I don't think he was doing any of that. I think he was reminding people that American enterprise made use of publicly funded infrastructure.
The Onion buys Infowars
- Thread starter Marvin the Martian
- Start date
Me too, but only for the shock value and to initially upright the ship.
But I am shortly there after, like always (other than cooler snark) in the camp that too much power in too few hands, is not an optimum scenario.
(Other than my portfolio, then you all can go eff yourselves, of course)...
A federal judge has said that the sale of info wars did not happen. It has to do with the highest bidder not getting the bid. I checked Alex's website and he still is doing his info wars show. It will be interesting to see how this all turns out.
I think this is a measured approach and post, with one exception. To claim feudalism and slavery were destined to fail is short sighted in light of a discussion about capitalism. Feudalism existed for 6 or 7 hundred years, before it started to wane in the 15th Century and was still going strong in Russia and China into the 20th century. Slavery ended not 200 years ago and existed for thousands of years before that. Capitalism, meanwhile, is what, 200-250 years old?
Re Obama, again, for the umpteenth time: it's a spectrum. Just because someone is justifying moving the slider on the scale closer to what they consider the common good ( you might not, I get that) doesn't mean they don't understand or value the individualist value on the other side. For example, it would be wrong for Milton Friedman to call you a collectivist if you wanted antidiscrimination laws and he did not. And it would be wrong of you to call Friedman a collectivist because he wrote and spoke in terms of freedom of families vs. freedom of individuals sometimes.
Also, wanting to move in the direction of the common good doesn't mean Obama wants to move the slider all the way over to the other pole. In that very speech, he acknowledges the value of individualism JUST LIKE Trump called out neo-Nazis in his "very fine people" speech.
Last edited:
In part, yes. But he also referenced teachers. So I don't think he was only talking about infrastructure.
And he began the comment with "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help." And that's undeniably true, on its face. I can't imagine anybody denying this. But, then, everybody had teachers, roads, parents, mentors, pastors, coaches, etc. Yet even people from the similar environments and origins reach varying levels of economic success.
The outcomes people have in life are not entirely determined by things they have or haven't done, choices they have or haven't made. But they're determined by these at some level -- and, I'd guess in most cases, moreso than the external influences that played a role. It's certainly true that a lot of people were born on third base without hitting a triple. But it's not uncommon for those guys to get picked off. And it's also not uncommon for 9th batters to come up and hit dingers.
Also, my general gripe about what he said -- which might sound nitpicky, but I would push back against that -- is that he used the term "somebody along the line gave you some help."
I would argue that most of the people we interact with for our own benefit aren't giving us anything. And most of them didn't do whatever they did...to help us -- even if it did help us achieve our goals. I'm certainly not saying that doesn't happen. But think about the thousands of people we may engage with in a professional career. Let's not kid ourselves into denying that, in most cases, their motivation in engaging with us was for their own benefit...not for ours.
And, after all, mutual benefit is the entire idea behind commerce in all its forms. It's a good thing! But it's not an altruistic thing, as I believe he was presenting it.
At least at any painful level. People are generous with guidance. Fairly generous with their time. Stingy with their money. Stingy with attaching their business. Any partnerships we seek we only do so from the standpoint of hey I think we can help you, and in turn it’ll benefit us
With significant constant contact with government agencies and regulations, Wall Street, Big Banks. Big Tech, Elon is connected.
No one better...
Slavery is alive in many parts of the world today. I make the argument that most Chinese workers are slaves because they are forced by the government to work and live in certain places. In Africa and the middle east Islamic governments practice slavery. Yet look at which economic system is number one. It is capitalism unless Obama or Biden is in control of the economy. Let's look at Trumps economy in two years and see how well it does.
Most aren't. But some do. Teachers, relatives, friends, mentors, coaches, church leaders, etc. give to people all the time, and they do it to help. That's who Obama was referencing.
Human interaction is much more than just commerce.
Sigh.....
Don't go into Subway and don't watch propaganda...
This board seems to spend an inordinate amount of productive time perched in front of the television.
Has no one ever listened to Zappa!
If you’ve gotten the impression that I’m arguing otherwise, then I haven’t been very clear.
