Altruism is an alternative to competition as the all-definitive, if not vulgar, expression of the evolutionary principle. The question is, how can we put it to work?
Social Darwinism, the mainstay of political philosophy known as libertarianism, would have us believe that competition provides us with the gist of the evolutionary principle at work, a naturally acquired trait which explains the survival of the individual, the species, even the society at large. This philosophy is buttressed at times by appeals to biblical if not moral themes, to “industriousness” and the “just desserts” kind of thing, and capitalism emerges as the predominant mode of production, the heart of the economic system at work: those who control the capital and, by extension, the labor of others, are either morally or intellectually superior and, in representing thus the higher rung of moral or evolutionary development, are justified on those very grounds; and the cosmic order (again, either moral or evolutionary) is being preserved. In The Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber offers a penetrating analysis of the religious impulse and how it forges both the objective fact and the subjective belief. Frédéric Bastiat’s life and works are devoted to providing the justification.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - roger nowosielski
However, Cindy, you're running into another kind of problem when you're trying to protect people from what you deem is harmful for them. (Which I'm not offering as any kind of defense of capitalism!) Don't forget, that's what liberals do, and that's the role they assign to government -- to offer protection.
So when you do have a chance, re-read my last article in the "Defense of Anarchism" series. I'd be interested to know what you think of "protection" given the context I presented it in.
77 - roger nowosielski
Mistake - meant "Of Mice and Men ..."
78 - Cindy
Roger,
I don't get your meaning. Do you mean I would like to protect innocent people from slavery, poverty, etc? Then I suggest you do too or there's nothing to talk about. And if you were to not, then there is also nothing to talk about.
79 - Cindy
I read your "Of Mice and Men" just now and I am still bewildered at what possible meaning you have infused into my words to be able to say the things you are saying in 76.
Have I suggested I would take steps to protect people from themselves?
Though I disagree with you in that piece where you suggest that we are willing not unwitting consumers, the most I would do to offer protection would indeed be through education. Is my clear description of what I think it is bad for people to consume making you believe that I intend protecting them or preventing them from it?
What I care about is how what people do affects others who have less power in a given scenario. That is my concern. And, of course I care about children, and think that they require protection from use and abuse and that includes being turned into future anti-social consumers of their fellow humans.
As a social member, I would be remiss if I did not concern myself with my fellow human. We are not islands.
80 - Cindy
Off to bed for me. Nightie night. Happy dreams.
81 - roger nowosielski
It's not a matter of what we want to do -- it's more of a matter how do propose to do it that would be different from a typical liberal response. Education, fine, working on changing the system that would be exploitation-free, also fine. But what else do you do in the meantime: censorship of pornography, banning unhealthy foods, protecting kids from exposure to unsavory influences by homeschooling? Just asking.
Don't get mad at me for raising these questions, and no, I'm not being contrary. You should know I mean no harm.
Turning in now since my laptop is overheated. It's been on all day. Talk to you tomorrow.
82 - Cindy
Just one more point on 'the trouble with people'.
The trouble with people (whatever you see it as) exists BECAUSE of what we are doing not independently of it. There are not just some bad apples independent of some great system. The system created those apples. If there are bad apples then one must ask what is wrong with the system that created them.
Doing what we do produces what you see before you.
83 - Cindy
But what else do you do in the meantime: censorship of pornography, banning unhealthy foods...
I would never suggest anything of the sort.
protecting kids from exposure to unsavory influences by homeschooling?
IMO, protecting children from uncritical exposure to indoctrinating institutions and mind-warping media is the best (and in my opinion the only) way to change the world.
84 - Cindy
Roger,
I am not mad at you for raising your questions. I am a wee bit sad that you didn't already have the answers to them.
If a person's values and ideas are not understood by anyone--does that person exist in the world at large?
