DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Vemnagelignc** · 02-15-2006, 12:40 AM

I think people develop competence and responsibility in response to their environments, and that the State is a legitimate part of everyone's environment.

No, I don't think that the State can make people more competent and responsible, but it can implement policies that encourage and reward these traits-- or it can refrain from implementing policies that suppress them. Part of the problem is that most people who make similar claims is that they primarily believe in punishing people whom they view as "irresponsible", while doing nothing towards (or deliberately withdrawing from) supporting their ideal of responsibility.

Oh, good. I was worried that you believed that the State should punish people for being "irresponsible." I'll agree with you that such should not be done.

It is telling that you automatically conflate both nationalism and a social conscience with "selfless drones". I know who I am and what I want, and my behaviors are rationally consistent with both; I think this statement is a deliberate attempt to structure the debate in a way that makes disagreeing with you impossible, if not a thinly veiled ad hominem. Well, there are still many individuals whose self-interest does not coincide with the "national interest" or "societal interest," whatever that may be. What should be done about them? And furthermore, who defines "national interest" or "societal interest?" Nations and societies don't have collective minds, so these "interests" are ultimately defined by individuals; individuals with self-interest. So state power does not mold individuals to act in the interests of the "nation" or "society," but in the interests of state officials. Take a look at wars, for example.

The issue of "selfless drones" arises when people are told that they must subjugate their own interests to the "national" interest. The extent of this subjugation determines the extent of the "drone-ness." In full force, this gives us kamikaze warriors. In its absence, it gives us...(gasp)... capitalist traders. In "moderation," it gives us silly patriots who are willing to fight silly wars as long as they're paid well with the money they gave up to the "national interest." When people are willing to subjugate their interests to the "national interest," we don't have a strong society. We have a problem.

Yes, I do believe that people who place the well-being of others above-- or at least on level with-- their own are "responsible". Competence is a separate issue, and a big part of our social problems is that the two are not necessarily linked. Insofar as these people truly believe in promoting the well-being of others, rather than the well-being of some at the expense of others, then I will agree with you. But insofar as government officials, too, are self-interested, then I do not think government can promote altruism.

Perhaps my belief in the general usefulness of government is naïve, but no more so than your belief in the good intentions of businessmen. Without government, there's nothing preventing them from using force and fraud to support their bottom lines-- and the long history of their collusion with government proves that it is effective to do so. Like you said, the State is part of people's environment.

02-15-2006, 12:40 AM	#19
Vemnagelignc Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 538 Senior Member	I think people develop competence and responsibility in response to their environments, and that the State is a legitimate part of everyone's environment. No, I don't think that the State can make people more competent and responsible, but it can implement policies that encourage and reward these traits-- or it can refrain from implementing policies that suppress them. Part of the problem is that most people who make similar claims is that they primarily believe in punishing people whom they view as "irresponsible", while doing nothing towards (or deliberately withdrawing from) supporting their ideal of responsibility. Oh, good. I was worried that you believed that the State should punish people for being "irresponsible." I'll agree with you that such should not be done. It is telling that you automatically conflate both nationalism and a social conscience with "selfless drones". I know who I am and what I want, and my behaviors are rationally consistent with both; I think this statement is a deliberate attempt to structure the debate in a way that makes disagreeing with you impossible, if not a thinly veiled ad hominem. Well, there are still many individuals whose self-interest does not coincide with the "national interest" or "societal interest," whatever that may be. What should be done about them? And furthermore, who defines "national interest" or "societal interest?" Nations and societies don't have collective minds, so these "interests" are ultimately defined by individuals; individuals with self-interest. So state power does not mold individuals to act in the interests of the "nation" or "society," but in the interests of state officials. Take a look at wars, for example. The issue of "selfless drones" arises when people are told that they must subjugate their own interests to the "national" interest. The extent of this subjugation determines the extent of the "drone-ness." In full force, this gives us kamikaze warriors. In its absence, it gives us...(gasp)... capitalist traders. In "moderation," it gives us silly patriots who are willing to fight silly wars as long as they're paid well with the money they gave up to the "national interest." When people are willing to subjugate their interests to the "national interest," we don't have a strong society. We have a problem. Yes, I do believe that people who place the well-being of others above-- or at least on level with-- their own are "responsible". Competence is a separate issue, and a big part of our social problems is that the two are not necessarily linked. Insofar as these people truly believe in promoting the well-being of others, rather than the well-being of some at the expense of others, then I will agree with you. But insofar as government officials, too, are self-interested, then I do not think government can promote altruism. Perhaps my belief in the general usefulness of government is naïve, but no more so than your belief in the good intentions of businessmen. Without government, there's nothing preventing them from using force and fraud to support their bottom lines-- and the long history of their collusion with government proves that it is effective to do so. Like you said, the State is part of people's environment.
	Quote