http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/19/zakaria-let-naturalized-americans-become-president/

Right now it's about 57% yes, 43% no... good Lord.

An educated comment:

Quote :

"Section One of Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that the President must be a natural born citizen of the United States and it should stay that way. I think that loyalty and love for the country of a persons birth are values that should be represented in our highest office, and it could avoid perceived or actual conflicts of interest in dealing with international issues. This is not an unusual practice throughout the world; in most developed countries and third world countries as well, it is required that you are a citizen by birth to hold a position as president or prime minister. Is our own country drying up that bad when it comes to Presidents, that we have to look beyond our borders? Some may say yes, but I still have hope."

3/22/2012 3:40:56 AM

We already have a muslim president from kenya who grew up in indonesia. Where are his loyalties? If it's an issue, people would just vote for the natural born one.

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 8:29 AM. Reason : .]

3/22/2012 8:28:55 AM

^^ that seems like a grossly UNeducated comment to me.

Does whoever wrote that not know what "naturalized" means? A "naturalized" citizen isn't looking beyond our borders. And I also didn't realize that Americans do thing just because other countries do them too.

The fact of the matter is that Americans wouldn't VOTE for someone who they perceived not to have America's interests.

We can't claim that we are a society that values equality when we allow for 2nd class citizens. What sense does it make for naturalized citizens to be state legislators, governors, senators, cabinet positions, diplomats, even maybe vice presidents, but not presidents? There's no logic in that.

The only reason that was even put in the constitution is because when America was young, there was fear of the British slipping someone in. There's no logical reason for it to remain a law.

You could even argue that naturalized citizens value America MORE than native-born, because the ones who naturalized as adults had to leave the country they were born, leave family, friends, jobs, belongings, spend thousands of dollars, and countless hours working out the details to come to the US and have to start from scratch. Then they have to actually learn about the country, and take a test to prove it, that most native borns couldn't pass. The naturalized citizen has shown WAY more commitment to being an American than native born citizens. Because they choose to be here, they know the value of what America has to offer more than most.

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 8:51 AM. Reason : ]

3/22/2012 8:46:45 AM

I'd take a naturalized citizen over most of the natural-borns who never had to put in a shred of effort to become part of this country.

Further, how about we start de-naturalizing people once they cumulatively offshore a certain amount of income.

3/22/2012 9:00:43 AM

Quote :

"Right now it's about 57% yes, 43% no... good Lord."

The overwhelming majority of Americans are not up to the task

Forgive me if I prefer someone competent over some hurfy burf hucklebuck or robotic incompetent businessman like practically anybody in the GOP lineup

Funny how only hyper-ignorant conservatives are afraid of foreigners. Probably because the views they hold are held nowhere else except by explicit Nazi's. Add that in with the typical Christian "the world is against us always" view and you get nationalism and xenophobia fueled by sheer mythology

3/22/2012 9:08:30 AM

^, let me introduce you to ^^, which just said "how about we start de-naturalizing people once they cumulatively offshore a certain amount of income."

Are you suggesting Str8Foolish is a hyper-ignorant conservative?

Lots of democrats hate foreigners too. Just look at their attempts to kill impoverished foreigners with trade barriers.

That said, maybe its not foreigners per-se, they just hate poor people, as they also attempt to kill impoverished Americans with trade barriers (minimum wage, etc).

3/22/2012 10:38:35 AM

How the hell do you interpret "We should de-citizenize people who use foreign tax shelters" as being anti-foreigner? Are tax shelters people?

And yeah, totally agree on barriers to free trade. Look at this xenophobic, anti-poor, anti-foreigner legislation interfering with the normal, healthy market operations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Diamond_Trade_Act

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 10:43 AM. Reason : .]

3/22/2012 10:41:26 AM

Quite right, yet another law killing poor people by shutting down non-criminal employers and leaving the poor with no other employers beyond the criminal gangs with the connections to smuggle the diamonds outside the embargoed area.

Let me guess, when you see poor people barely surviving your first thought is to get them fired?

3/22/2012 10:53:38 AM

Quote :

"I'd take a naturalized citizen over most of the natural-borns who never had to put in a shred of effort to become part of this country. "

this

3/22/2012 11:01:30 AM

Please explain what the CTDA does to shut down "non criminal employers" because last time I checked it was shutting down the ones who rely on slave labor to get diamonds and then put the profits towards genocidal insurgencies.