85 - Glenn Contrarian
Cindy -
There are two big reasons to legalize prostitution - health coverage and regular checkups for the prostitutes and legal protection for the prostitutes. Otherwise, prostitutes have none of that, get prosecuted for trying to make a living, and work the streets instead of inside a relatively safe establishment.
Anyone who has traveled the world will tell you that prostitution is all over the world, Cindy, even in the most hardcore of the Muslim countries. You might hate it, but it's there. Always has been, always will be. That's why it's called the oldest profession. I don't like it one bit either, not now that I'm no longer quite so young and stupid. But I also know that for those poor and uneducated girls who all too often wind up being prostitutes would MUCH rather have the veneer of protection - health coverage and legal protection - that legality would bring.
This is not so much a matter of right-and-wrong, but a matter of how to make the wrong not quite so terrible as it would be otherwise. There's a time and place for idealism, but this isn't it - prostitution isn't a problem that idealism will ever solve.
Ever.
So you do the best you can with what you've got - and in this case, it's to make the wrong not quite so terrible as it would be otherwise.
86 - Anarcissie
I think you can count on liberalism to get rid of classical slavery. (In its modern form, that is; Locke justified it, and Jefferson practiced it.) Slaves don't seem to be good consumers, and consumerism is a major sink of surplus production, needed to preserve scarcity. What liberalism-capitalism can't get rid of is itself.
Before calling the cops to suppress prostitution, I'd ask the prostitutes about it.
87 - Cindy
Glenn,
My objection was with your equation of legalizing prostitution with 'freedom', none of your counter addresses that. I don't recall supporting the legal suppression of prostitution anymore than I supported legally trying to suppress pornography or crisco.
Yes I am afraid prostitution is everywhere. It is a patriarchal invention after all. It will be there at least as long as capitalism or other hierarchical, patriarchal, or oppressive modes of economy exist. Or until women get the idea that we should do away with most men. (wink--just kidding--barely) A situation I would prefer to what is actually happening--women adopting the male domination model and practicing it and calling it equal rights.
88 - roger nowosielski
@84
Yes, there is an answer of sorts.
89 - roger nowosielski
Further, I want to discuss #83 with you.
90 - Glenn Contrarian
Cindy -
I've often thought that it's the great good fortune of men that women haven't yet figured out that they don't need us. I'm not kidding.
But the prostitution thing will not go away regardless of what political system is in place. There will always be some who are poor, and some young women who are willing to "marry up" just to have a better life. Sadly, there are not a few parents who push this as well. And what is such a marriage but a form of legalized prostitution?
91 - Cindy
What if the economic system were say communism or anarchism or matriarchal gift economy? There are other economic arrangements that do not require having any poor people.
True, women don't need men, at least since the invention of this.
92 - Glenn Contrarian
*chuckle* We just moved - those would come in handy.
Anyway, I know you proved me wrong on anarchy...but even if everyone had the exact same amount of money (or a system where money was unnecessary), there will always be inequalities in social standing since political systems cannot compensate for the psychological range in people...and as long as there are social inequalities - or inequalities of any kind - there will be some form of prostitution (and not just by women (see Ashton Kutcher)).
93 - Clavos
There are other economic arrangements that do not require having any poor people.
But they all inevitably wind up with some, in the end.
No philosophical/political system can overcome the inherent evil of human beings.
94 - Clavos
But the prostitution thing will not go away...
Not as long as coupling exists as a lifestyle, anyway. Dating and courtship are a form of prostitution.
95 - Clavos
If there are bad apples then one must ask what is wrong with the system that created them.
"Bad apples" exist in every system ever tried by humanity since the apes. Methinks it's not the systems, but human beings themselves -- too many of 'em are bad to one degree or another -- even as children.
96 - Baronius
Roger - Which statements do you think Dave would agree with:
- The rich have the right to use their money however they wish.
- The rich have an obligation to take care of the poor, but government has no right to enforce it.
