Forum Post: Occupy Morality...
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 25, 2011, 1:27 p.m. EST by TheRoot
(305)
from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Banning physical force from social relationships is good because it underscores, upholds and promotes the very nature of an individual (of any individual, of all individuals). By the nature of being human, a person has to choose to think and act in order to live regardless of whether he's alone or living in a group. Unlike the nature of animals, a person's basic means of survival is reason. His nature offers him the choice to live rationally or die a suicidal animal. That which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good and that which opposes reason is evil. The nature of a person requires him to think and produce. The standard by which a person decides what is good or evil—is his own life- that which is required of him to survive and prosper as a rational being. By our nature, thinking is man’s only basic virtue.
To think is an act of choice. Reason does not work automatically. Thinking is not a mechanical process. Knowledge is not gained by instinct. The functions of a person's kidneys, lungs and heart are automatic. The function of his mind is not. For a human being, the question “to be or not to be” is the question “to think or not to think.”
All evil, therefore, stems from a person refusing to accept his basic nature and by acting counter to it by not learning how to think and not practicing it, consistently. Evil is an absence and a negation and as such is impotent. It has no power but that which an individual allows into the vacuum he creates by not discovering and upholding his nature as a rational being.
There is one act of evil no person may commit against others and no person may sanction or forgive. No person may start or initiate physical force against others. To place the threat of physical destruction between a person and his perception of reality is to negate and paralyze his nature- his very means of survival. For whatever goal and to whatever extent, the person who initiates the use of force destroys another person's capacity to live.
If the morality dictated by our very nature is to be upheld in a social context, then physical force must be barred from our relationships. A person needs an institution chartered by him with the role of protecting his rights under an objective code of rules. The fundamental right is the person's right to his life and that manifests in his right to his property. A proper government has one fundamental responsibility to a person and that is to defend his life and property. This is the task of a government, of a proper government and its only moral justification; it's the reason why a person needs a government.
But when some turn morality on its head by subverting the nature of man, they create hell on earth. When some force a person to drop his own mind and accept their will as a substitute, they defy the reality of man. Man's nature demands him to act for his own rational interest and threatens him with death if he does not.
In the history of choices men have made on how to behave, no choice is more evil then the morality of altruism. The fundamental idea of altruism is that no person has the right to exist for his own sake. Instead, service to others is the only justification of his existence. Self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, his strength and his purpose for living. Altruism says that the standard by which to judge is that the self is evil and the selfless is good. Alruism says it is immoral to live by your own effort, but moral to live by the effort of others. It is immoral to consume your own product, but moral to consume the products of others—it is immoral to earn, but moral to freeload.
The irony is that many who value political freedom uphold the morality of altruism in some form or another. To those freedom fighters who believe that any action taken for the benefit of others is good and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil, you have tossed the coin of altruism into the air. When it lands heads, your political opponents win and when it lands tails, they win too. Either way, by upholding any variant of altruism, you lose. The nature of man and altruism are incompatible because reason and self-sacrifice are incompatible.
Challenge the altruist's dogma. Why must a person live for the sake of others? Why must he sacrifice his interests to the interests of others? Why is that the good? There is no earthly reason for it. Since nature does not provide a person with an automatic form of survival, since he has to support his life by his own effort, the doctrine that says concern for one’s own interests is evil means that the person's desire to live is evil. To restore political freedom, first honestly discover and restore how to think and act as an individual- for your own sake.
Well you have the perfect formula for constructing the personality of the 'psychopath'. Service to self is what started our problems...and to continue down that line is a path to social suicide.
Now if you really believe the bullshit you put down, why not send it out to your neighbors with your signature on it. Test the waters so to speak.
Nice try cryptofascist.
Starts out the post with non-violence... Ends it with Ayn Rand.
Way to go TROLL!
What is wrong with Ayn Rand?
She was crazy, and not a very good writer.
Crazy? By what standard do you call her crazy? "not a very good writer", you say. You'd really have to read her works to say that with honesty. With 25 million copies of her novels having been sold, I suggest that she had a huge talent for writing.
Facts for the first please and for the second keep your moronic views out of a discussion. Facts only.
She was a psychopath.
The only folks that claim she had any writing skills, tend to be sociopaths.
Try some Sinclair Lewis. Much better writer.
Hunter S. Thompson, is a much more honest writer.
I mean really, basing some demented philosophy on a hack writer is just silly.
