The idea that a person acts in his/her own self-interest is one of the most basic tenets of capitalism. I don't want to say Smith's idea here is lauded per say, but it is widely seen as truth and as such a fundamental reason for the success of capitalism.
Is it possible that one of the most basic foundations for the triumph of capitalism at the same time is responsible for the biggest threats to it, namely corruption and politics?
For the consumer to act in his own self-interest is a boon to society. For a politician to do so is immoral, if not illegal. How can we have such a double standard? Why is it fair to accept that people act in their own self-interest but at the same time expect those in power to benevolently turn away from doing so? Since I believe most people would answer that we can rightly hold leaders (both in the public and private sectors) to a higher standard, then what prevents us from holding ourselves to a higher standard? What is preventing us from evolving past the base instinct of self-interest?
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
I thought about that thread, but I think while similar the purpose is different.
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:47 pm Posts: 9282 Location: Atlanta Gender: Male
4/5 wrote:
The idea that a person acts in his/her own self-interest is one of the most basic tenets of capitalism. I don't want to say Smith's idea here is lauded per say, but it is widely seen as truth and as such a fundamental reason for the success of capitalism.
Is it possible that one of the most basic foundations for the triumph of capitalism at the same time is responsible for the biggest threats to it, namely corruption and politics?
For the consumer to act in his own self-interest is a boon to society. For a politician to do so is immoral, if not illegal. How can we have such a double standard? Why is it fair to accept that people act in their own self-interest but at the same time expect those in power to benevolently turn away from doing so? Since I believe most people would answer that we can rightly hold leaders (both in the public and private sectors) to a higher standard, then what prevents us from holding ourselves to a higher standard? What is preventing us from evolving past the base instinct of self-interest?
I don't expect politicians to act selflessly or outside of thier own self interest, that's generally why I support limitations on governmental power, or at the very least support working systems of checks and balances.
At the same time I do expect politicians to follow the laws and the rules that they have laid down for the rest of us.
I would say at it's most basic that human nature prevents us from evolving. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The people with the ambition to desire those types of jobs are generally not the best people do do them.
Everywhere you look, private companies, sports, media, politics. People at the top are dirty because they can be and then they expect the public to just buy the lies.
The appologies of these guys are often worse than the cover up.
Also, the real problem most people have with politicians is hypocrisy. Don't preach about how bad homosexuality is while you go around cheating on your wife with a man.
_________________ CrowdSurge and Ten Club will conduct further investigation into this matter.
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:20 am Posts: 5198 Location: Connecticut Gender: Male
Is a system that allows for such mass accumulation of wealth/power/influence the ideal system if we know that (most) people will always act in their own self-interest? We're taught from a young age that capitalism is good and socialism is evil, but there aren't many (any?) examples showing that one system is sustainable on its own. Is capitalism destroying the middle class? What happens to it once the middle class is gone? It's cliche to reference it, but 1984 seems more plausible every day.
Is a system that allows for such mass accumulation of wealth/power/influence the ideal system if we know that (most) people will always act in their own self-interest? We're taught from a young age that capitalism is good and socialism is evil, but there aren't many (any?) examples showing that one system is sustainable on its own. Is capitalism destroying the middle class? What happens to it once the middle class is gone? It's cliche to reference it, but 1984 seems more plausible every day.
1984>>>>>>Brave New World, but one thing 1984 missed that BNW nailed was our tendency to happily turn a blind eye to reality if you put enough distractions (read: entertainment) in front of us. Ironically, I think that love of entertainment could be one of the main things to prevent a 1984 distopian world from ever occuring.
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
Is a system that allows for such mass accumulation of wealth/power/influence the ideal system if we know that (most) people will always act in their own self-interest? We're taught from a young age that capitalism is good and socialism is evil, but there aren't many (any?) examples showing that one system is sustainable on its own. Is capitalism destroying the middle class? What happens to it once the middle class is gone? It's cliche to reference it, but 1984 seems more plausible every day.
1984>>>>>>Brave New World, but one thing 1984 missed that BNW nailed was our tendency to happily turn a blind eye to reality if you put enough distractions (read: entertainment) in front of us. Ironically, I think that love of entertainment could be one of the main things to prevent a 1984 distopian world from ever occuring.
