Altruism

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: soothsayer but the policies her community is victim of , that she denounces as racist and inhumane are "progressive" politicians' policies. Information directly from the source! How could anyone seeking to be "altruistic" defend it?

That your government has not got a clue what it is doing in the way of welfare for the poor comes as no surprise.

It does not say anything about the philosophical integrity of socialism, but speaks volumes for what h the corrupt and worthless style of an american system , constitution and libertarian ideology has become.
Your governments failure to understand how to deal with the poor has nothing to do with altruism, it is just plain incompetence of a large centralised dictatorship.

[soothsayer]

deal with the poor

But Parker argues that the "poor" were actually created and perpetuated by "dealing" with them.

The very idea that "the poor" are a distinct class of people needing some kind of political address is divisive and condescending. Ultimately people attain their socioeconomic level by their own efforts.

Any number of people who could be bureaucratically classified as within the same "group" be it racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic are still individuals, responsible for their own destiny and should not be judged by their socioeconomic status.

You have denounced "profits" several times throughout your posts. One could assume then, that in your view, creatively producing something or providing a service to others that they find valuable enough to enrich you in some measure for your efforts is something that you find morally objectionable. If those convictions find you in a lesser materially wealthy state, who is anyone to critcize you or label you as "poor" when your material state is of your own choosing and one you deem personally superior for you?

Love, live and let live, I say!

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: soothsayer But Parker argues that the "poor" were actually created and perpetuated by "dealing" with them. The very idea that "the poor" are a distinct class of people needing some kind of political address is divisive and condescending. Ultimately people attain their socioeconomic level by their own efforts. Any number of people who could be bureaucratically classified as within the same "group" be it racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic are still individuals, responsible for their own destiny and should not be judged by their socioeconomic status.

What a load of crap. are you seriously trying to say that a poor person has the same economic advantages of a wealthy person. You can deliberately ignore the differences just so as you can spew forth your sanctimonious drivel of self help.

it's bad enough listening to you steal ideas from the socialists but to have you twist them into this kind of nonsense is to much.

Yes, people are responsible for their own actions and a responsible government does all it can to ensure an equality of opportunity. not just suggest that they can either make it or not regardless of how downtrodden they are.

You have denounced "profits" several times throughout your posts. One could assume then, that in your view, creatively producing something or providing a service to others that they find valuable enough to enrich you in some measure for your efforts is something that you find morally objectionable. If those convictions find you in a lesser materially wealthy state, who is anyone to critcize you or label you as "poor" when your material state is of your own choosing and one you deem personally superior for you?

Where have i denounced profit. give me an exact quote.
Sound to me like your either getting desperate or loosing track of whose saying what.

Love, live and let live, I say!

but fail to practice.

[soothsayer]

Yes, people are responsible for their own actions and a responsible government does all it can to ensure an equality of opportunity.

That's exactly what a constitutionally-limited central govt does.
Any other form of goverment begins with the premise of restricting economic opportunity in the effort to achieve an arbitrary, imposed, artificial levelof "equality" which always results in an equality of poverty (except for the administrators, of course)

Where have i denounced profit. give me an exact quote

Oh. Are you saying you dont denounce making profits?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: soothsayer That's exactly what a constitutionally-limited central govt does. Any other form of goverment begins with the premise of restricting economic opportunity in the effort to achieve an arbitrary, imposed, artificial levelof "equality" which always results in an equality of poverty (except for the administrators, of course)

Yes, and what you have in america is the " Any other form" of government.
So your continuous put down of socialism is unfounded. all your doing is blaming the poor workmanship on the tool rather than on the people doing the work.

Oh. Are you saying you dont denounce making profits?

Oh, so your admitting you can't find any such quote.?

[soothsayer]

I was referring to this one:

Responsible Business

So you do see the humanitarian benefit to profits !

[lukas8u]

Responsible Business is a sham.
Stop linking to your own thread to give yourself credibility.

[soothsayer]

Responsible government is a sham. Thats why its power must be constitutionally-restricted.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: soothsayer I was referring to this one: So you do see the humanitarian benefit to profits !

Your link does not show that i see no benefit in profit, only that i am aware of where profit goes.

If you want to bother doing the research you can find my comments on profit in other threads. But in summary i have nothing against profit. it is a necessary part of commerce.
In capitalism profit belongs to the capitalist owner of the business.
in socialism the profit goes to the government from state owned business or through tax on profit from private owned business.
in communism the profit belongs to the workers who own the business.

It matters not what ism people live under. if their trade is conducted without making profit then that society can not grow or prosper.