Quote :

"Let me guess, when you see poor people barely surviving your first thought is to get them fired?"

My first thought is to prohibit trade with the private actors that are enslaving them and using the profits to further impoverish them through genocide and disruption of law and order.

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 11:02 AM. Reason : .]

3/22/2012 11:01:52 AM

st8foolish hates when citizens develop a nation that benefits their own citizens and then he calls them "xenophobic, anti-poor, anti-foreigner" when they are winning at the big survival of the fittest game


lol

3/22/2012 11:14:42 AM

Last time I checked, using slave labor to extract and export natural resources en masse for the profit of a handful of genocidal warlords wasn't "citizens developing a nation that benefits their own citizens" but hey looks like we have a definitional difference here.


edit: Let's just be honest here, you guys will jump to the defense of anybody making a buck as a knee-jerk reaction. There is no such thing as exploitation or slavery or coercion except when the government taxes you. Outside of that, all wealth gained = a positive thing because markets!

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 11:52 AM. Reason : .]

3/22/2012 11:48:23 AM

Quote :

"Just look at their attempts to kill impoverished foreigners with trade barriers. "

Ever heard of a place called China?

People like you are hilarious. Yes, the only solution is to throw the Chinese workers a rope (and not to close the chasm beneath them that we've opened up with waves of privatization and free-trade).

3/22/2012 12:19:36 PM

This is one of those situations where the intent of the drafters is pretty clear. I think you'd be hard pressed to find the Constitution amended for this.

Discrimination on the basis of national origin by the government is not illegal or prohibited by the Constitution if there is a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to achieve those interests.

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 1:14 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2012 1:11:33 PM

It is in fact possible for the drafters to get something wrong, no matter how clear their intent is.

3/22/2012 1:17:12 PM

It's not like the drafters deliberately incorporated means of changing, removing, or amending literally every part of the Constitution, fully acknowledging their fallibility and the inadequacy of a static constitutions in a changing world.

3/22/2012 1:41:20 PM

I've alleged neither of those ^, ^^ things. But, I don't think it'll happen, for the reasons I laid out in the 2nd paragraph.

3/22/2012 1:42:34 PM

It is in fact possible for the drafters to get something right, especially how clear their intent is.


A foreign born citizen will always have a sweet spot in their heart for their country of origin.

3/22/2012 1:57:45 PM

Yeah that must be why they left it.

3/22/2012 1:58:32 PM

A small intent with serious implications.

3/22/2012 2:00:21 PM

The Manchurian Candidate was a work of fiction, fyi.

3/22/2012 2:05:37 PM

So was Scientology.

3/22/2012 2:12:13 PM

man fuck this shit..

we should declare all citizens of the world to be citizens of the united states



imagine the government then guys....

you'd be in 'utopian' heaven

3/22/2012 3:44:25 PM

Actually a unified world government would solve a shit-ton of problems. But as a red-blooded American I guess I'm not supposed to say that.

3/22/2012 3:46:27 PM

I wish socialism had existed in the 1780's so that the Founders could have forbid it in the Constitution.

3/22/2012 3:55:43 PM

^^you can't say much anymore. i'll give you that!


^yeh i guess at the time they forgot that genetically inferior subhumans like yourself would slowly take a majority about 200-300 years later and form exactly the thing they were getting the fuck away from... and that the govts/representatives/people would go full blown retard like they were in the 16/1700's


[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM. Reason : x]

3/22/2012 4:02:30 PM

Quote :

"Actually a unified world government would solve a shit-ton of problems. But as a red-blooded American I guess I'm not supposed to say that. "

and cause a shit-ton more.

3/22/2012 4:13:20 PM

People become president upon taking the oath of office. (Foreign-born) people become citizens upon taking the citizenship oath. I'm not sure why a person would trust either of these independently but not the two of them together, especially when the combination would require a majority of voters (electors, anyway) to say, "We trust this guy."

Also, note that the founders gave themselves a pass on this one.

