On Selfishness and Self-Interest

Often attacks of selfishness are leveled against anyone acting in their own benefit as if no one should care for themselves. I propose that there is a difference between selfishness and self-interest.

What constitutes selfishness? Simply said, selfishness is acting in your benefit without regard, and often harming, other individuals. An example of selfishness would be stealing an old lady's purse, which contained the money she needed for her medications and food for the month; a milder case of selfishness would be not paying your full share of the bill between you and your roommate. Obviously, living by selfishness is not an ideal for society.

On the other hand, self-interest helps society prosper. Self-interest is acting in your benefit, but with consideration of others needs and a lack of harm towards others. Self-interest for an individual, company, or nation is necessary for survival. An example of self-interest would be an apple farmer trading a crate of apples for a metalworker’s pruner. Both individuals are happy with the result. They have cared for themselves, but not harmed anyone in the transaction.

These two behaviors affect individuals, companies, and nations to a great extent. Based on these behaviors, individuals ruin and build relationships, companies lose or turn a profit through business decisions, and nations fall and rise from economic policies.

Selfishness and self-interest affect individual relationships conversely. If everyone were to act selfishly, trust would break down between individuals as people were betrayed. However, if everyone were to act in their self-interest, relationships would build as beneficial transactions occur.

Companies often need to make decisions regarding employees, shareholders, and other businesses. If a company rips any of these people off through selfishness, they will eventually fall. However, a company acting in its self-interest, but caring about others will build interdependence in the economy, earn a trusted, respected reputation, and prosper.

Selfishness ruins a free market; self-interest creates a free market. Selfishness can be displayed in an economic system though cronyism. Cronyism is a free market where regulation exists to help certain companies who have put politicians into power. Self-interest does not result in cronyism; it is the necessary ingredient for free markets. Cronyism is the capitalist system where the workers are exploited; cronyism is the capitalist system that Marx and Engels condemned.

Selfishness and self-interest work together through individuals, companies, and nations to either produce a grand society, or a ruined one. However, each company and country needs individuals to speak up in favor of self-interest. It all starts with one.


Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

Democracy, a Tyranny of the Majority

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
- Benjamin Franklin

We frequently reassure ourselves that democracy is good, and that dictatorships are tyrannous. However, democracy is still tyranny. The only difference is who controls the tyranny, and people’s perception.

People have the opinion that democracy is good because everyone has a say in the government. They fail to realize that "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine" as Thomas Jefferson said. People also say everyone is equal under a democracy. That is only if the 51% allow equality. It could just as well happen that they subjugate the other 49%. Examine the slaves of the south.

Democracy leaves a nation open to the majority promoting its own interests (nothing inherently wrong with that) with no counterbalance to protect minorities’ rights. Essentially, democracy is mob rule. It is time we stop promoting democracy as the ideal of political systems.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

Summarized Argument for Free Speech

Highly controversial, free speech is essential for a government based on people's consent. However, debates often rage about what free speech is. While libertarians and anarcho-capitalists support free speech in its entirety, statists believe in only protecting political speech.

While protected political speech is a beneficial right that guards against governmental coercion, we should not stop there. By protecting only political speech we limit individuals' rights. Statists base this censorship on their preferred morality. However, coercing an individual to accept a belief they did not accept on free choice is wrong (the Harm Principle to be explained in a later essay). And statists have not historically stopped at non-political speech. Eventually, they claim certain political speech is dangerous to the country and government, and attempt to censor it. Note the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, or McCarthyism.

Statists, arguing for governmental interference in our lives, base their political theories on collectivism as opposed to individualism. By their reasoning, the government should enforce societal morality. Often societal morality is more about personal choice than society-affecting damage. A government should protect against victimizing crime, not support the ruler's morality.

Wasn't free speech historically political? Was it not used for good? No, because the Founding Fathers and early politicians were often viciously personal in their attacks. Referring to Federalists in a letter to John Taylor on June 4, 1798 Thomas Jefferson wrote, "A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to it's true principles." Likewise, Federalist newspapers claimed that electing Jefferson would lead to the "teaching of murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest".