My point has always been that the primary motivation of most of what people do - particularly when it involves a significant level of sustained investment (time, effort, energy, money, knowledge, etc) - is self-interest.
I use the words “primary” and “most” very intentionally. Primary means there are typically secondary motivations. Most means that there are also things people do without regard to self-interest (or even where self-interest is there, but as a secondary motivation).
The term I enjoy is 'enlightened self-interest.
Success is not a zero-sum game.
I'll go one step further: I'll grant you that people do everything out of self-interest, if we define self-interest as wider than just material well-being and financial interest and also include the psychological benefit from benefitting people you love, prestige, social acceptance, attention seeking, etc. (But I'd also add that many times a person doesn't know what is really in their self interest or makes huge, contradictory mistakes all the time.)
A communitarian--what Obama basically is--would say that a healthy community/culture will cultivate that psychology in individuals thereby helping to create individuals who care about the common good as much as their own short term self-interest or financial benefit. Individuals affect and create community, and community places boundaries on individual action and helps create those individuals' underlying psychology and incentives for acting. It's reflexive.
And my rebuttal to that is that it’s a fool’s errand to think social engineers who imagine a more equal world can change human nature to the degree they would need to in order to create enough such individuals to sculpt the kind of world they envision.
It is far wiser in my view to harness human nature as it is, and just accept the fact that doing so is going to lead to the inequalities most such social engineers say they want to reduce.
I think we fear inequality way more than we should. There are two kinds — the kind we see in impoverished countries where most people live meager livings and the small handful of well-connected live like kings…and the rarer kind we see in wealthy nations where most people are doing fine, a lot of people are doing more than fine, some people are doing extraordinarily fine, and a few people have the kind of wealth that some countries would envy.
Our Gini is over 40. And so is Ghana’s. Which country is an example of which kind of inequality?
Last edited:
I agree with this, too. In fact, it’s self-evident in something as basic as parenting. I don’t think I’ve ever done anything for my kids (among others) that was done for my own financial gain.
And it doesn’t stop there. No argument from me.
You can disagree with it but it's essentially what religion has been doing for 2000 years. Or in China, their culture of veneration of their elders (which I guess is part of Confucius thought). I'm guessing you, too, tried to instill certain ways of thinking into your children, if you have them, that went beyond naked self-interest and were focused on the betterment of man, the common good, etc.
And in the words of Adam Smith, everyone cares about and is driven in large part by the desire not only to be loved, but to be lovely.
A community's values control both.
The things I tried to instill in my children didn’t defy human nature. In fact, those things often became victims to it.
It sounds good to have plans that rely on an altered human nature. But it isn’t ever going to happen, whether it’s religion, government, or any other influence trying to affect it. We’d just as soon be able to change the sunrise to the west.
I talk a lot about public policy that sounds good, but isn’t good. I’m pretty sure this defective notion sits at the root of most of that. “If we can just convince people to….(say, buy electric vehicles)….then we can _______.”
We should disabuse ourselves of it. It would do us all a great deal of good - even if it’s hard to see that.
BTW, how successful would you say religion has been at changing human nature?
Have they…rid us of fornication and adultery? The Seven Deadly sins? Are we less gluttonous than we used to be? Blasphemy?
Look, it’s not so much that I “disagree” with this as recognize the rather obvious futility of the entire idea.
Human nature is human nature. Nobody is going to change it, anymore than we can change the laws of physics. And I truly believe the delusion that we can change it has led to some really bad public policy (among other things).
Hmmm, I’m just not there with you on that.
But I’ll give you this: the world would probably be a better place if you were right.
Notice I didn't say the motivating factor is the common good. I said acting that way. Cultures can, and do, inculcate in all of us a particular desire to act in a way that is for the common good. In a more specific instance, militaries condition their soldiers to do the same. And it works. Look at those guys who fought at Iwo Jima or who jumped out of those landing craft at Omaha Beach. Think those guys were acting in their self interest?
Humans also have a close to innate sense of reciprocity and mirroring that leads to things like a sense of fairness, reciprocal altruism, and cooperation. These might have been evolutionarily selected for, which defeats the notion that people are consciously calculating the value of such things and if they are worth it in an exchange with another person every time, as a commercial or economic view assumes.
You keep bringing up war situations….as if it’s representative of normal everyday life.