The only reason I can see for keeping Americans of the naturalized type barred from the Presidency is because our immigration law is so fickle. The provision probably made sense for much of our history, when any Sean O'Chucklefuck and Benito Dago could get into the country and be a citizen fifteen minutes later. Nowadays I'd trust just about any foreign-born citizen because most of them have to work like dogs for the right. I'm all for an immigration Amendment to the Constitution that gets rid of the "you can't be president rule" and also locks us into some sensible immigration policy that seeks to keep out assholes and reward those who come here sincerely seeking citizenship.

Quote :

"Actually a unified world government would solve a shit-ton of problems. But as a red-blooded American I guess I'm not supposed to say that."

Get around that problem the same way I do: by saying that the unified government should be fundamentally American. I think life on Earth would be pretty sweet if we shaped the world in our image. Less so, say, Cambodia's.

[Edited on March 22, 2012 at 11:14 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2012 11:12:12 PM

Safe to say this thread grew legs.

3/23/2012 12:21:46 AM

Quote :

"I think life on Earth would be pretty sweet if we shaped the world in our image. "

3/23/2012 1:14:18 AM

You guys are living in fucking wonderland if you think a unified world government would end suffering, violence and/or oppression.

Utopia is impossible because of the way the human brain works. If we are to ever acheive that level of society, a shift in consciousness would have to take place. Now, I am starting to move a meta-physical realm which is outside the ability of any human to contemplate.

The moment your mind attempts to create a model of reality, it is instantaneously flawed. To understand this practically incoherent idea, read Prometheus Rising.

3/23/2012 8:28:14 AM

Quote :

"Actually a unified world government would solve a shit-ton of problems. But as a red-blooded American I guess I'm not supposed to say that."

One size fits all, bitches. We gave the wrong people too much power and they did fucked up things with it. Let's have those wrong people give that power to the "right people". Utopia incoming.

disco_stu, from what I've gathered you are a skeptic. You don't believe in God because there's no evidence. How in the world can you justify your faith in government to do good things when humans are, in fact, inherently flawed and self-serving?

3/23/2012 10:21:04 AM

Quote :

"Get around that problem the same way I do: by saying that the unified government should be fundamentally American. I think life on Earth would be pretty sweet if we shaped the world in our image."

I think "fundamentally American" would mean fundamentally Democratic, which by definition would mean less American influence than we hold over the world presently...

3/23/2012 10:56:16 AM

Quote :

"How in the world can you justify your faith in government to do good things when humans are, in fact, inherently flawed and self-serving?"

Why do you have faith in shareholder meetings? People acting as a group, with access to information prepared by specialists, composed of data gathered in ways individuals cannot do efficiently, are more capable of making informed decisions than individuals who don't have the time or specialty to do all that would be necessary. Humans are of course flawed, but many of our flaws (Ignorance, single-mindedness, biases) can be mitigated in a group setting.

[Edited on March 23, 2012 at 11:10 AM. Reason : .]

3/23/2012 10:57:50 AM

I don't have faith in shareholder meetings.

Human flaws may be mitigated in a group setting, or they may be amplified. Decentralization is the only solution. I like how Gandhi put it:

Quote :

"Men ... should do their actual living and working in communities ... small enough to permit of genuine self-government and the assumption of personal responsibilities, federated into larger units in such a way that the temptation to abuse great power should not arise. The larger a democracy grows, the less becomes the rule of the people and the smaller is the say of individuals and localized groups in dealing with their own destinies."

Quote :

"Independence begins at the bottom… It follows, therefore, that every village has to be self-sustained and capable of managing its own affairs… It will be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself against any onslaught from without… This does not exclude dependence on and willing help from neighbors or from the world. It will be a free and voluntary play of mutual forces… In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be every-widening, never ascending circles. Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose center will be the individual. Therefore, the outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to all within and derive its own strength from it."

Quote :

"Government control gives rise to fraud, suppression of Truth, intensification of the black market and artificial scarcity. Above all, it unmans the people and deprives them of initiative, it undoes the teaching of self-help…I look upon an increase in the power of the State with the greatest fear because, although while apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, it does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality which lies at the heart of all progress…"

[Edited on March 23, 2012 at 12:23 PM. Reason : ]

3/23/2012 12:17:29 PM

Yaayyy Gandhi quotes.

