Rational Self-Interest
-
No it in fact is not. Selfishness causes any number of negative consequences - suffering, hostility, crime, conflict, rebellion, war, death… So it’s bludgeoningly obviously irrational, and therefore cannot be rational self interest.
for 99% of people yes. but if you happen to be at the very top of the ladder and if things are broken enough you can be self interested into destroying the world. Fact is the guillotines aren’t being rolled out. The protests that happen are pretty consistently swatted with barely a weeks hindrance to the years between them. We all suffer the consiquences of the olligarchy, the ones making the laws and decisions are largely above those hardships.
-
I think what I'm describing is fundamental to both of them, that most of the differences between the two philosophies are at the peripheries, and that far and away the most significant difference between the two is that one was proposed by Rand, who's a designated target for people eager to earn hip internet leftist cred through a public display of unequivocal hatred, and the other was proposed by Stirner, who's someone that most are only vaguely aware of, if at all.
-
The rational self interest bit isn’t what makes her a hypocrite here. RSI is a position that states you take whatever you can whenever you can, so it fits perfectly. The reason we’re calling her a hypocrite is because she spent years calling social security “immoral” only to hop right on it immediately when it became beneficial to her.
Ayn Rand: “Social security is an immoral redistribution of wealth and should be abolished. One is entitled to what they’ve earned themselves.”
Also Ayn Rand:
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
To sum up, “rational self interest” is screwing others over for your own benefit as long as you make the calculation that it won’t come back to bite you. It works for you until you make a miscalculation and the likelihood of a miscalculation increases as you screw more people over. A greedy person benefiting from the support structure will not properly factor in that benefit and will assume they can go without, hence the widening gap between the rich and the poor. They’re essentially living in another world and cannot see reality for what it is.
-
The problem is that in a closed economy, a increase in production without increased consumption will result in over production and closed down factories.
It isn’t in capitalist’s long term interests to increase production and cut wages across an entire economy. Having a very high net savings rate (whatever you don’t consume is by definition, savings) is not a good thing as a country.
America’s early growth was based on being a high wage ans high consumption country.
In an open economy, you can export your excess savings (and underconsumption) to other countries. This was an issue during the great depression (called “beggar thy neighbour”).
It is a big problem in the global economy right now with China, Taiwan, Korea, Germany, Denmark, etc. all having stagnant or low consumption shares of the economy while exporting their net savings to persistant trade deficit countries like the United States, UK, Australia and Canada (noting Australia and Canada sometimes have surpluses when commodity prices ar high).
It relies on the net deficit countries being willing to accept net capital inflows and all the issues with having persistent trade deficits (deindustrialisation, high debts, etc.) forever, which isn’t possible.
So in short, increasing profits and cutting wages (and/or the overall workforce) might work for an individual greedy douchebag but it is a terrible thing for the entire economy.
-
because she spent years calling social security “immoral” only to hop right on it immediately when it became beneficial to her.
Right. When it benefited her. You can still participate in a system you believe is immoral without being a hypocrite. This is like calling a socialist a hypocrite because they exist in a capitalist society. That’s just not true. Within the realm of her own control she acted consistently. It is ironic and emblematic as the antithesis of her own philosophy (which is hilarious and enraging), but it is not hypocritical. Calling it so just weakens the real criticism.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
How to be an insufferable cunt in 1 easy step!
How to dismiss a discussion you don’t like the direction of in one easy step!
Do you have anything meaningful to add, or just want to call people names because they’re not immediately agreeing with everything you say?
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I literally quoted the comment I responded to
See also: “Do as I say, not as I do.”
What are you talking about?
-
This comic makes the presupposition that the workers have a guillotine to use on her. In the comic, she was unaware that they did, and in the real world, they very much do not. If you instead gave the lines she says in the comic to the real-world Jeff Bezos, they would be perfectly rational.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I think you’re taking too broad strokes with participation. . A socialist MUST participate in a capitalist system as that’s the world around them. That does not make a socialist a hypocrite. However the socialist CAN participate in the capitalist system in a way that socialism ideologically considers exploitative (as a capital owner who exploits others). That makes a socialist a hypocrite.