I think that, in itself, shows the flaws in your thinking. That’s like the 3rd or 4th time you’ve felt compelled to cite an existential war as support for your argument.
So, sure: when life or death is staring us in the face, we’re going to tend to think and act differently than we would when it isn’t. I’d say the same about terminally ill people.
What’s that say about normal human interactivity? Not much.
Mixed results. But it has changed cultures and it has changed how we think and act. People thought and acted much differently in the Classical Age vs. after Christianity took root. Have people changed re sins? I think so--I think rape is down a lot since we became human, as has child murder, incest, murder, etc. I'm guessing Pinker covers this.
Indeed, you can see it now in the different attitudes and actions of the West vs. fundamental Islam. Cultures change the individuals within their societies. You would not be the same person you are today, would not act the same or think the same, had you been born and raised in a fundamentalist Islamic household in Palestine, for example.
Notice, I'm not saying they change human nature if you are talking about the innate parts of such nature--such as the instinct for reciprocity or need for love. But human nature contains a malleable part (what the society uses as incentives for someone to be lovely, traits that are valued and inculcated and so become part of what individuals strive for to become prestigious, etc.), and that is what I'm talking about and which I think you already agreed to.
Finally, re human nature is human nature and nobody is going to change it--what if we start genetically altering things and we can select for people aren't greedy, aren't jealous, aren't [pick a bad trait of human nature]? Would that make the resulting being not human? I don't know just asking for the thought experiment.
You're the one saying human nature doesn't allow it. I'm using an obvious example that proves you wrong. There are plenty more.
Brad, out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on people — maybe at retirement age, maybe before that — relocating from high-tax states to low-tax states? It’s been a fairly common story in the press during recent years.
And what do you think these people (those who are, in some part anyway, motivated by the lower taxes) would say about their natural duty to the common good?
Is it fair to say that somebody who wants to keep more of their own money (and give less of it to a state which probably argues that the higher taxes are necessary to support the common good, yeah?) is acting out of self-interest over and above the common good?
And isn’t it really this ordering which ultimately ends up mattering? It doesn’t mean they don’t ever selflessly do anything for others or for their community. But it does probably suggest that their self-interest in paying less taxes prevails over their interest in greater financial support of the common good. Doesn’t it?
And what do you think these people (those who are, in some part anyway, motivated by the lower taxes) would say about their natural duty to the common good?
Is it fair to say that somebody who wants to keep more of their own money (and give less of it to a state which probably argues that the higher taxes are necessary to support the common good, yeah?) is acting out of self-interest over and above the common good?
And isn’t it really this ordering which ultimately ends up mattering? It doesn’t mean they don’t ever selflessly do anything for others or for their community. But it does probably suggest that their self-interest in paying less taxes prevails over their interest in greater financial support of the common good. Doesn’t it?
When have I said that? I’ve never believed this. So I don’t know why I would’ve said it.
Of course people act in ways that overcome their normal, everyday nature in life/death situations. It doesn’t even have to be in war.
But it really isn’t very instructive to use extraordinary situations to explain ordinary thoughts/behaviors/values, etc.
I want to add to this: there are people who go the other way, too. Domestic migration is not a 100/0 thing at all. I’ve looked at some of the raw data the IRS puts out every year.
But there are unmistakable trends. And I think they’ve only gathered steam as modern technology makes our physical location at any given point in time less restricting.
And I just don’t think it’s an accident that so many of the moves involve people (usually well above median income) relocating from high-tax states to low-tax states. There may be other factors than taxes, as every case would be unique. But trends are still trends.
I don't think I've ever argued that we can always act for the common good and not in our own interests. I think there's a balance that needs to take place. All I've been debating is the possibility for people to act for the common good, for whatever reasons. By the way, I also agree with you that results that benefit the common good can emerge from a slew of self-interested transactions. I'm just saying I don't think that's the only way it happens.
Re taxes, one can certainly disagree with a state's definition of the common good vs. one's own. An example: some people spend a lot of time and money fighting against abortion because they really believe that it is a moral evil and that babies are being murdered. Those people would rightfully not want their tax money to go towards funding abortion clinics or subsidizing abortions in some way.