From one of my favorite books:
Neil Postman wrote:
We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another -- slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.
Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.
Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.
Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.
As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite capacity for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.
Another book that should be required reading but of course isn't.
Is a system that allows for such mass accumulation of wealth/power/influence the ideal system if we know that (most) people will always act in their own self-interest? We're taught from a young age that capitalism is good and socialism is evil, but there aren't many (any?) examples showing that one system is sustainable on its own. Is capitalism destroying the middle class? What happens to it once the middle class is gone? It's cliche to reference it, but 1984 seems more plausible every day.
America is neither capitalist nor socialist; it's corporatist. Big difference.
Is a system that allows for such mass accumulation of wealth/power/influence the ideal system if we know that (most) people will always act in their own self-interest? We're taught from a young age that capitalism is good and socialism is evil, but there aren't many (any?) examples showing that one system is sustainable on its own. Is capitalism destroying the middle class? What happens to it once the middle class is gone? It's cliche to reference it, but 1984 seems more plausible every day.
1984>>>>>>Brave New World, but one thing 1984 missed that BNW nailed was our tendency to happily turn a blind eye to reality if you put enough distractions (read: entertainment) in front of us. Ironically, I think that love of entertainment could be one of the main things to prevent a 1984 distopian world from ever occuring.
From one of my favorite books:
Neil Postman wrote:
We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another -- slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.
Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.
Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.
Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.
As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite capacity for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.
Another book that should be required reading but of course isn't.
I still think that Orwell was right about more than he was wrong. I wouldn't say one of them was right or wrong, that sort of misses the point IMO. The idea of endless war in 1984 is clearly a reality already. I'd just argue that neither of them create the whole on their own, but taken together they seem rather prescient.
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:02 am Posts: 91597 Location: Sector 7-G
thodoks wrote:
4/5 wrote:
Sandler wrote:
Is a system that allows for such mass accumulation of wealth/power/influence the ideal system if we know that (most) people will always act in their own self-interest? We're taught from a young age that capitalism is good and socialism is evil, but there aren't many (any?) examples showing that one system is sustainable on its own. Is capitalism destroying the middle class? What happens to it once the middle class is gone? It's cliche to reference it, but 1984 seems more plausible every day.
1984>>>>>>Brave New World, but one thing 1984 missed that BNW nailed was our tendency to happily turn a blind eye to reality if you put enough distractions (read: entertainment) in front of us. Ironically, I think that love of entertainment could be one of the main things to prevent a 1984 distopian world from ever occuring.
From one of my favorite books:
Neil Postman wrote:
We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.
But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another -- slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.
Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.
Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.
Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.
As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite capacity for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.
Another book that should be required reading but of course isn't.
What book is that?
_________________ It takes a big man to make a threat on the internet.
For the consumer to act in his own self-interest is a boon to society. For a politician to do so is immoral, if not illegal. How can we have such a double standard? Why is it fair to accept that people act in their own self-interest but at the same time expect those in power to benevolently turn away from doing so?
we can have the double standard because it's the politician's job to operate with the interests of their constituents in mind, not their own. of course, this never works - ultimately, the politician cannot separate his/her self interest from their duty - and we're just a nation of idealistic assholes getting exactly what we deserve more and more often. *fart noise*
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:37 pm Posts: 15767 Location: Vail, CO Gender: Male
Spike wrote:
4/5 wrote:
For the consumer to act in his own self-interest is a boon to society. For a politician to do so is immoral, if not illegal. How can we have such a double standard? Why is it fair to accept that people act in their own self-interest but at the same time expect those in power to benevolently turn away from doing so?
we can have the double standard because it's the politician's job to operate with the interests of their constituents in mind, not their own. of course, this never works - ultimately, the politician cannot separate his/her self interest from their duty - and we're just a nation of idealistic assholes getting exactly what we deserve more and more often. *fart noise*
Yes. We elect officials to work on behalf of our own self interests. They gave up this right, of sorts.
About that specifically. He also had the Buffalohedian idea of eugenics and a strict class system.
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
*fart noise*