Against your interests

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's the thing: There are millions of us Lefties who genuinely believe that the income disparity in this country is a major problem, threatening all of our prosperity. So to me, it is voting against EVERYONE'S best interests when you put people in power whose number one economic goal is keeping rich people rich. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Progressives aren't going anywhere.

Oddly, the supposed purpose to help the rich is to supposedly help the lower classes because the rich are "job creators." It is the selfishness of trickle down economics. We give tax money to the rich because it is supposed to trickle down to us, which reveals the idea is selfish in nature. I am not saying it works that way, or is very smart to be selfish in that way as you will never get the money, but the logic is that giving money to the rich will help you out in some way.

The idea of being selfless is supposedly to help those in need without returns for yourself. In an odd way that actually might have logic in selfishness. By helping many people out you raise the quality of life and your own environment and actually may end up helping yourself out in the end. If one thinks about it redistribution of wealth from the minority of rich to the majority of poor benefits a lot more people, and it only really destroys the lavish and wasteful lifestyle of the rich.

Are you trying to channel Rand now? If so, you got everything she believes wrong, if not, you are even worse at understanding human nature than she was.

 

[tererun]

Here's the thing: There are millions of us Lefties who genuinely believe that the income disparity in this country is a major problem, threatening all of our prosperity. So to me, it is voting against EVERYONE'S best interests when you put people in power whose number one economic goal is keeping rich people rich. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Progressives aren't going anywhere.

Oddly, the supposed purpose to help the rich is to supposedly help the lower classes because the rich are "job creators." It is the selfishness of trickle down economics. We give tax money to the rich because it is supposed to trickle down to us, which reveals the idea is selfish in nature. I am not saying it works that way, or is very smart to be selfish in that way as you will never get the money, but the logic is that giving money to the rich will help you out in some way.

The idea of being selfless is supposedly to help those in need without returns for yourself. In an odd way that actually might have logic in selfishness. By helping many people out you raise the quality of life and your own environment and actually may end up helping yourself out in the end. If one thinks about it redistribution of wealth from the minority of rich to the majority of poor benefits a lot more people, and it only really destroys the lavish and wasteful lifestyle of the rich.

Are you trying to channel Rand now? If so, you got everything she believes wrong, if not, you are even worse at understanding human nature than she was.

So your rebuttal is to compare my ideas to someone else who doesn't share any of them, and then to say I am wrong by associating my unrelated ideas with a person who has nothing to do with them? Ok, you are right, they are not like rand at all, and I am confused by why you would even bring it up unless that was something you wanted to do.

You will also note that I said it is what would happen if, not that humans would do that. I am quite aware that humans are nothing like that.

Do you have any points that contradict what i say?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oddly, the supposed purpose to help the rich is to supposedly help the lower classes because the rich are "job creators." It is the selfishness of trickle down economics. We give tax money to the rich because it is supposed to trickle down to us, which reveals the idea is selfish in nature. I am not saying it works that way, or is very smart to be selfish in that way as you will never get the money, but the logic is that giving money to the rich will help you out in some way.

The idea of being selfless is supposedly to help those in need without returns for yourself. In an odd way that actually might have logic in selfishness. By helping many people out you raise the quality of life and your own environment and actually may end up helping yourself out in the end. If one thinks about it redistribution of wealth from the minority of rich to the majority of poor benefits a lot more people, and it only really destroys the lavish and wasteful lifestyle of the rich.

Are you trying to channel Rand now? If so, you got everything she believes wrong, if not, you are even worse at understanding human nature than she was.

So your rebuttal is to compare my ideas to someone else who doesn't share any of them, and then to say I am wrong by associating my unrelated ideas with a person who has nothing to do with them? Ok, you are right, they are not lie rand at all, and I am confused by why you would even bring it up unless that was something you wanted to do.

You will also note that I said it is what would happen if, not that humans would do that. I am quite aware that humans are nothing like that.

Do you have any points that contradict what i say?

You never read Ayn Rand, did you? Her entire philosophy is based on how selfish motives are the ultimate way to the greater good, which is exactly what you just described. You would not be the first that used her philosophy to reach the absurd conclusion that a destruction of the rich would, ultimately, be a selfish thing, and thus selfless. The mayor problem with that idea is that, once you eliminated those rich people, there would be another group of rich people that would need their assets redistributed in the name of selfishness.

Since what you said managed to contradict itself, I see no need to rebut it. I would ask why you never actually addressed my OP, instead of attempting to reword the arguments of another poster in a way that made the absurd position that being selfless is about keeping people rich make being selfish a virtue.