Even your wording here raises my eyebrows. It’s what you think people can do, and should do, if we’re ever to have the better world we can envision. We just have to figure how to make it so people will do what we want…whatever their own typical disposition might compel them to do.
It reminds me of Mark Twain’s quote about fashioning peace through diplomacy. If this quote is any indication, he was as bearish on the degree to which we can bend human nature to our will as I am:
Peace by persuasion has a pleasant sound, but I think we should not be able to work it. We should have to tame the human race first, and history seems to show that that cannot be done.
OK, I certainly agree with that. I just think it’s the most common way it happens. And I think we should embrace and harness it, not suppress it.
I’d be willing to bet a fair amount of money that very few tax migrants would cite their former state’s spending priorities as reasons they left for bigger take home pay. I think most of them would cite being able to stretch their own income further.
But, again, I also realize there are many reasons why somebody might move. I think taxes are only one of them. So I don’t want to oversell this. I just thought it might be an interesting thing to add to a discussion about self-interest vs. the common good.
I guess it all comes down to whether or not you think humans are inculcated to do things for prestige, a feeling of love, etc. by their culture. And whether that human need might outweigh one's desire to keep one's money or have more material things.
My answer to both is yes and I think it's obviously true and happens routinely in human affairs.
It’s the “outweigh” part I have a problem with. We can and do act beyond our self-interest (which I do think mostly and usually involves some kind of tangible benefit and that benefit is most commonly financial…weighed against other considerations like time, effort, attention, etc). And we do it regularly. If we didn’t, charities and churches would be extinct.
But it will never be anything but the exception to the rule.
Out of curiosity: are you a Christian? If so, how do you square all this with Jesus's life and the teachings of the Bible against selfishness?
I am.
And I think Christ understood that human nature required him to implore people to do acts of charity - which he (notably) believed should be done as acts of considered will rather than compulsion (which is why I’ve always been amused at the notion that JC was a socialist…or liberal…or whatever the saying is). Christ never advocated having people’s property taken from them and redistributed to others - by the church, the state, or anybody else. He advocated people giving to others of their own free will.
I’m not promoting selfishness here. If you’ve gotten that impression, then I’ve done a poor job explaining myself. I’ve long been active (both in time and treasure) in numerous charitable activities. I bet I’ve given away more money than I’ve spent on the houses I’ve owned and lived in.
I’m merely recognizing human nature as I see it -explaining my belief that it’s more or less immutable, and arguing that making public policy that is rooted on changing it or on it being something other than it is…is not only futile, but is almost certainly counterproductive.
One other response to your question about faith, charity, and selfishness.
(BTW, I want to be very careful not to conflate self-interest with selfishness or greed…these are two different things. Acting out of healthy self-interest implies that the other guy is made whole. Acting out of selfishness takes no account of the other guy. Important distinction).
Back to My Man Mitch again. Second time I’ve referenced it. But it’s relevant here.
This gets back to self-interest ultimately being very good for such things as charity. Most of the names you see at the top of the giving charts are people who make lots of money - and likely live pretty boffo lifestyles, too. But they also give a lot of money to charities…and I would suspect the charities and their beneficiaries very much need and appreciate it.
(BTW, I want to be very careful not to conflate self-interest with selfishness or greed…these are two different things. Acting out of healthy self-interest implies that the other guy is made whole. Acting out of selfishness takes no account of the other guy. Important distinction).
Back to My Man Mitch again. Second time I’ve referenced it. But it’s relevant here.
When business leaders ask me what they can do for Indiana, I always reply: “Make money. Go make money. That’s the first act of ‘corporate citizenship.’ If you do that, you’ll have to hire someone else, and you’ll have enough profit to help one of those non-profits we’re so proud of.”
Daniels hits on something really important here. Nobody can afford to be very charitable if they aren’t first tending to all of their own needs - and some, if not most, of their wants.This gets back to self-interest ultimately being very good for such things as charity. Most of the names you see at the top of the giving charts are people who make lots of money - and likely live pretty boffo lifestyles, too. But they also give a lot of money to charities…and I would suspect the charities and their beneficiaries very much need and appreciate it.
Latest posts
-
-
with 7 seconds to go in the 1st half there was a time out
- Latest: Bucket Getter
-