or infringing on others' ability for self-improvement is counterproductive to those ends. People are not inherently evil, nor is capitalism inherently bad. All forms of government are susceptible to exploitation by those with little or no balance in their lives.
"Different men seek after happiness in different ways and by different means, and so make for themselves different modes of life and forms of government."
Aristotle
Chris Hedges Q&A "The Death
of the Liberal Class"
It is essential that we are on the same page and have the same meaning and understanding behind the words we use. My definition of the word Liberal or Conservative might be very different from yours. How can we communicate if we are not using the same definitions of words? Discarding our preconceived ideas of what those who hold differing viewpoints may also be of tremendous use. When asked if I support same-sex marriage, my response is no; sadly, most people who fail to continue the conversation on an intellectual level would fail to find that I oppose government involvement in marriage altogether. I do not support the government legislating morality or practicing methods of social engineering, especially with finical incentives.
Having a historical context to our dialog would also be of great use. For instance, claiming that free market capitalism led to current circumstances is entirely illogical. We must look back to the beginning of the Federal Reserve and understand that large banking interests got together and tricked Congress and the people into eliminating competition and socializing corporate failures. We do not and have not had free markets; we have a controlled economy and central economic planning. Our problems do not arise from a lack of legislation but from the enactment of laws and charters. I cannot suggest strongly enough, the book The Creature from Jekyll Island. The book talks about the dawning of the cartel and the need and use of government to create monopolies and eliminate competition. John D Rockefeller said that “competition is a sin.” The desire was total monopolization.
Having a historical context to our dialog would also be of great use. For instance, claiming that free market capitalism led to current circumstances is entirely illogical. We must look back to the beginning of the Federal Reserve and understand that large banking interests got together and tricked Congress and the people into eliminating competition and socializing corporate failures. We do not and have not had free markets; we have a controlled economy and central economic planning. Our problems do not arise from a lack of legislation but from the enactment of laws and charters. I cannot suggest strongly enough, the book The Creature from Jekyll Island. The book talks about the dawning of the cartel and the need and use of government to create monopolies and eliminate competition. John D Rockefeller said that “competition is a sin.” The desire was total monopolization.
Comments
Post a Comment