Criminal behavior is NOT in the best interests in the criminal. It may serve his short term goals and desires but in the long run it is counterproductive to the long term well being of the individual. A rational person realizes that it is in his best interest not to engage in behavior that could lead to him being dead or in jail.
a hungry man isn't necessarily a rational man. I would add that stealing food to eat, when one is starving, is actually serving his short and long term goals. there is no long term for a man who starves to death. further, the best argument against @Frogleg statement that we are all better off when we act in our own rational self-interest is the fact that over the course of history we've had to enact laws to prevent men from doing just that, acting in their own self-interest. @Frogleg is only repeating what he has read of Rand but it is further indication that theorists often do not understand or fully appreciate all of the nuances of society and human interaction.
All political and economic 'philosophies' are bound to have exceptions - it's not exact like math. But- in general - i do believe everyone focusing on their own rational self-interest will produce the best for all. This doesn't mean you don't help starving people. Helping other's truly in need is a rational self-interest - they’ll hopefully rebound and become productive citizens again, overcoming whatever bad luck came their way. And those few that continue to need help should get it - so they don't commit crime to survive. Child labor laws are good for many reasons, but thats complicated and 'nuanced' . Back in the industrial revolution factory work allowed many kids to survive where otherwise they may not have, and nowadays we would hopefully boycott business that exploited children. And no, it's not a a person's rational self-interest to live in a society that allows the exploitation of children. The debt is horrible, both parties are at fault. I'm for free markets, free trade. But aren't the tariffs retaliating for unfair trade practices by China? I really don't know all the details here, but i think that's a big part of it.
Well said. NC doesn't fully grasp the totality of what rational self interest means. He supports liberals and thinks he is an enlightened do gooder but on a deeper level that he hasn't consciously thought out he is acting on what he perceives to be in the best interests of himself and his family.
Well said. Too many seem like they’re saying “I’ll take care of myself and mine; the rest be damned”. We need more , a sense of community and common goals and a willingness to compromise. We’ve thrived because of enlightened self interest but that has to be balanced by the rule of law and justice. There is a balance between chaotic free markets and the stasis of big government statism. I’m afraid we’re going too far in the statist direction and both parties are pushing for it as they see it. Call it what you will but crony capitalism or socialism are both destructive to our society. That’s why I look for alternatives to Trump and his ilk. They’re marginally less destructive than the socialism of the Democrats. We’re closing in on a crisis and inflection point. We’re no longer or shortly will be the only country in the world that’s economy is the engine of growth. Shear size will insure China and Asia will overtake us no matter what. Yes we need to address China’s theft of intellectual property and cheating now as our debt won’t be the advantage it is today. We need true leadership not the tired crap we get from the left and right.
What do you think politicians in power do when in power? They don’t act in their own self interest? Yea. Let’s give those guys MORE power. Like many liberals, you ignore the human condition and think you can legislate utopia. You can’t. You give people the freedom and create basic common laws of protection, but in the end life creates winners and losers. Just look at nature. It’s pure, raw, and the reality of life. You talk about society, people’s biggest issue today is deciding their fucking pronoun. Yea, orange man bad. Got it.
And I don't mean to be disingenuous...I do get it that most all of us will naturally act on our own self-interest within the confines of the law and one's personal ethics. The problem arises when two rational self-interests collide. I think you missed my point on this one. I am not saying that it isn't in our self-interest to help someone who is hungry. My point was that two rational self-interests often collide so to say that we are all better off when we act in our own self-interest isn't necessarily a universal truth. In fact, we've had to enact laws to prevent one man from exploiting another for personal monetary gain. So you acknowledge that we've had to enact laws to prevent one person from exploiting another for personal gain and that those laws were good. I use this to illustrate that theorists such as Rand often make statements that sound good on paper but whose practice leads to something that no one likes. Same can be said of Marx. On this we agree. They are, I just think there are better ways to prosecute China for some of their practices than laying the financial burden on our own citizens.
We are all acting in our own self-interests. Where Rand's theory falls apart is when two rational self-interests collide and one persons rational self-interest takes advantage of someone else's. The notion that it is good for every one falls apart because it is only good for one of them.
politics I suppose. You've completed misunderstood my point. I am saying exactly the opposite. @Frogleg made the statement that we are all better off when we all act in our own rational self-interest. I disagreed because if we all act in our own self-interest we end up with a political system that is corrupted, like the one we have now. We end up having to create Child Labor Laws to protect the vulnerable. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this. I have no idea what you mean by this and I'm beginning to wonder whether you do either. Exactly. Why else do you think Child Labor Laws were created? I never said it didn't. In fact, I never said anything like that so I am wondering whether you've really read anything I've written. In fact, you've made a statement that actually supports what I have been saying so I am not sure where you are trying to go with this one. But since you brought it up...we do not live by the law of the jungle anymore. We don't have to. We have modern medicine that keeps people alive much longer than they would be without it. We have the ability to reason and a larger brain than our nearest primate relatives that allows us to use intelligence over the brawn of our backs. You should try using yours sometime. This is the best proof yet that you just want to change the subject. Roughly 0.6% of our population here in the US is transgender so you are trying to conflate an issue that is only important to a half of a percent of the people in this country. Who cares, dude? And again, what the fuck does that have to do with this conversation about Trump's Tariffs and his Tax cuts? I've invited you several times to present your thoughts on the subject matter but you just keep trying to divert the conversation to some of the small minded issues that you are comfortable with. We are discussing his tax cuts and tariffs. Would you like to contribute something to the conversation? You said, on the first few pages, that you wanted to debate me on Trump's tariffs and tax cuts and that you had objective, irrefutable evidence for your side of the argument. What happened?
In the private sector he is correct. You have an obligation to yourself 1st. Its like what they tell you on flights, 1st help yourself so you can THEN help others. I think the problem is you expand this to include the nasty side of humans and that is exploitation. That should not be confused and used with "self interests". Yet, you can't take out human nature no matter how many laws or taxes you want to raise. Which is more to the point. You list all those positives created in a system that was primarily based on capitalism and greed. Yea, lets change it! Yet, its a MAIN STREAM issue.... The point, as it relates, is we have it so GOOD here this is a relevant and mainstream issue... Fuck off with that shit. I asked for your own words. You want me to debate you or someone else's work? Stop being a jackass.