As for Ayn Rand, she MUST participate in social security to the extent where she has to give a part of her wealth to social security programs. However she CAN, but doesn’t have to, use social security for get benefit. She ideologically opposed social security, but when the time came she chose to use the very thing she opposed. It’s textbook hypocrisy. If she wanted to be consistent with her ideology she shouldn’t have relied on social security.
-
There is more nuance to both philosophies than the spark-notes take away if “Rational self interest”. Which if that in itself is what you’re arguing for, and along the paths you’re arguing, Egoism explicitly talking about the voluntary coming together of individuals to temporarily work together towards common goals makes a better baseline than Objectivism’s zero-sum view on human interactions.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
However she CAN, but doesn’t have to, use social security for get benefit.
If she did not take it when it benefited her, that would have been hypocritical. She was acting selfishly and taking the money she could. In fact she HAS TO in order to be acting in her own self interest. Are you arguing that taking social security when you can is not in your self interest? If she had been saying not to take social security until that point that also would have been hypocritical (afaik that was not what she was saying but I can’t find anything definitive, her arguments were generally just anti tax and now I’ve ruined my search history). Saying that social security shouldn’t exist and that it is immoral to force people to pay into it and all that other bs rhetoric is not against the people taking social security, it’s for the government taking taxes for these programs in an effort to end the program.
as that’s the world around them
Exactly. But just like the socialist that is operating in the society they’re in with the beliefs they have, Ayn Rand was operating in RSI when she took social security because it was available. This is irony. This is disgusting. This shows how her beliefs are bad and wrong. It shows how the right wingers can act against their own interests. But this is not hypocrisy. I can still believe gambling at a casino is a good money making venture even when I go broke gambling, I’m not a hypocrite, I’m just dumb. Ayn Rand can still believe social security is immoral even as she takes money from it, she’s just dumb.
-
Self is group, group is self.
Dog is cat
Water is dry
Up is down
-
But the golden rule presents the flaw of self interests. The golden rule relies on you presuming others want to be treated the same as you.
You shouldn’t treat others as you’d like. You should treat others as they’d like.
-
Certainly there's more nuance to them. As I said, I think that "rational self-interest" is fundamental to both of them - it's nothing close to the sum of either one.
And for the record, I have zero respect for objectivism and a great deal of respect for egoism.
But that's really beside the point. I'm not arguing for or against either one. My point has been explicitly about the underlying concept of rational self-interest in and of itself, and specifically the fact that it's consistently misrepresented by its critics (or more precisely by Rand's critics, who incorrectly ascribe the idea to her and her alone).
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Do you have anything meaningful to add, or just want to call people names because they’re not immediately agreeing with everything you say?
Says the guy that added snark into the conversation for absolutely no reason. If you want people to be civil to you then you should treat them in kind.
-
That’s all very fair and sensible.
I can see it being very frustrating if people’s first response to ideologies close to you is dunk on Rand rather than actually engaging with what you’re trying to say.
I think a better critique of “rational self interest” if you’re looking for one would be that it can be argued to be either too widespread to have meaning (the flip side of “I don’t agree with them/am starting from different axioms thus they’re irrational”), or too narrow and thus never actually employed.
It is a shame that other Rational Self-interest philosophies don’t get their time in the sun… While Rand I hear is still required/recommended reading in some schools.
An advantage of writing fiction to articulate your ideas I suppose. -
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
When one speaks of man’s right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob or murder others is in man’s self-interest—which he must selflessly renounce.
Acting in self interest is supposed to be without the sacrifice of others.
Observe that any social movement which begins by “redistributing” income, ends up by distributing sacrifices.
She views any kind of redistribution of wealth (including social security) as something that causes people to sacrifice something.
Her own words show that taking social security is not in line with acting in your self-interest because taking social security is sacrificing others.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
That’s risky, there could be some pretty heinous fucked up shit in there waiting to be undeleted.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I’ll ask again, are you arguing that taking social security when you can is not in your self interest? The system doesn’t go away if you don’t take it and you’ve already paid into it. The wealth is already being redistributed and going to be redistributed. She is still going to have pay into the system if she lives. Not her decision for it to exist or pay into it. The decision is to take the money or don’t. Which is the decision that is self interested?