- The rich have an obligation to take care of the poor, and government has the right to enforce that obligation, but is less efficient at it than non-governmental charities.
- The rich have an obligation to take care of the poor, but a government that's strong enough to enforce that obligation is too strong.
- The rich have an obligation to take care of the poor, and the best way they can do that is through investing and spending.
I don't know which he'd agree with. It'd be nice if he'd stop by and answer. But a person could call himself libertarian and agree with any of those statements, and only the first could be connected to social Darwinism.
97 - Baronius
"Better solution: create a world that eliminates every reason for prostitution to exist."
You mean, no more penises?
98 - roger nowosielski
So Cindy, do you want to discuss #83?
Would you want to protect your kid from gay teachers? Or how about the kids from the inner city (by sending her to a private school)? Or how about from "religious education"? Or, if you were a Catholic, for instance, from secular, public schools (because they teach evolution rather than creation)?
Let's tackle with these for starters!
99 - Cindy
You mean, no more penises?
I mean no more poverty. I would think that would be apparent to anyone.
100 - Cindy
Roger,
You know me, don't you? A little? Haven't I always expressed the claim that schools function to indoctrinate children into the dominant culture?
Now, let's start by you telling me--would you send children to the church of scientology for an education?
To answer your questions:
Would you want to protect your kid from gay teachers?
Yes, I would. I don't give special exception to people based on their sexuality where their actions (albeit unintentionally, through their own blindness) serve to indoctrinate children into the dominant culture and its values and biases, which I happen to think are pathological and anti-life.
Or how about the kids from the inner city (by sending her to a private school)?
This question shows a lack of understanding of the gist of what I am saying. I object to all schools which transmit the values and 'norms' of the dominant culture.
Or how about from "religious education"?
Religious schools are the same, imo, as any of the other schools you have mentioned.
Or, if you were a Catholic, for instance, from secular, public schools (because they teach evolution rather than creation)?
The dominating culture is functioning in the role that you ascribe to the 'me as Catholic' in this example. Do you understand what I am saying now?
101 - Cindy
101 -
Baronius,
I did say 'every reason' implying there is at least one more than poverty. The other would be patriarchy. Though I am aware that you likely see how men behave under patriarchal indoctrination as just natural to males, I don't. I think males could be socialized in myriad ways. Treating others as objects to conquest or body parts is not one of the ways I find beneficial to the human race.
102 - Cindy
Roger,
Let me say it a different way. Schools function in society to replicate the dominant social construction--that means send your kids to school and they learn to replicate patriarchy and capitalism.
103 - roger nowosielski
@ 100
If so, Cindy, then how do you suppose it is possible to bring up kids how you want them brought up? How can your ideas possibly be implemented on any scale in the present environment?
104 - roger nowosielski
@96
Pretty neat, Baronius. I suppose he might endorse all of the above. So your cursory definition of "libertrianism," at the extreme, comes down to rejecting any authority outside of oneself to tell one how to dispense with their income (which, again taking it to the extreme, would mean being opposed to any form of taxation other than for the purpose of providing essential protective services).
My stand with respect to governmental authority is even more extreme. Does that make me a libertarian?
You're also correct in that in many cases, the notion of right (except for "natural" rights, I suppose) inheres the notion of a corresponding moral obligation. A right is not a stand-alone concept.
So much for architecture. Let me throw you a curveball, then. Does Dave support the capitalist system which produces the kinds of inequalities it does with respect to income and accumulated wealth?
105 - Dr Dreadful
Haven't I always expressed the claim that schools function to indoctrinate children into the dominant culture?
Why wouldn't they? Even if your aim as an educator is altruistic rather than doctrinaire, a partial goal of education is always going to be to equip your students to function in the society they find themselves a part of.
106 - Cindy
103 Roger,
I'm pretty sure they cannot, Roger--not on any scale. Not with people being what they are.
Or do you mean that in a practical sense--what would the education process look like?
Here are some ideas people have come up with.