Won't the world be an unsatisfactory place if speak their mind (often offensively)? No, because a built-in mechanism exists for regulation: society. When an offensive statement occurs, society will censor them by the collected preferences of individuals. If the statement goes uncensored the statement was not offensive enough to warrant action. If people believe it is offensive they can advocate societal censorship. The government should not decide what is offensive or inoffensive.

Finally, we must remember that non-offensive speech does not need protection, only offensive speech does.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

The Wall

“All in all, you're just another brick in the wall” - Pink Floyd, Another Brick in the Wall, Pt. 2

Many are familiar with this song (and know that line refers to a teacher), but how many have truly analyzed its meaning? What else constitutes the wall besides the teacher? First, we must know why this teacher is a brick in the wall.

"We don't need no thought control"

The teacher has used an authoritative position to control the children. Consequentially, a brick is a policy or person using authority to conform others to a belief system. This occurs when a dominant group believes they hold the right belief and other beliefs hold no merit. Therefore, other beliefs are ignored, persecuted, or both. Various bricks include state or religion run newspapers and schools, repealed free speech, knowledge limited to elites, centralized police force, exile or excommunication, and globally intervening military.

The wall would be their collective efforts – symbolically separating people from open knowledge and free choice. Over many times and places the wall has been raised by states, religions, or both. For example, the Protestant Reformation, Counter-Reformation, Red Scare, Berlin Wall, Cold War, and War on Terror are walls.

Dismantled repeatedly and constructed repeatedly, the Dismantlers and Constructors are constantly in conflict. Fighting for freedom despite personal peril, Dismantlers proclaim open knowledge and free choice causing the wall to fracture and resulting in precious freedom for all.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.

Definition and Process of Fomenting a Revolution

The art of fomenting a revolution is a difficult one, one bringing danger and ill repute. A revolution, or violent reform against authority, forms through reacting against either an administration's aggressive action or lack of action. Therefore, the administration is often to blame, not the revolutionaries.

However, what type of revolution is being discussed? It is merely a political revolution against state institutions? No, revolts can occur against any forms of administration (states, religions, schools, or workplaces. Furthermore, what does a revolution attempt to accomplish? Contrary to statist stereotypes, revolutions are not solely about gaining control of the administration. Even if a leader uses reforms as an excuse to gain power, his supporters, whom make revolution possible, revolt in the name of reform. In essence, revolutions attempt to accomplish reform despite leaders potentially using reform as cover for their own power hunger. However, reforms are not necessarily altruistic, they involve self-interest; self-interest is not selfish — self-interest considers others, selfishness does not. Revolutions and reforms are not as evil as the statist would like you to believe. Their morality depends upon their intent, not the action itself. Finally, is revolution a full-scale war against the administration (ignoring the fact most revolutionary wars are guerrilla wars)? If it were, schools would be a bad example, as a full-scale war against a school hasn't occurred. No, a revolution is a violent action against an administration closed to change. Violence may take the form of war, vandalism, murders or assassinations, theft, or violent protests and riots.

A revolution has numerous forms prior to becoming a formal revolution. Usually beginning mildly, each step grows in intensity.

Any reform starts with at least one person seeking change. That individual then persuades others to join the cause. These few reformers have two courses of action. Protracting their desired change to insure success, they could attempt to persuade the majority of the governed. Or they could work to enable risky, immediate change. Many reforms commit to elements of both. Devoted to change, various members use their distinct abilities for the cause — pamphlets are written, street speeches are shouted, protests are organized, donations are gathered, and influential patrons are recruited.

Slowly the reformers petition the administration for the desired change. If the administration eventually acquiesces to their demands, no revolution is likely. But if the administration censors their writings and speech, prevents or attacks their protests, or otherwise rejects their attempted reform, a revolution remains likely; revolutions also remain possible if administrations lack acknowledgment for reform.

When the reformers tire of either the administrations aggressive response or lack of response, they become infuriated, leading to two potential actions: secession or revolution. Secession, removing oneself from an organized administration and establishing your own authority and administration, is still a form of revolution; however, it is only successful if the revolutionaries are within one geographic location.

Once the reformers see revolution as necessary, actions are reallocated. Existent supporters are informed, currency is collected, weaponry is warehoused, and strategy is discussed. Eventually they will act on their preparations in order to achieve the desired change in a more violent process than the revolutionaries originally imagined when they were mere reformers.

Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.