[mbc85]

Soooo back to topic?

I asked myself, "can I ever do something just truly for the intention of helping someone else?" Then I said to myself: "well can you ever do something just truly for the intention of hurting someone?" And the answer is yes and no.

There's instances that, yes I helped out a homeless guy that came knocking on the door just for the purpose of helping. Did I feel better at the end? Yes, but did I help because I wanted to feel better or because I just wanted to help? I just wanted to help. Then there's instances that I helped kids cross the street from the bus stop so they won't get run over. Did I feel better after maybe saving an accident? Yes, but I did it because I wanted to impress their mothers and maybe get lucky with one.

I killed a dog just to killed it cause I wanted it dead, didn't barked and didn't bite. Was it pure hurting cause? Yes. I killed a man for raping my sister. Was it pure hurt? No, I wanted revenge.

You cannot truly say that altruism does not exist for there are people out there helping just to help.

[soothsayer]

You cannot truly say that altruism does not exist for there are people out there helping just to help.

Its obvious that humanity would have destroyed itself long ago had not the impulse to "do good" not existed, at least in a slight preponderance over the more rapacious tendencies.
Indeed, I argue that humans are programmed to do so as an innate survival instinct as a species. Religion is an extension of this instinct.
Even most childless, atheistic "global warming cultists" claim they are "saving the planet". This is inconsistent with their other proclamations because why would they care if they werent programmed by nature to propagate the species, effecting their desires beyond themselves?

Sure, psychologically, some element of self-satisfaction stems from "caring" and helping others, arguably even among the most "selfless"...so the philosophical argument is, does the existence of this sentiment completely contaminate the effort from being "altruistic" ? Here too, innate drive must play a role, affecting even the subliminal proposition that helpful acts toward others feed some "kharmic bank" when we ourselves may be in need of others.

Religions, however convoluted their details may be, and despite their abuses, serve mankind by tapping into and attempting to express this logical inconsistency between self-interest and the circle of mutual interdependence by using wonder of the unknowable, if not fear of the supernatural, because pure logic would bring most to the conclusion more often than not, its counterproductive to help others.

The internal motivations for one's altruism are private, and remain benign because noone really knows exactly whether Mother Theresa's works are the result of a life of experiences and psychologies that drive her, or whether, in her mind, she is securing herself a place in heaven... but the fact remains that if her actions really helped others, then her motivations are irrelevant.

I argue that whenever such positive efforts are channeled and institutionalized, however, the likelihood that they will be corrupted is all but inevitable whenever money is involved.

I participated in a local volunteer project that took soon-to-expire foods, dented cans and day-old bread to food pantries. I see charities like this to be generally hard to corrupt because they are direct and share resources and are mutually beneficial to the merchants because it spared them labor costs once the system was in place. Employees simply weeded the supermarkets as they went and placed where it was accessible instead of having to handle it as much as they would otherwise, the volunteers processed it and delivered it.

What really galls me, is when politicians establish vast systems that purport to be altruistic, but are done for pay. This is such an incongruity that it reverses the entire concept of altruism.

[mbc85]

"What really galls me, is when politicians establish vast systems that purport to be altruistic, but are done for pay. This is such an incongruity that it reverses the entire concept of altruism."

And because of this most people think that one person cannot help another just to help. Hence people saying "altruism does not exist."

now sooth, this politician driven "altruistic" systems have other people working or volunteering in them that are actually "pure" and not in it for money or glory, should we label the whole lot "not altruistic" or should we differentiate the "pure" helpers from the money hungry "pigs"? I think it's unfair if we labeled the whole lot as not altruistic. It is not a volunteer's faul that by him/her helping the "pig" gets fatter.

Like you said, altruism can't really be seen. It all resides inside the head of the person helping.

So one cannot say "altruism does not exist".

[soothsayer]

I think it's unfair if we labeled the whole lot as not altruistic. It is not a volunteer's faul that by him/her helping the "pig" gets fatter.

I agree... but I wouldnt call well-meaning but misguided people involved in certain projects "pigs". The politicians, maybe, but this confusion and resentment over the self-serving nature of institutionalized govt social projects harms the idea of altruism and their negative unintended consequences really harms society. A society that promotes social consciousness is essential to its health, but evidence shows that doing it through govt systems for pay is counterproductive.


"Affirmative Action" laws are destructive.
All government "social engineering" carries a tragic human cost.

Hoover Institution - Hoover Digest - Affirmative Action around the World


Read the above article by black professor Thomas Sowell.