 

[tererun]

Are you trying to channel Rand now? If so, you got everything she believes wrong, if not, you are even worse at understanding human nature than she was.

So your rebuttal is to compare my ideas to someone else who doesn't share any of them, and then to say I am wrong by associating my unrelated ideas with a person who has nothing to do with them? Ok, you are right, they are not lie rand at all, and I am confused by why you would even bring it up unless that was something you wanted to do.

You will also note that I said it is what would happen if, not that humans would do that. I am quite aware that humans are nothing like that.

Do you have any points that contradict what i say?

You never read Ayn Rand, did you? Her entire philosophy is based on how selfish motives are the ultimate way to the greater good, which is exactly what you just described.

You are correct in that. Everything I have briefly read of her ideas I saw as flawed or simplistic. I have always worked off the idea of human selfishness and it has worked every time.

You would not be the first that used her philosophy to reach the absurd conclusion that a destruction of the rich would, ultimately, be a selfish thing, and thus selfless. The mayor problem with that idea is that, once you eliminated those rich people, there would be another group of rich people that would need their assets redistributed in the name of selfishness.

There is where I find a failing. In order to use human selfishness to that goal you would have to show humans it works that way. I am also a realist in that I do understand that philosophy is void of present reality. You would have to make fundamental changes in how people think in order to accomplish it, and that simply is not possible presently. I will argue that improving your environment improves your position even in the present case, but those improvements may not align with the philosophy.

Since what you said managed to contradict itself, I see no need to rebut it. I would ask why you never actually addressed my OP, instead of attempting to reword the arguments of another poster in a way that made the absurd position that being selfless is about keeping people rich make being selfish a virtue.

Perhaps you are young and have not come in contact with a lot of philosophies, but you will find that most philosophies fall under the pressures of reality. Life and humans are just simply too dynamic to have a universal philosophy. I do freely admit that my ideas do not work in 100 percent of situations due to the nature of humans. But I can use it reliably to get what I want.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are correct in that. Everything I have briefly read of her ideas I saw as flawed or simplistic. I have always worked off the idea of human selfishness and it has worked every time.

You have never read her, so don't know anything about her ideas other than what other people, who probably didn't read her either, tell you, and you find her ideas flawed and simplistic.

I find your reasoning in finding her ideas flawed and simplistic specious and uninformed.

There is where I find a failing. In order to use human selfishness to that goal you would have to show humans it works that way. I am also a realist in that I do understand that philosophy is void of present reality. You would have to make fundamental changes in how people think in order to accomplish it, and that simply is not possible presently. I will argue that improving your environment improves your position even in the present case, but those improvements may not align with the philosophy.

Excuse me.

Why would I have to show anyone that being selfish would lead to the destruction of the rich? Come to think of it, why would I have to show them that being selfish is, ultimately, good? Personally, I subscribe to the theories of John Nash. I have no need to show anyone anything other than what I believe. It requires no change in how people think because it has been demonstrated to work, and people are already using them.

Perhaps you are young and have not come in contact with a lot of philosophies, but you will find that most philosophies fall under the pressures of reality. Life and humans are just simply too dynamic to have a universal philosophy. I do freely admit that my ideas do not work in 100 percent of situations due to the nature of humans. But I can use it reliably to get what I want.

Perhaps you are an arrogant twit who things acting superior inherently proves you right. Guess what, it doesn't. What proves you right is backing your position up with facts and logic. Humans are actually pretty easy to understand, the driving forces have been described by science for decades. Philosophy is for people who cannot deal with the reality that, ultimately, most people are predictable.

 

[editec]

I think everybody tends to vote in what they perceive to be their own interests.

Its just that some of us understand the concept of enlighted SELF interest and some of us don't.

Additionally, even within the groups that think their voting based on enlightened self interest, their POV about who to vote for (to satisfy their enlightened self interest) differs.


Basically I am suggesting that rational minds both in the same socio economic class can rationally differ about what best serves them and their class.

 

[Intense]

Here's the thing: There are millions of us Lefties who genuinely believe that the income disparity in this country is a major problem, threatening all of our prosperity. So to me, it is voting against EVERYONE'S best interests when you put people in power whose number one economic goal is keeping rich people rich. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Progressives aren't going anywhere.

Oddly, the supposed purpose to help the rich is to supposedly help the lower classes because the rich are "job creators." It is the selfishness of trickle down economics. We give tax money to the rich because it is supposed to trickle down to us, which reveals the idea is selfish in nature. I am not saying it works that way, or is very smart to be selfish in that way as you will never get the money, but the logic is that giving money to the rich will help you out in some way.