105 Dr.D,
Because to do so is to equip them to replicate the pathology of the culture. If one wants to be altruistic wouldn't it be better to expose and counter the indoctrination? To teach children to question and think for themselves?
Let me be clear that I am making an analogy with that link. I am not saying, 'look what could happen'. I am saying what we are doing is much the same preparation that led to what they did. I find the same seeds sown in this and every other hierarchically arranged domination oriented culture. Again, see the Stanford Prison Experiment. Should similar cultural pressures emerge, the result is the same. This can be seen now in the celebration of the military and the denial of what it really is as well as the game-playing surrounding the training of future serial killers.
107 - zingzing
cindy: "If one wants to be altruistic wouldn't it be better to expose and counter the indoctrination? To teach children to question and think for themselves?"
there's plenty to suggest that that's exactly what's going on. "critical thinking," or however you want to put it, is one of the major goals of early education, and as one goes forward in education, the production of something "new" is the major quantifier of success.
108 - Baronius
Cindy, if you can show me a pre-capitalist or non-capitalist culture in which women weren't prized and sexuality isn't related to power, well, you're not talking about humans. That's not an endorsment of the conduct. It's just, come on, an economic system isn't going to make a guy less likely to pick a fight to impress a girl, or any of the other stupid things that happen when genitals are involved.
109 - roger nowosielski
What I do mean, Cindy, that the project you have in mind must be doable in spite of the conditions. You never have the kind of conditions you desire -- the object is getting there. In short, we must make do with what we've got. There's no other way and it will always be like that.
110 - Dr Dreadful
Because to do so is to equip them to replicate the pathology of the culture.
Argumentum ad hitleram, Cindy. Just as disease is an inescapable part of the natural order, so every society is pathological in some way. But at the same time, just as athlete's foot is not as serious a disease as the Ebola virus, not every education system can be equated to the Hitler Youth.
If one wants to be altruistic wouldn't it be better to expose and counter the indoctrination? To teach children to question and think for themselves?
That's why I said a partial goal of a good educator was to train students to become members of society. Of course they should also learn critical thinking skills, and an education that doesn't do this is practically useless. But acquiring these skills doesn't necessarily mean the newly-trained thinker will conclude that the culture she finds herself in is intrinsically wicked or evil.
111 - roger nowosielski
We've been over this before, Cindy. In order to be able to overcome dominant values and culture, you've got to know what they are. One can't become a purist out of the blue, by having been raised in a pristine environment. An certain exposure even to bad things is a must.
The kind of ideas you're espousing are similar to those held by many fundamental Christians who, if they life depended on it, wouldn't send their kids to public schools for fear of contamination.
By all means, let's work on developing an alternative education system, but that won't happen overnight. So the question again is -- what do we do in the meantime?
What is the necessary state of mind, ask yourself this, on the part of a caring parent to send their kids even to a "bad" public school without fear and trembling?
A hint -- it involves making a quantum leap!
112 - Cindy
Roger,
I don't have a project. I am analyzing and assessing. I have, likewise, no idea, for example, of how to achieve world peace. Though I think it is a sound idea to aim for and sorely lacking. I posted a link to unschooling. Did you look at that? That is one idea. There are others.
For myself, Roger, I have decided (at the moment) to retire myself from world-changing in the up close and personal sense. I am not at all confident that I can be of much service at the moment. I plan to work on some children's books with the goal of aiding them in questioning the mantras of the dominant culture and maybe some for parents as well. Perhaps I will develop some workshops for interested adults and/or children.
Dr.D,
Can a true believer teach others to 'think critically' about what they believe?
113 - Cindy
Roger,
I think you don't quite comprehend what I mean and I repeat: would you send your children to the church of scientology to educate them?
If not, why not? If so, why on earth would you think it is necessary?