I suggest you go Galt today!!!!!!!
It's fun to live with your own ego.
I care about several things and enjoy her writing. She had several good points. You get fanaticism when you follow a philosophy without any questioning. I create my own philosophy by drawing from several different sources at the same time. Sinclair Lewis and Hunter S. Thompson are both excellent writers as well.
Besides the fact that she was a sociopath with violent sadomasochistic sexual fantasies?
Besides the fact that her characters more closely resembled comic book heroes than anyone in the real world?
Besides the fact that at the end of her life (while on social services) she did a complete 180-degree about-face and ate all of her words?
...Nothing I guess.
http://www.good.is/post/conservative-darling-ayn-rand-died-loving-government-handouts/
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/02/06/ayn-rand-welfare-queen-living-high-on-government-assistance.htm
Her sexual preferences are none of my concern and the should not be yours either. Many authors follow this style of writing. One example is Lee Child with Jack Reacher. 6'5 ex-army MP. The man is a monster but is portrayed as the smartest character encountered.
I think anyone who calls themselves an intellectual whist simultaneously advocating rape should be everyone's concern.
What she did in her bedroom is none of my business but what she wrote about and promoted is another story.
She came from a country where all of this OWS thing is happening now. And hers collapsed on itself.
Check out this thread: http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-real-ayn-rand/
Try having your own fucking thought for a change.
I know it is her most famous work, but her views in Atlas Shrugged were well founded. Juts take a look around your own movement.
What 'bout the poor?
Hi Ayn
I get it.
EAT THE RICH!
Go back to your grave now.
You're as dead as your false idealism.
Truth can be covered up but it'll never die. Why do you say it's 'false'?
Bad novelists, do not write the truth.
Why do you think they do?
Psychopathic behavior is not a natural state. It is false.
Morality asks the questions, "How should I behave and why?". Rand answers them by saying, "You must exist for your own sake, neither sacrificing yourself to others nor sacrificing others to yourself. The pursuit of your own rational self-interest and of your own happiness is the highest moral purpose of your life." But you imply that that is psychopathic. On the contrary, the Wall Streeters are psychopathic because they reject her morality turning life instead into a bloody dog-eat-dog world, a caste of the have's and the bloody have-nots.
Where would Wall Street be today if they upheld her morality? Would you have anything to protest against them if they did?
The pursuit of self-interest and personal happiness is inherent to Wall Street sociopaths. Yours is the morality of the unabashed elitist, the true 1%. It is self-serving social darwinism.
Even Locke and de Tocqueville would have rejected this supposedly "enlightened" self-interest. There's nothing "rightly understood" about it.
The worship of "me."
I agree.
The problem with this Post's Ideas is that it is trying to 'redefine' evil, and cast it's source as what has been historically been the definition of good.
In other words this whole post is EVIL and tries to pass itself off as good, because that is the nature of evil, deception. Good and Evil do both have a source, but neither are from what this post has described, because again, Evil deceives.
Evil has a source, and it is pride. And pride has 3 bastard children, namely greed, cowardice, and deception. These are expressed by humans when they act in accordance to selfish self interest. Once pride invests itself in a man it shows up with the attitude 'My self-intrest is more important than others' And then man will lie to achieve what he lusts for at times. And at other times fear will surface when man decides to abandon his fellow man to protect that same self interest.
Now the source of Good, is love. And it, too, has offspring. Namely TRUTH, COURAGE, and GENEROSITY. These are expressed when man Ignores his self interest and performs self sacrifice. When man loves his fellow man, he is honest in his dealings and generous as time allows. And when called upon he ignores the coward of self-interest to protect the weak, or Ignorant, or oppressed, no matter the cost to self.
And there again is an Idea libertarians dread, that courage IS the facing of evil, despite the personal cost. Courage nessesitates self sacrifice, weather real or imagined, weather potential or actual in outcome.
And that is the problem with libertarianism, it redefines evil as good and good as evil. It is the question of CAIN "am I my brothers keeper?"
Libertarianism is the motto of the murderer who asks why society judges him as evil. If you doubt this then look to Charles Manson whom embodied evil. when called to the stand he stated that he wasn't the one that was evil, it was society that was evil to stop him.
Been out and about, finally had a chance to collect my thoughts and respond. Sorry for the delay... holidays and all.
Thanks for your perspective debndan, good stuff.