Quote :

""Socialism and communism of the West are based on certain conception which are fundamentally different from ours. One such conception is their belief in essential selfishness of human nature. I do not subscribe to it for I know that the former can respond to the call of the spirit in him, can rise superior to the passions that he owns in common with the brute and, therefore, superior to selfishness and violence, which belong to the brute nature and not to the immortal spirit of man ... Our socialism or communism should, therefore, be based on nonviolence and on harmonious co-operation of labour and capital, landlord and tenant." "

Quote :

""I am working for the co-operation and co-ordination of capital and labour, of landlord and tenant ... I have always told mill owners that they are not exclusive owners of mills and workmen are equal sharers in ownership. In the same way, I would tell you that ownership of your land belongs as much to the ryots as to you, and you may not squander your gains in luxurious or extravagant living, but must use them for the well-being of ryots. Once you make your ryots experience a sense of kinship with you and a sense of security that their interests as members of a family will never suffer at your hands, you may be sure that there cannot be a clash between you and them and no class war." "

Quote :

""Antagonism between the classes will be removed. I do not envisage a dead and artificial level among the people. There will be a variety among them as there is among the leaves of a tree. There will certainly be no have-nots, no unemployment, and no disparity between classes and masses such as we see to-day. I have no doubt whatsoever that if non-violence in its full measure becomes the policy of the State, we shall reach essential equality without strife." "

He was pro-Socialism and pro-State, likely due to living in the hyper-Capitalist wasteland of colonial British India. Just because he was anti-totalitarianism (Like almost all modern leftists) doesn't make him some kind of Anarcho Capitalist. Not that you can't quote people you disagree with, but if you start quoting Gandhi (As though he's some sort of authority), he becomes fair game to all.

[Edited on March 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2012 12:34:49 PM

Quote :

"Our socialism or communism should, therefore, be based on nonviolence and on harmonious co-operation of labour and capital, landlord and tenant."

Great, stateless socialism/communism. Sounds a lot better than what you're advocating - state control.

Quote :

"Antagonism between the classes will be removed. I do not envisage a dead and artificial level among the people. There will be a variety among them as there is among the leaves of a tree. There will certainly be no have-nots, no unemployment, and no disparity between classes and masses such as we see to-day. I have no doubt whatsoever that if non-violence in its full measure becomes the policy of the State, we shall reach essential equality without strife."

The state derives its power from violence or the threat of violence. What Gandhi means by this is that when the State resigns itself to never using violence, we will have equality. With perfect liberty comes perfect equality, as Adam Smith put it.

Quote :

"The ideally non-violent state will be an ordered anarchy. That State is the best governed which is governed the least."

I wouldn't really call that a pro-state position.

3/23/2012 12:50:00 PM

So you're letting Ghandi argue for you on the topic of stateless socialism and neglect to take in anything he says relating to your entire personality and belief system.

OK...

Let me ask you this, what do you think Ghandi would say about Ayn Rand?

3/23/2012 4:17:14 PM

it's not like electing natural born U.S. citizens has worked out that great for us recently

3/23/2012 4:21:34 PM

Quote :

"Great, stateless socialism/communism. Sounds a lot better than what you're advocating - state control."

He was talking about the government that India should have in the future, that doesn't really sound "stateless" to me.

Quote :

"The state derives its power from violence or the threat of violence. What Gandhi means by this is that when the State resigns itself to never using violence, we will have equality. With perfect liberty comes perfect equality, as Adam Smith put it."

You're completely full of shit, Adam Smith actively argued for restricting certain liberty BY THE STATE for the good of the whole. For example, from the Wealth of Nations:

Quote :

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities, that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. ... A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in proportion. "

There's over 100 pages in the Wealth of Nations devoted to discussing regulation, and Smith makes it pretty clear he believes government is necessary to create the level playing field along which an idealized market can operate.

Quote :

"To restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker, for any sum whether great or small, when they themselves are willing to receive them, or to restrain a banker from issuing such notes, when all his neighbours are willing to accept of them, is a manifest violation of that natural liberty which it is the proper business of law not to infringe, but to support. Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments, of the most free as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed. "

So have you ever actually read Smith, or just pretend you have?

[Edited on March 23, 2012 at 4:31 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2012 4:27:29 PM

Quote :

"So you're letting Ghandi argue for you on the topic of stateless socialism and neglect to take in anything he says relating to your entire personality and belief system."