The idea of being selfless is supposedly to help those in need without returns for yourself. In an odd way that actually might have logic in selfishness. By helping many people out you raise the quality of life and your own environment and actually may end up helping yourself out in the end. If one thinks about it redistribution of wealth from the minority of rich to the majority of poor benefits a lot more people, and it only really destroys the lavish and wasteful lifestyle of the rich.

So much for Private Property and the pursuit of happiness. I sense slight issues here with respect for others. Theft remains theft, assault remains assault, and murder remains murder, regardless of the excuse. Injustice compounds the problem, it's not a fix, no matter how it's painted.

 

[saveliberty]

Selflessness is the hallmark of socialism. Ever notice two things about that?

1. The poor are still poor and there are many more of them with little to no middle class.
2. The leaders remain in power for a long time living very well and using strongman tactics.

 

[Foxfyre]

Some people on this forum marvel that anyone votes against their interest. Personally, I marvel that more people don't. If the true goal of your life is to put others first, and to support your country of your party, you should always be willing to vote against your interests. Not voting against your personal interests in the pursuit of a better life for everyone is the sign of a selfish person, not a healthy, well adjusted, individual.

I would go one step further and say that you don't even have to have such selflessly noble and altruistic motives to do so. For instance, to give up a certain government subsidy may impact you directly, but your ultimate goal is to strengthen the economy and eliminate corruption, dependence, and graft that you see as ultimately benefitting you along with everybody else.

Motive: self serving.
Result: good.

 

[Annie]

Some people on this forum marvel that anyone votes against their interest. Personally, I marvel that more people don't. If the true goal of your life is to put others first, and to support your country of your party, you should always be willing to vote against your interests. Not voting against your personal interests in the pursuit of a better life for everyone is the sign of a selfish person, not a healthy, well adjusted, individual.

I agree. My personal circumstances would be for government to help me, better yet, support me. I'm 57 and legally deaf. Underemployed for 2 years. 3 BA's plus MS.

However, I care more about my children and grandchildren futures than my own. In general my stance is for future, not past. The future is not a welfare state. In that lies misery.

 

[Katzndogz]

The democrat answer is for everyone to vote against their own interests.

Gays should never vote for pro gay candidates and blacks should never vote for any candidate that promises more giveaways.

 

[Borillar]

I'm sure it's just coincidence that liberals declare that's it's in everyone's best interests to keep liberals in power.

Yeah. Coincidence. Has to be.

Same as the cons do.



BE partisan and help our country fall on it's face/

I'm going to take a stand and declare what's in everyone's best interests:

The maximum amount of personal liberty conducive to civilized society.

You won't find too many conservatives who disagree. Because conservatives, unlike liberals, recognize that government can only take away liberty.

Then why did they give us the TSA, the DHS, and the Patriot Act if they are so cognizant of personal liberty. Seems to me that the right is only concerned with corporate rights to rip consumers off, and for Bubba to buy unlimited guns. They are perfectly fine with poking their noses into individuals private lives.

 

[Vidi]

Same as the cons do.



BE partisan and help our country fall on it's face/

I'm going to take a stand and declare what's in everyone's best interests:

The maximum amount of personal liberty conducive to civilized society.

You won't find too many conservatives who disagree. Because conservatives, unlike liberals, recognize that government can only take away liberty.

Then why did they give us the TSA, the DHS, and the Patriot Act if they are so cognizant of personal liberty. Seems to me that the right is only concerned with corporate rights to rip consumers off, and for Bubba to buy unlimited guns. They are perfectly fine with poking their noses into individuals private lives.

Let us not forget into womens vaginas and Americas bedrooms to be sure we are sleeping with only state sanctioned partners.

The idea that the modern Republican party is "Conservative" is laughable at best. Theyre just as Pro Intrusive Goverment as the Democrats ever were. They just want to Government to intrude on different issues.

 

[Foxfyre]

Self interest involves liberty only if we feel our liberty is threatened and the Patriot Act and the TSA though there are elements I dislike of each, do not threaten my personal freedoms. Or at least they have not so far. And while I wish neither were necessary, I am also aware that there are a lot of radicals out there who would have been doing violence to us had we not included the right to be free of terrorism among our liberties.

Self serving? Yes.
Result: mixed but mostly effective so far.