I am an atheist (of the humanist variety) and agree with pretty much everything you've said. I especially appreciate your use of the terms "pride" and "love" instead of other concepts you might have used - which gets the solid moral fundamentals you're advocating across to a wider audience.
Evil does deceive - especially the self; nobody thinks they are evil, yet some surely are. Defining evil is, of course, a lot more difficult for an atheist, but denying it is silly. It does exist, and I see it clearly in the work of Ayn Rand. Willful rejection of concepts like empathy and altruism are good indicators, for me...
I also really like your definition of good, which lines up well with the "praiseworthy" moral acts of Kantian philosophy, to which I subscribe. It's about acting out of good will, which is basically the opposite of acting in self-interest.
Anyway, thanks again.
be careful human... you may be in danger of discovering you have a soul by continuing our conversations... hehhehe, just a anouther quick response, will answer a better way in a few.....
I, too, appreciate being able to define evil and good with you, without being labeled a kook, moron, communists, humanist, etc.
:o)
I would be more concerned with discovering I don't have a soul. Which for me is that inner core of morality that defies rational description. The superego, perhaps. The a priori, the intuitive self. Different descriptions for the same thing IMO.
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” -Albert Einstein
I find my philosophy quite compatible with many of the moral teachings of christianity, as long as we don't get too caught up in the metaphysical stuff.
Their activity hardly adheres to what I've written. The Wall Streeter's pursuit is at the expense of others because it's forced on others. The laws that they've bought and paid for by having their political cronies in all levels of Government create them are laws that forcefully deny others. If their monetary system is truly right, why do they need their laws banning other forms of money? As I said in my post, "No person may start or initiate physical force against others". But that is what they do through their 'laws'. They pursue their interests at the point of a gun and proselytize that they upholding the greater good. I am talking about morality. Altruism makes their kind of politics the norm. Rand's morality makes theirs and their politics impossible.
Wealth is its own force. Wage slavery is not force in the classical sense but it is bondage, impossible to escape. The Gilded Age was small government with mostly libertarian policies that corresponded to Rand's ideals of the state existiing solely to protect property rights and individual liberty. The robber barons owned the system even more than they do today (but just barely at this point).
It was government that changed all that.
"Altruism makes their kind of politics the norm"
Nonsense.
"Rand's morality makes theirs and their politics impossible."
Double nonsense. It gives them free reign.
You say, "Wealth is its own force." In the true sense of your statement, I say, "Well of course it is!" Wealth can’t exist unless there are goods produced and people able to produce them. By what 'force', do these people produce? The root of all the goods made and of all the wealth ever created is man’s mind. Wealth or any amount of value has to be produced and before it can be produced it has to be thought of and action taken. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think and that is the force behind economic power.
Don't damn or uproot the only source of wealth by saying that its source is political power. Before it can be plundered or redistributed, it has to be created. The values created by the work of a person's mind can only be taken by force. As the history of commerce and government in the United States amply demonstrates there were relatively few 'businessmen' who having grown tired of having to continuously create value found politicians willing to protect them from the realities of competition by creating laws forbidding or hamstringing others to compete.
What made both tribes possible and gave them the long life which they still enjoy today was not their own belief but a creed held by the wider community of mostly honest businessmen and politicians. The majority believed that self-sacrifice is the most noble purpose of their existence and in so believing it they obliterated the concept of justice, created the mixed economy and handed over to the corrupt the keys to heaven on earth.
The majority still believes it to this day. If only we all try hard enough (and again and again), then altruism will come true. But the only group cashing in on that lie are the corrupt to begin with. Occupy Wall Street doesn't need to reclaim Wall Street. It needs to rediscover their birthright- reason and the morality that comes from it.
Why do you think bad novelists write the truth?
Do you have any scientific studies to support her suppositions?
Scientific studies? There is only one power that determines history, including science, that is the power of ideas. If I know your convictions, I'll be able to predict your actions. If you know the ideas that dominant a society, you can predict its course. All of history is a record of how close a society came to upholding reason as man's only means of knowing reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. In other words, history shows how close man came to being man, to practicing the virtue of reason.
Dark Ages = far, far, far away from the power of reason gave rise to era of stagnation and want
Middle Ages = far, far away from the power of reason gave rise to an era for the need for organized protection but resulted in Lords who robbed as ruthlessly as but more systematically than any foreign barbarian and mysticism dominated thought.
