Not always, in fact, I would say rarely. More often, working for your own interests is accomplished only at the expense of others, e.g. “buy low, sell high”. It is so ingrained as a fundamental priciple of captitalism, wew don’t even consider it to be taking advantage. But the interests of the person selling low are being compromised so that you may profit. Sucker!
The ideal would be to do both. Unfortunately, that is rare under unrestrained capitalism. Caring for he interests of others usually diminishes the bottom line, and when that is your sole motivation, altruism is the first casualty of profit seeking.
The market bears what it can… that is the first principle of Captialism… You can buy low and sell high, only if others can pay that higher price… pure price is not the governing factor for buying or selling anything, it is a combination of price and volume… you want to adjust price to where the price/volume ‘master profit’ is maximized…
Then there is competition (the second rule of capitalism)… which will keep your unbridled orgy of profit under control… you can’t sell something for $100 if the guy next door is selling it for $50…
The unholy profit… is what allows all industries to exist… even the ‘evil’ rich… buying those things that us lower beings can’t afford… well they cause industry outside of normal demand… employing people… someone has to build those private jets after all…
Not to mention profit is what allows you to get bigger… employ more people… then of course you need to have those qualified people to get you even richer… and you can only get those from paying more than your neighbor…
All of this while trying to do what is best for you…
I’m sorry… I guess I wasn’t as clear as I thought I was … what job (specifically) can you do… where you are not looking out for yourself?
Capitalism, as we know it, is a blink compared to the time scale of human existence. Modern Capitalism has been in effect for what, 600 years? Thats nothing compared to the the 10s of thousands of years of human existence. The natural human economic state, presupposing a natural state which I don’t necessarily believe exists, is small communal efforts focused around food production. Certainly not working for ones own best interest, rather working for the groups’ best interest.
Actually… modern capitalism began with Adam Smith… a mere 200+ years ago…
And even in hunter/gatherer socieites… you were out for your own, if there was enough left over for others; they could have some (as they helped feed you in the first place… which was really good for you)
I don;t see it that way. I suggested that suspension of the teacher was appropriate, and offered as one piece of evidence this recorded rant. Nowhere did I say that this was the sole piece of evidence. It was merely the only piece of evidence from which I could extensively quote.
Boy, you sure wriggle a lot when it’s leftist propaganda at issue, don’t you?
But that was not what I proposed, so I see no reason to defend it. I did not say to be human you must be entireley selfless. But pure capitalism is principally self interested, which I do believe is not “entirely human”.
I was using the Italian Renaissance economy as the beginning of capitalism, but its not particularly important which date is used.
No, you weren’t on your own. For example, hunting was a group affair, grazing land was common, and fields for crops were shared. The fruits of those labors were communally owned, not individually.
Not really, no. Working for the group interest because it serves your own interest. That is, in certain situations working with a group makes more sense and increases the odds of ones own survival.
In times of plenty it may have looked that way… but when there wasn’t enough food to go around, you would quickly either get that food for yourself (and family if such a thing existed at that point)… or you died…
Hunting was a commuinty event because it required a community to do so… and in the end, those with the most ‘power’ (either physical and/or imagined) were the first to eat… and MANY starved…
There was no prehistoric utopia where people would share all… which was ruined by modern economies… in fact modern, global economies have made things like a bad crop mean that a locality wouldn’t die every time it happened (at least for first world nations)
Altruism (caring for one another without regard to profit) is more human than capitalism. Pure capitalism avoids altruism, by avoiding any expenditure that diminishes the bottom line without providing a return. Is it your opinion that being selfish is more human than being selfless?
I think that is exactly what he is saying… and i’m not sure it is far from the truth…
and capitalism is a business model… it does not have anything to do with charity which most capitalist nations contribute to at a rate 100’s of times more than other business models
Then we simply disagree on what constitutes human nature. I think is is telling when you admit political philosophy not only sees selfishness as the native human condition, but a virtue to be pursued.
Again, I posit that the validity of his opinions do not matter: what matters is whether it’s good pedagogy.
Claiming that it is a fact that capitalism is not anti-human is foolish: such a claim is an opinion, not a falsifiable statement. You can claim that it’s a silly opinion, sure, but it’s not as if he’s teaching incorrect facts to the students.
We’re not exactly experiencing a glut of teachers in this country, much less high school teachers, much less high school teachers who can force students to think. The relevant question is not, are his opinions kosher, but rather, will his pedagogical technique force students to examine their world critically and think about the issues that affect them?
If so, he’s a good teacher. If not, he’s a bad teacher.
It sounds to me as if he’s getting most students to think. Unfortunately, some conservatives don’t like that, don’t appreciate having their world view challenged, and so they want to silence any voice in the classroom that disagrees with their approved pedagogical method. That’s base and awful.
Again, I’d support this guy even if he was claiming that capitalism was a wholly benevolent system that never hurt anyone, if he was claiming that private property rights ought to be the highest good, if he was claiming that we should live in a world in which people could sell their vital organs to feed their family and in which the minimum wage should be abolished, as long as he was allowing and encouraging students to challenge him. To do otherwise would be to stifle thought in the schools.
That’s Ayn Rand’s political philosophy, but nobody else’s, AFAIK. I don’t think even most Libertarians would go so far as to make a “virtue of selfishness.”