Why do you think the institution of school is a necessity? That is a socially conditioned belief you have adopted and you treat it as if it were reality. It is preventing you from seeing things in new ways. I am reminded of your trying to teach me for over a year why I am wrong about anarchism and why liberalism was the only right way.
I am growing weary of discussion, Roger. Though I am not growing weary of you. I have partly not been around because with every conversation I have I grow more certain that the world will never change. I am planning to focus on my own world and my own happiness and that of my small community I have direct contact with.
114 - Cindy
And, as I have said before, I only really care much for underdogs, Roger. I think I would rather work directly with them than talk and talk and talk in circles to the privileged who have no stake in changing anything.
115 - Cindy
zing,
See 112 to Dr.D.
116 - roger nowosielski
@114 - so do I.
But when you get a chance, think about the question I posed at the end of #111.
117 - Cindy
Roger, I sent you an email.
118 - roger nowosielski
That'll be just fine.
119 - Irene Athena
Cindy (thanks for #70) I looked at your link about the "war toys are fun!" recruiting strategies on high school campuses. On display are attitudes that are a hop, skip and a jump from those demonstrated in the Wikileaks video where the US combatants shooting at unarmed civilians were hardly distinguisable from teens at an arcade shooting gallery. The link I posted includes statements from a former soldier from the company in the "Collateral Murder" video who is now working to promote alternatives to war; he says that the video depicts a typical day on the job.
Here's a baby-step suggestion. If schools are truly interested in developing critical thinking skills, then, to expose students to an alternative viewpoint, there could be an assembly featuring a local representative from Veterans for Peace. (There'd likely be children of servicemen in the audience; he'd know how to be sensitive.)
Ah, but that might mess with the pep rally schedule, so you might have as much trouble with the athletic department as you would with the recruiters. "The battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton." It's pervasive. I understand and appreciate the biological imperative for a male to be the protector of the children he's sired and their vulnerable mother. The continual focus on aggression, though, is an aberration of this natural drive.
Cindy if I don't see you for awhile, let me just say that I've appreciated the things you've brought to everyone's attention, if they were listening (and missed the same message, from different camps from yours, in Chalmers Johnson's "The Sorrows of Empire," or or from publications (too socialist for my taste, but still one of the other lights in the darkness)like the Catholic Worker, the mischief the IMF is doing in third world countries. I never knew about the plight of the children who work as slaves to bring us candy bars, until you brought it up. Even if your METHODS aren't always the same ones they'll use to address those evils, you've inspired some to make a difference.
I know this might be offensive to some, but I really intend it as a blessing: to EVERYONE on this thread (even the ones who don't like Ron Paul) may God help you all as you go about, each in your own ways, fighting evil.
120 - Dr Dreadful
Can a true believer teach others to 'think critically' about what they believe?
Now you're poisoning the well, Cindy. By dismissing educators as "true believers", you give yourself an unmerited free pass on even considering that what they teach might not be without merit.
Or is even the entire canon of what we call "critical thinking" to be dismissed because it was a bunch of establishment white guys who came up with it?
121 - Dr Dreadful
I don't have a problem with Ron Paul. He's a decent enough old duffer.
An unhealthily large segment of his supporters, however, seem to be (present company excepted) flying-mammal-excrement crazy.
122 - Glenn Contrarian
One person's true believer is another person's heretic. A great example is the 'debate' - as idiotic as it is - between evolution and creationism in our schools.
123 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
I have a real big problem with Ron Paul. He's a whole load of excelsior disguised as good intentions that would lead where they often do...and I'd even rather see Perry as president before him!
But in the interest of peaceful discourse in this thread, I'll refrain from going down that road.
124 - Cindy
Okay, Dr.D if you say so. But all you have said functions like some rational auto defense. It has prevented you from grasping the meaning of what I am saying.
125 - roger nowosielski
@122
A heretic is a true believer no less than an orthodox -- not because his or her beliefs are true but because he believes truly.
It's Eric Hoffer's usage.