Age of Enlightenment = far away from the power of reason but the closest to it in man's history gave rise to an era where reason won out over religion. No matter how flailing of a win it was, it did dominate. Men no longer believed that their minds were unable to deal with reality because the proof to the contrary was so evident all around them. The achievements of science, the spread of freedom, the rise of industrialism, the birth of the United States were no accidents. They came from the people who upheld reason over religion, the individual over the group.
That's not even a scientific study of history.
Have fun with bad novels, and ego stroking, pseudo science.
Violence: Black Friday at WalMart: shootings, tramplings, fist fights, shoppers shoved into displays, shoppers pepper spraying each other. Unlike previous years, no deaths were reported.
The worst things OWS is accused of are nothing in comparison!
The problem with this Post's Ideas is that it is trying to 'redefine' evil, and cast it's source as what has been historically been the definition of good.
In other words this whole post is EVIL and tries to pass itself off as good, because that is the nature of evil, deception. Good and Evil do both have a source, but neither are from what this post has described, because again, Evil deceives.
Evil has a source, and it is pride. And pride has 3 bastard children, namely greed, cowardice, and deception. These are expressed by humans when they act in accordance to selfish self interest.
Once pride invests itself in a man it shows up with the attitude 'My self-intrest is more important than others' And then man will lie to achieve what he lusts for at times. And at other times fear will surface when man decides to abandon his fellow man to protect that same self interest.
Now the source of Good, is love. And it, too, has offspring. Namely TRUTH, COURAGE, and GENEROSITY. These are expressed when man Ignores his self interest and performs self sacrifice.
When man loves his fellow man, he is honest in his dealings and generous as time allows. And when called upon he ignores the coward of self-interest to protect the weak, or Ignorant, or oppressed, no matter the cost to self.
And there again is an Idea libertarians dread, that courage IS the facing of evil, despite the personal cost. Courage nessesitates self sacrifice, weather real or imagined, weather potential or actual in outcome.
And that is the problem with libertarianism, it redefines evil as good and good as evil. It is the question of CAIN "am I my brothers keeper?"
Libertarianism is the motto of the murderer who asks why society judges him as evil. If you doubt this then look to Charles Manson whom embodied evil. when called to the stand he stated that he wasn't the one that was evil, it was society that was evil to stop him.
Let's get at the heart of this.
Really, if you follow this post to it's conclusion and it is right and good to follow your human nature, then you would by nessecity need to throw off ALL civilization and once more follow an ANIMAL nature, as that is the true nature of man.
Which is why civilization breaks down any time these Ideals are embraced en masse. Which is what we have today.
So, follow your own advice you ayn randians, and go bark at the moon, you have been anyhow. And leave the rest of civil society alone.
To comprehend and deal with the particulars in his life, a person needs a certain degree of conceptual development. The brain of an animal cannot conceptualize. A person's life, as required by his nature, is not the life of an unthinking animal. A person obtains his food and safety by a process of thought not instinct. Distinctly different from all other animals is the necessity for a person to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. Consciousness for those animals which possess it is the basic means of survival. For a person, the basic means of survival is reason. A person cannot live (very long) by the guidance of percepts and instinct.
The condition that must exist for civilized living is the banning of physical force from social relationships. If people want to deal with one another in a civilized society, then they may do so only by means of persuasion and uncoerced agreement. Civilization, if it is civil, progresses toward a society of privacy by setting individuals free from the compulsion of others. The fundamental political idea that gives rise to civilized societies is that no one may initiate the use of physical force against others and that includes no group, society or government.
The banning of physical force from relationships is exactly why we need government and underscores at its root why our government needs to be reformed. The surest way to reformation is to recognize and act upon our nature. By nature, we are not animals; we are rational animals.
Hmmm, how to best respond to the fallacies of this argument, boy where do I begin.....here, I'll fax some salt for your words, might taste better. Your comments.....
The brain of an animal cannot conceptualize.
Untrue(a lie) dogs love, reason, dream. Cats reason, dream, and scheme, dolphins have language, and name themselves. These are all impossible without conceptualization. So that is the first LIE I've pointed out in your arguement( the first sentence is also a lie, doubt it then call me on it, I'll reason that one too)
3dr sentence also a lie (see first parentheses) Yep, same for forth( see my fist point)...
