[Ephedrine]

I think the general theme of the President's State of the Union Speech can be summed up in these two paragraphs:
(see the rest at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ress-full-text)

"These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and
teamwork of America's Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our
institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They're
not consumed with personal ambition. They don't obsess over their
differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. Think
about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in
educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of
high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we're in
control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren't so
tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where
hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded."

Want to play off the Military again? Fine, everyone does it Mr. President, I won't personally hold that against you.

My concern is this continuing push towards basic altruism. It sounds pretty good when we say "We're all one big American team right? We should expect to give a little of ourselves to meet our shared challenges as a nation". The premise itself seems sound, and it certainly falls in the realm of basic Christian fundamental values I claim to espouse, so one might wonder what specifically about this concept is a cause for my concern?

Now, it's important to keep in mind who is asking for help. The requestor is our Commander in Chief, the senior member of our Executive Branch of government, and his proposals for a solution would eventually lead to legislation. Now when something appears in legislation (if you've paid attention to virtually any that has come of late), it generally does not come in the form of "requests" . When a government legislates, it derives the solutions for its objectives from the use of force. This becomes problematic in and of itself.

Now one might state the nature of the objectives overshadows the means by which they are achieved. The next question, is how much of your compulsory participation is directly applied towards these positive means. Welfarism in itself can be effectively defined as government-managed charity. Like any charitable organization there will inevitably be costs absorbed in the overhead associated with the program itself. When applied directly to a private charitable organization this tends to be a known and publicly disclosed percentage, with the added benefit being that we as individuals have the opportunity to pick and choose who the targeted beneficiaries of our contributions will be. When it's achieved through our Federal Government, this means it is being funded effectively by our tax dollars, and it's significantly more of a challenge to determine what level of benefit percentagewise the targeted recipients derive from those contributions. I would venture in most cases, the percentage is quite miniscule, and may be directed towards recipients you might prefer they did not, such as in enabling drug addicts or funding abortions or in other manners that might be in complete opposition to your own personal values. Keep in mind, a lot of it is simply applied to the vast infrastructure of the Federal government itself, which includes foreign investments overseas in private interests, bailouts of organizations that have historically exhibited irresponsible and unethical business practices, and the funding necessary to keep countless individuals imprisoned who are guilty of crimes little greater than what could be considered self-destructive by being caught in the use of controlled substances that have been declared illegal. There is simply no way of knowing what those taxpayer contributions you're making are really actually paying for!

I'm opening the floor for discussion, what are your individual thoughts towards the President's call for Altruism?

[ashleyjoseph]

Altruism is a biological imperative for human beings. We are cooperative by nature, and we always have been. As much as some libertarians and Rand supporters might like to disagree, making any claim toward "individualism" is essentially meaningless unless that sense of individuality is placed within the context of a larger group and is consented to by that group. Altruism is an absolutely essential component of our continued survival as a species.

We are allowing a corrupt governmental process determine our world view. We are swayed by positions espoused by men who have been bought and paid for long before they had the spine to express an opinion of their own. It's amusing to me that the Rand cult would rather attack the very idea of cooperation rather than go after the system that makes such cooperation dysfunctional.

So in a way, I suppose I agree with you. It's hypocritical for our President to desire cooperation from a group that is exploited and restricted whenever possible. I would simply submit that this is not a problem that will go away if President Obama loses the election. This is not a problem that will go away no matter who holds office, any office, now or any time in the future. This is not a problem that will go away until we as a collective decide that we have finally had enough. Appropriately, such a unified decision will require an immense amount of cooperation from a lot of people, and it will require an extreme level of altruism from those we decide to represent us. So in another way, I guess the President wasn't wrong after all.

[fkjghfg]

Altruism does not constitute altruism under the implied threat of force.

Collective...heh...that really worked well last century. Lots of people died for the collective good.

One more thought...use of military imagery to promote altruism sounds rather fascist.

[FourEsters]

One more thought...use of military imagery to promote altruism sounds rather fascist.

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." -- Soviet Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev, addressing the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, 2-25-56

"The unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual." -- Adolph Hitler

"...we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men." -- Adolf Hitler, 10-7-33

"To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole." -- Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda, National Socialist German Workers' ("Nazi") Party

Your point is very well taken!

[Buincchotourb]

Altruism is a biological imperative for human beings. We are cooperative by nature, and we always have been. As much as some libertarians and Rand supporters might like to disagree, making any claim toward "individualism" is essentially meaningless unless that sense of individuality is placed within the context of a larger group and is consented to by that group. Altruism is an absolutely essential component of our continued survival as a species.

I'm choosing not venture into the whole "Virtue of Selfishness" playing field as of yet, as that could take things in an entirely different direction. However, I am more curious about the statements you made about deciding as a collective that we've finally had enough. This statement at least implies we're in agreement that in principle we're in very dangerous territory, but you're being pragmatic for the very good reason that people are quite sensitive around discussing entitlements they've been accustomed to for a very long time. I couldn't agree more, and I'll leave that as such. I'm curious where and how you anticipate that "threshold" may be crossed, and what you might speculate as a potential result.

[stutnerman]

I'm choosing not venture into the whole "Virtue of Selfishness" playing field as of yet, as that could take things in an entirely different direction. However, I am more curious about the statements you made about deciding as a collective that we've finally had enough. This statement at least implies we're in agreement that in principle we're in very dangerous territory, but you're being pragmatic for the very good reason that people are quite sensitive around discussing entitlements they've been accustomed to for a very long time. I couldn't agree more, and I'll leave that as such. I'm curious where and how you anticipate that "threshold" may be crossed, and what you might speculate as a potential result.

I have no idea at what time or in what form it will take place. A lot of people may read what I wrote above and think "revolution" but that is not what I intended. I think we're getting close to a time when we're going to have to rethink a lot of ideas that we currently accept. The economy is one of those things. I don't mean that in the "raise/lower taxes or increase/decrease regulation" short-term kind of thought. I anticipate that eventually we will have to fundamentally restructure.

I do not have any idea what the next iteration will look like or how long it will be before we see any kind of significant solution. I do know that people tend to get impatient after awhile. The folks in DC would do well to at least APPEAR united and professional moving forward, if only to ease some of the pressure building on the part of their constituents.

[pIp83Uns]

I have no idea at what time or in what form it will take place. A lot of people may read what I wrote above and think "revolution" but that is not what I intended. I think we're getting close to a time when we're going to have to rethink a lot of ideas that we currently accept. The economy is one of those things. I don't mean that in the "raise/lower taxes or increase/decrease regulation" short-term kind of thought. I anticipate that eventually we will have to fundamentally restructure.

I do not have any idea what the next iteration will look like or how long it will be before we see any kind of significant solution. I do know that people tend to get impatient after awhile. The folks in DC would do well to at least APPEAR united and professional moving forward, if only to ease some of the pressure building on the part of their constituents.

After seeing recent developments (OWS and its cultural paradigm shifts being ranked high on the list of indicators) I think you may be right. (The "revolution" many among the Paulite variety are anticipating is almost exactly what you've just described, just so we're on the same page). The question then becomes, for me, where the chips fall when people begin to "take sides" in the movement towards the direction you've descibed. I've definitely seen the issue of "class" become much more significant in the past decade, with similar resurgences in the areas where "race" and other collective subgroups of individuals seem to stand apart for themselves and are becoming far more vocal (not to mention defensive) than they had in quite a while. To me these are minor cracks in the foundation of our present-day society, propagating incrementally in a manner that is difficult to quantify.