What do you think my "entire personality and belief system" is? I would be the last person to initiate violence. My "belief system" is voluntarism - no one should be have forced use against them unless they have, themselves, been the aggressor. I reject the need for there to be a "state", which has, by definition, a monopoly on force. A state having a monopoly on force will draw sociopaths, like a moth to the flame.

Quote :

"How do you think OK... Let me ask you this, what do you think Ghandi would say about Ayn Rand?"

I don't align myself with Ayn Rand or Objectivism. In terms of moral philosophy, I imagine they would have initial disagreements that could be reconciled. As for political philosophy, they may have a good deal in common.

Ayn Rand's philosophy tends to be vilified by the authoritarian left, which claims to be altruistic in their motives. It gets boiled down to, "do whatever you want as long as it makes you happy". I've heard dozens of self-described leftists articulate their "disgust" for Objectivism. The irony, of course, is that these same people live their lives exactly as Rand would suggest - in pursuit of their own happiness. For the leftists on this board, every moment you spend here could be spent assisting others...but here you are, doing what entertains you.

Quote :

"You're completely full of shit, Adam Smith actively argued for restricting certain liberty BY THE STATE for the good of the whole. For example, from the Wealth of Nations:"

You missed the point badly, here. I know what Adam Smith actually wrote about, and I disagree with many of his theories. Smith's point was that with perfect liberty would come perfect equality, but that perfect liberty was not possible because of markets.

[Edited on March 23, 2012 at 4:46 PM. Reason : ]

3/23/2012 4:42:46 PM

You philosophy boils down to responding to market externalities by putting your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALALALA

Quote :

"You missed the point badly, here. I know what Adam Smith actually wrote about, and I disagree with many of his theories. Smith's point was that with perfect liberty would come perfect equality, but that perfect liberty was not possible because of markets."

Quote :

"The state derives its power from violence or the threat of violence. What Gandhi means by this is that when the State resigns itself to never using violence, we will have equality. With perfect liberty comes perfect equality, as Adam Smith put it."

Yeah, you totally weren't implying Adam Smith was anti-State. Can I have a bite of that cherry pie you're cooking when it's finished?

[Edited on March 23, 2012 at 4:52 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2012 4:46:46 PM

I wasn't. Adam Smith was very much pro-state, and his economic theories are deeply flawed.

[Edited on March 23, 2012 at 4:54 PM. Reason : ]

3/23/2012 4:53:55 PM

3/23/2012 4:57:44 PM

And your entire philosophy is "I don't know, therefore government."

Respond to my previous post directed at you.

3/23/2012 4:59:06 PM

Are there any more actually-intelligent people you want to quote-mine before immediately distancing yourself from them once somebody provides some context?

Quote :

"And your entire philosophy is "I don't know, therefore government.""

It's quite the opposite, he and most other normal people actually acknowledge the externalities markets fail to capture, and propose solutions to them. You simply disavow the flaws on the basis that markets are flawless Q.E.D.


[Edited on March 23, 2012 at 5:04 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2012 4:59:23 PM

I'm not distancing myself from him. Gandhi takes a shit all over your fucked up, authoritarian ideology.

Quote :

"You simply disavow the flaws on the basis that markets are flawless Q.E.D."

You will never find any statement by me ever that indicates a belief that markets are flawless. I mean, I've said in this very thread that people are inherently flawed. How in the fuck will markets be flawless if people are flawed? Markets are people.

[Edited on March 23, 2012 at 5:06 PM. Reason : ]

3/23/2012 5:05:49 PM

Your worldview is naive in its simplicity.

Quote :

"I don't align myself with Ayn Rand or Objectivism. In terms of moral philosophy, I imagine they would have initial disagreements that could be reconciled. As for political philosophy, they may have a good deal in common. Ayn Rand's philosophy tends to be vilified by the authoritarian left, which claims to be altruistic in their motives. It gets boiled down to, "do whatever you want as long as it makes you happy". I've heard dozens of self-described leftists articulate their "disgust" for Objectivism. The irony, of course, is that these same people live their lives exactly as Rand would suggest - in pursuit of their own happiness. For the leftists on this board, every moment you spend here could be spent assisting others...but here you are, doing what entertains you."

I don't have a right to tell you what your philosophy is so I'll just apologize for that and let it drop.