Boy, I could go all day with this, your whole response is lie after lie.....So Root, let's cut to the chase.. why do you ascribe to this inhumanity? I'm puzzled... questioning if you will. Try to convince me, I'm open here. Because I postulate (assume, in case you don't have a thesaurus) that there could be four reasons for this.... correct me if I'm wrong.. I seek only truth...and will break my 4 parts down into 2 parts each.
Reason 1.a) You are actually a bot, a program written to deceive others of small minds.
b) you were programmed by those whom wish to deceive others, and seek out mildly fallacious arguments to further your deception.
Reason 2.a) you are a 'useful idiot' of neoconservatives ( aka neoliberalism or libertarians)
b) see reason 1 (b)
Reason 3,a) you actually believe this stuff and ....
b) you are willing to deceive others in the name of a greater 'good'
Reason 4, a) you actually believe this stuff
b) see 1 (a)
If there is a fifth 'column' motivating you, please share, I'm trying to understand you, I really am. It is because, by reason, you are not understandable.
My last sentence of my reply to you was “By nature, we are not animals; we are rational animals”. You took exception to that and said, “Untrue(a lie) dogs love, reason, dream.”
A dog has consciousness and that is certain; but, a dog cannot conceptualize. The same holds true for cats and dolphins. These animals have a consciousness that is efficacious for sure, but for these animals, their consciousness stops at the perceptual level.
Ours goes further and is even more potent. The characteristic of the human brain that distinguishes it from the brain of other animals is the capacity to conceptualize. A dog may perceive two bushes; but, the animal has no capacity to form either the concept of ‘two’ or the concept of ‘bush’. We have that capacity.
Forgiveness / salvation on the Day of Judgement, it is also self-serving purpose.
Good thread: http://occupywallst.org/forum/im-out/#comment-98673
I was under the impression that people who are concerned about the welfare of others, were doing so out of their own self interest. Because they want to. How is this a sacrifice?
As you described it here, it's not a sacrifice. But that's not the issue posed by altruism. The altruist says that you do not have a right to live unless it is for the welfare of others.
Hardly.
An altruist deems praiseworthy those moral acts which are done without regard for self-interest. He/she doesn't demand it by any means, only praises it.
It takes an antisocial Randian to praise selfishness and demonize altruism. There's nothing moral about that position.
When doing what's right is the same as doing what's easy, or what might come naturally for a small-minded, selfish child, you're doing it wrong.
Altruists had deemed it praiseworthy to create a flexible, safe and stable monetary system. In doing so, they disregarded the self interests of some bankers and all depositors in their support of it. I am of the impression that you want to occupy Wall Street not only in protest but to change the monetary system because its unfair and in its place support a system that is just. Fairness and justice are not ideas of the altruist.
As to your statement about the selfish child, they are closer to the truth naturally because they are young and haven't been reached, yet, by their altruist elders. Their natural inclinations to uphold themselves as important get perverted mostly as they enter school. From there, most of them are formally taught to give up- to forget their natural inclinations of self and to instead become schmoos and to feel guilt when they think of themselves, first.
No, doing what's right is not easy. It has to be discovered and practiced consistently by as scrupulous a process of thought that there is which is exactly what the altruist wants you to ignore.
"a process of thought "
You can't "pure reason" morality. It is the product of emotion and intuition as well as rational thought. It is sociopathic to use cold reason alone to decide what is "right" as in "what is in my self-interest."
http://goo.gl/ZZF59
"Fairness and justice are not ideas of the altruist."
In fact, they are, unless you have rigid "let the idiots suffer" social-darwinist views on what constitutes "fair." It is fair for an underprivileged youth to get free school lunch; a society is only just so long as it benefits everyone, such as that they are better off with the society than without.
"selfish child, they are closer to the truth "
Yes, we should all follow children into the pre-sharing mindset of "MINE!"
What is important and what's not comes from a person's judgments, emotions follow those judgments. Regardless of whether they were well formed conclusions, half-baked ideas, or blind imitation of others' ideas, your judgments of what's good for you and what's not cause your emotions. IF by intuition you allege that you have some claim to knowledge apart from reason, where you come to know 'somehow' by some non-rational, non-sensory, non-identifiable means, then you have plenty of company today and throughout the ages when men howled at the moon and butchered their children to appease their gods.