 

[Vidi]

Self interest involves liberty only if we feel our liberty is threatened and the Patriot Act and the TSA though there are elements I dislike of each, do not threaten my personal freedoms. Or at least they have not so far. And while I wish neither were necessary, I am also aware that there are a lot of radicals out there who would have been doing violence to us had we not included the right to be free of terrorism among our liberties.

Self serving? Yes.
Result: mixed but mostly effective so far.

Giving the government a power over us, even one that goes unexercised, is , at least in my humble opinion, infringing upon our personal liberties.

 

[Immanuel]

Same as the cons do.



BE partisan and help our country fall on it's face/

I'm going to take a stand and declare what's in everyone's best interests:

The maximum amount of personal liberty conducive to civilized society.

You won't find too many conservatives who disagree. Because conservatives, unlike liberals, recognize that government can only take away liberty.

Then why did they give us the TSA, the DHS, and the Patriot Act if they are so cognizant of personal liberty. Seems to me that the right is only concerned with corporate rights to rip consumers off, and for Bubba to buy unlimited guns. They are perfectly fine with poking their noses into individuals private lives.

You would have to convince me that the people that gave us those things are true conservatives. I'm not saying the are liberals or even progressives, but as a conservative you cannot convince me that the TSA, DHS or the Patriot Act are things that I or the conservatives I know condone.

Simply because those things are Republican shit, doesn't mean those things are supported by conservatives. The Republicans screwed over true conservatives while they were screwing over liberals as well. The people that gave us that shit are elitist power hungry statist and nothing more. They lie about their beliefs in order to gain power just as Obama and Romney are doing today.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Self interest involves liberty only if we feel our liberty is threatened and the Patriot Act and the TSA though there are elements I dislike of each, do not threaten my personal freedoms. Or at least they have not so far. And while I wish neither were necessary, I am also aware that there are a lot of radicals out there who would have been doing violence to us had we not included the right to be free of terrorism among our liberties.

Self serving? Yes.
Result: mixed but mostly effective so far.

Giving the government a power over us, even one that goes unexercised, is , at least in my humble opinion, infringing upon our personal liberties.

Absolutely true.

"You must spread some reputation before giving more to Vidi."

Immie

 

[Vidi]

I'm going to take a stand and declare what's in everyone's best interests:

The maximum amount of personal liberty conducive to civilized society.

You won't find too many conservatives who disagree. Because conservatives, unlike liberals, recognize that government can only take away liberty.

Then why did they give us the TSA, the DHS, and the Patriot Act if they are so cognizant of personal liberty. Seems to me that the right is only concerned with corporate rights to rip consumers off, and for Bubba to buy unlimited guns. They are perfectly fine with poking their noses into individuals private lives.

You would have to convince me that the people that gave us those things are true conservatives. I'm not saying the are liberals or even progressives, but as a conservative you cannot convince me that the TSA, DHS or the Patriot Act are things that I or the conservatives I know condone.

Simply because those things are Republican shit, doesn't mean those things are supported by conservatives. The Republicans screwed over true conservatives while they were screwing over liberals as well. The people that gave us that shit are elitist power hungry statist and nothing more. They lie about their beliefs in order to gain power just as Obama and Romney are doing today.

Immie

"You must spread some reputation before giving more to Immanuel."

I think thats one of the real problems. Many of these modern Republican politicians are Conservative in name only and We, The People, are so wrapped up in our partisan battles that we fail to realize that the battle lines have been moved.

 

[daveman]

Same as the cons do.



BE partisan and help our country fall on it's face/

I'm going to take a stand and declare what's in everyone's best interests:

The maximum amount of personal liberty conducive to civilized society.

You won't find too many conservatives who disagree. Because conservatives, unlike liberals, recognize that government can only take away liberty.

Then why did they give us the TSA, the DHS, and the Patriot Act if they are so cognizant of personal liberty. Seems to me that the right is only concerned with corporate rights to rip consumers off, and for Bubba to buy unlimited guns. They are perfectly fine with poking their noses into individuals private lives.

You're confusing conservatives and Republicans.

The two are not synonymous.

 

[Vidi]

I'm sure it's just coincidence that liberals declare that's it's in everyone's best interests to keep liberals in power.

Yeah. Coincidence. Has to be.

Same as the cons do.



BE partisan and help our country fall on it's face/

I'm going to take a stand and declare what's in everyone's best interests:

The maximum amount of personal liberty conducive to civilized society.

You won't find too many conservatives who disagree. Because conservatives, unlike liberals, recognize that government can only take away liberty.

Let me ask you this:

Does it matter who is infringing upon your rights?