It was written before a documentary I saw on PBS describing how, through political and bureaucratic opportunism, the Brazilian government, in copying aspects of American laws, has succeeded in turning one of the world’s happiest and non-racially aware people in the world into a divided and resentful mess.
Brazil, until these recent laws, was a racially colorblind democracy.


The Brazilians have a long history of intermarriage from several waves of immigration from every corner of the globe, and also overcame the most brutal example of institutional racial slavery that makes the American one pale in comparison.

They even had an example of endemic tribal slavery in which recently arrived escaped African slaves entered the Amazon jungle and reinstituted their tribal African slave societies uninterrupted but for the trip across the Atlantic, reinstituting the practice of selling other subjugated tribes as slaves back to the coastal plantations...

Yet, until recently, the Brazilians suffered none of the racist and entitlement and inferiority mentalities cultivated in the U.S.
Now, thanks to a race-based program for determination of special tuition benefits, children are being divided against their own siblings!

The program calls for students to submit an essay and a photograph in order to qualify.
A committee of judges, based on the photo, determines the degree of "African" descent the applicant has.
One of a pair of identical twin brothers was accepted; the other one was denied the tuition grant because the application was reviewd by a different official!

This has caused all manner of social unrest and suspicion that never existed before.
The govt "solution" to the problem it created? Hire even more committees, of course!

PBS quickly buried this documentary. I’m sure whoever it slipped past was fired!
It totally de-bunks its totalitarian political agenda.

If anyone can find a copy, I'll immediately buy it for classroom use until it is further suppressed

[lsbskins1]

Lord, here is another example of the Libertarian/smart bully correlation. A whole thread dedicated to the idea that if we would just stop being pussy-assed caring human beings, stop feeling for children that die from cancer, stop trying to love our neighbors as ourselves and allow the basest human instincts to reign supreme, the cream would rise to the top and all humanity (except, of course those who are allowed to suffer and die with no thought or concern) would be the better for it. But it all gets wrapped up in innocent sounding "philosophical" arguments so that it doesn't seem so obvious that what you are saying is, "Fuck everyone else, I believe I am special enough and super human enough to not be one of those who get crushed and all this human kindness shit is making it harder for me to claw my way to the top of the rotting trash heap I think the world is anyway."

I suggest you go look in the mirror if you want to know where the real misery in the world comes from.

[soothsayer]

The only "bullies" are the ones usurping the productivity of those trying to provide for their families via taxation for "social" projects--creating for themselves lucrative careers in the process, perverting society at the same time, perpetuating the destructive cycle.

No one has a right to demand the fruit of another's labor.

"Caring" does not come about for pay.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: soothsayer The only "bullies" are the ones usurping the productivity of those trying to provide for their families via taxation for "social" projects--creating for themselves lucrative careers in the process, perverting society at the same time, perpetuating the destructive cycle. No one has a right to demand the fruit of another's labor. "Caring" does not come about for pay.

Just as no one has the right to say "me, me, and consider no one else"
Such childish greed is the epitome of the right wing libertarian.

[soothsayer]

How is producing for one's own self and family "greed" ?

Someone else looking to take from him represents "envy", and to take the fruit if his efforts, even if through the agency of others represents theft.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: soothsayer How is producing for one's own self and family "greed" ? Someone else looking to take from him represents "envy", and to take the fruit if his efforts, even if through the agency of others represents theft.

Producing for myself and my family is not greed. And expecting those who gain from the protection and benefit of their social existence to care for and support some members of society is not theft or envy. It is the human condition. We are social creatures, whether you like it or not. The price you pay for the protection of and inclusion in the pack is that you have to surrender some of your freedom and some of your bounty to the pack. Get the hell over it or become a freakin tiger. I doubt you are a shape shifter, so...just get over it.

[soothsayer]

And expecting those who gain from the protection and benefit of their social existence to care for and support some members of society is not theft or envy. It is the human condition. We are social creatures, whether you like it or not. The price you pay for the protection of and inclusion in the pack is that you have to surrender some of your freedom and some of your bounty to the pack. Get the hell over it or become a freakin tiger. I doubt you are a shape shifter, so...just get over it.

I expect them to, too. FORCING them creates our social ills and our illegitimate powers and our injustices.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: soothsayer I expect them to, too. FORCING them creates our social ills and our illegitimate powers and our injustices.

The only people being forced to pay taxes are people who think they shouldn't have to pay taxes. That means, the ones who see no cause to actually be responsible for the things they like to claim to want to be responsible for. All reasonable people expect to be taxed. Reasonable people see the logic behind the need for enforced taxation. It's to keep certain assholes from gaining all the benefits of their social existence while avoiding the reasonable costs.