As to justice, the concept is not defined by the number of people demanding something that is not theirs to begin with. Justice is the idea that you must demonstrate objectively that another's actions are for you or against you and that you must uphold those who act for you and denounce those who initiate force against you whether physically or by fraud. Those types of pronouncements are based on the morality that says that your life is your ultimate purpose and is to be held by you in the highest esteem. But, if you hold the altruist's morality, you will hold yourself superior to those who reject altruism. For example, you will damn the man who wants to charge you the highest price he can for the products or services that he has to offer you. You will argue that every man is morally the property of others and that this man therefore has no right to think of himself first when offering you his services.
As to following the example of children, a child starts there with an innate drive of "mine" and if schooled properly learns how to trade with others, distinguishing the virtue of what is his to trade from the vice of what he could first take then trade later. Producing value and exchanging it with others in trade is something that a child has to grow up to but the child has the first part of it correct, naturally. That is the child still has the pre-concept of "mine" down pat. (Kids.. gotta love 'em.)
"will argue that every man is morally the property of others"
The Randian strawman.
As to the rest, I can't convince an extreme cognitivist about the non-rational nature of values. I trust others to understand how wrong you are - they will, intuitively.
You're right about that. You couldn't convince a person who has eyes to see and ears to hear that somehow values have any import apart from one who values.
"eyes to see and ears to hear"
And emotions to feel, and a core sense of right and wrong - that usually gets projected onto the faces of gods for lack of a healthier outlet.
You're arguing morality from an implicit sense of life- not from the conceptual but from the preconceptual. Your core sense of right and wrong has to be validated conceptually. Before a child is old enough to grasp the idea of morality, he forms conclusions about what is valuable and what isn't, he makes choices, experiences emotions and as such gains an implicit view of his life. In my post, I am arguing from an explicit view- the conceptual view of answering the two basic questions of morality- how should I behave and why.
As to emotions, reason doesn't obliterate emotions whatsoever. In fact, reason enhances them.. Our bodies sense of pleasure or pain is automatic. Our subconscious mind's sense of what's good for us or bad is automatic too. But unlike the body, our emotions are caused not by the automatic bodily reactions to pleasure and pain but by our subconcsious reactions to the conclusions we have made and tucked away there. Your emotions are produced by your premises. Whether you hold your propositions consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly, they effect your emotions.
[Deleted]
Thanks for your questions. I hope to be able to discuss them with you and the flip-side of my day, today.
[Deleted]
Shwe: I have the opportunity to go to a football game. I'm traveling and in Philly. The Patriots are playing the Eagles. An associate of mine can't make the Game and offered me his tickets. It's a good Fall Day for football and I am hoping that the Game is as good. Let's circle back during the upcoming week. Thanks and looking forward to chatting about your Q's above.
Sinclair Lewis was a much better novelist.
Do have any quotes from him?
Still no evidence of the accuracy of your suppositions.
"In the history of choices men have made on how to behave, no choice is more evil then the morality of altruism. "
What about the choice to use violence?
You make a great point. What I'm saying is that the choices an altruist makes (or has made over history) gives rise to condoning the initiation of force on so grand a scale, accounting for the most blood-shed and murder, that as a moral doctrine it is the most pernicious.
What about the choice to pursue group interest, not the interest of others, but the interest of the group that you think will benefit your own self-interest?
A self-interested person knows that it is moral and right to not run anyone's life or let anyone run his (or hers). In upholding his own life as the highest moral purpose such an individual will not sacrifice himself to anyone or sacrifice anyone to himself. They will not rule or be ruled.
Such a person can voluntarily choose to participate in a group based upon furthering his own interests and, in exchange, contribute to the interests of the members of the group. But the person enters the association knowing that the group has no interests other than the individual interests of its members.
But, if you regard “the interest of the group” as something different than and above the individual interests of its members, you can only mean that the interests of some are more important than the interests of the others in the group. In this regard, I see no benefit in pursuing their interests to the detriment of mine.
[Removed]
@Theroot... You have to remember that you are preaching to a group of spoiled kids that were coddled by their parents. They rode bikes while wearing helmets. They proudly display their trophies for "Participation". Their self-esteem was falsely built up by their teachers and parents and not earned through accomplishment. They fell for the lie that a college degree guarantees a high-level job the day school ends. The banks gave them whatever student loan they asked for, without collateral, and now they bitch because they have to pay it back. The OWS mindset is simply one of gimmie, gimmie, gimmie, cuz I deserve it! OWS is nothing more than a temper tantrum by a small group who is suffering from Arrested Development..