You say you don't align yourself with her and then go on to extol the virtues of her signature idea? Sounds fishy. Could you at least be honest with us and yourself? When you say authoritarian left, do you mean the small minority of leftists who are authoritarian or the entire left is authoritarian? I think I know what you meant but I'll let you clarify.

And Objectivism does not boil down to "do whatever you want as long as it makes you happy." Ayn Rand has said that altruism is evil. If altruism is evil then how does the role of a family fit into society? How does society stay together if people only act completely in their own self-interest? How do you account for the fact that in order for some people to be happy, they have to consciously harm other people? Just because I say I don't believe in Objectivism doesn't mean I never consider my own well-being a priority.

I can't believe that you are so ideological that you cannot find the middle ground between any two opposing positions. It simply amazes me.

3/23/2012 5:12:44 PM

Quote :

"Your worldview is naive in its simplicity."

There's nothing simple about it. Simplicity is the belief that any problem society faces can be solved when politicians make the problem illegal.

Imagine you had a lawn of dying grass. Libertarianism would say, "you need to determine what's wrong with the soil or the roots and address that problem." Authoritarianism would say, "Let's rip up the healthy grass from the neighbor's yard and stick those blades into the ground where the grass is dying."

Sure, if you could rip up enough grass and put it in the ground, it might look green for a bit...until it all dries up and turns brown. Then you're back to square one, except now you have two fucked up yards instead of one. The factors that lead to healthy grass and healthy soil are actually quite complex, and every dying lawn will require a different approach.

Progress has to start from the bottom up. That was Gandhi's point, and that's what came to be known as Swaraj, the Gandhian doctrine of self-government. Every time one of you people advocates federal mandates for this or that, or even worse - world government, you ignore this doctrine and effectively advocate a top down approach. It just doesn't work, we need decentralization.

Quote :

"You say you don't align yourself with her and then go on to extol the virtues of her signature idea? Sounds fishy. Could you at least be honest with us and yourself? When you say authoritarian left, do you mean the small minority of leftists who are authoritarian or the entire left is authoritarian? I think I know what you meant but I'll let you clarify."

I don't agree with Objectivism as an all-encompassing life philosophy. It leaves a lot to be desired. I do agree with the basic tenet that people are self-serving and that there's nothing wrong with that, at least until they fuck over someone else in their own pursuit of happiness.

There is such a thing as the libertarian left. The authoritarian left advocates state control of systems, command economies, state crackdowns on racism - all the BS I see posted here day in day out.

Quote :

"Ayn Rand has said that altruism is evil. If altruism is evil then how does the role of a family fit into society? How does society stay together if people only act completely in their own self-interest? How do you account for the fact that in order for some people to be happy, they have to consciously harm other people? Just because I say I don't believe in Objectivism doesn't mean I never consider my own well-being a priority."

I don't know how she gets off saying that altruism is evil, if that's true. I think the better argument is that altruism doesn't exist. Evolutionary theory provides a lot of insights to this discussion. I would speculate that the amount of "reward" (dopamine released or whatever) for doing good varies from person to person. Some people get a lot of it, some people get none of it.

There are plenty of reasons for people to behave cooperatively or even generously that are ultimately rooted in self-interest.

3/23/2012 5:49:40 PM

Quote :

"I don't know how she gets off saying that altruism is evil, if that's true. I think the better argument is that altruism doesn't exist. Evolutionary theory provides a lot of insights to this discussion. I would speculate that the amount of "reward" (dopamine released or whatever) for doing good varies from person to person. Some people get a lot of it, some people get none of it."

lots of nuance here, which I appreciate

Two points:

Natural selection has chosen mutual aid/symbiosis nearly as often as its chosen competitive or parasitic types of relationships. I think if we were able to study ancient man functioning in his tribe we would see that generosity and mutual aid played a huge role in his success.

We can't discount the role that our culture, and being raised in it/constantly inundated with it every day, has had in determining what we value -- even on a chemical level (dopamine or whatever). Just like pavlov's dogs salivated, to some degree we also have learned to value accumulation or self-interest or whatever. Of course, that can be unlearned, and who knows what exactly is is possible if generosity was indoctrinated instead of accumulation.



of course, so that I sound less crazy, the obvious answer for humanity is some balance between altruism and self-interest.

3/23/2012 6:44:46 PM