I had a nice person comment on one of my rants, pointing out that we need to retain our hope that “government” will do the right thing for us … to retain faith in our government.
I could not agree more. Yes, we need to retain our hope and faith that government will do the “right” thing for us … but I would also say that we need to expect that the people in government, either elected or hired, will still be people … and that means they will be flawed and not always perfect, or even good.
However, hoping that someone will do the “right” thing begs two questions:
1. What is the “right” thing? Who defines it? How is it defined? Can it mean different things to different people? Do we as individuals have the right to have our own definition of the “right” thing, even if it disagrees with the vision of others?
2. For whom is it appropriate to do the “right” thing? I mean, for example, is it appropriate for a ditch digger to perform heart surgery, or a heart surgeon to dig ditches? Both work to improve the channeling the movement of fluids. Is it more appropriate for a town government to do something rather than the state government or the federal government or the United Nations? Who decides?
I know; I am terrible; I just ask questions. I guess I am sort of addicted to the Socratic method of thinking.
Still, we have to admit that human altruism is the exception rather than the rule. Why is that I haven’t a clue, but I know it is true. It is why we celebrate demonstrations of it, rather than just accept it as just another normal day at the office.
People are selfish. Governments, because they are run by people, are selfish. Now, just because something looks out for its own interest and does things because it is in its own interest, it doesn’t make either that something/someone or what it does bad. Not by a long shot.
Richard Dawkins wrote an interesting book that I read a few years ago called “The Selfish Gene.” Note, this is not a light read or an easy one, but it is enlightening.
The basic thing was that genes are selfish, acting in their own interest to replicate themselves, but sometimes they do things that seem almost altruistic … but in reality, really are just manifestations of its own self-interest. It is somewhat a radical thought, but I think it is true for the most part.
I have long contended that since people ARE selfish, the trick is to harness that selfishness so that it does the community and civilization at large the best. Sort of what Mr. Dawkins is talking about when he is discussing the selfish gene. In other words, how can I make what I want them to do what I want by making it something that they see is in their own best interest and rewarding. I don’t want them to do it out of fear because that ultimately is contra-productive. Also, I am not one to engage in conflict for conflict’s sake. I merely do it when I perceive it is my own best interests, where the rewards exceed any foreseen costs.
So, what is in our own best interest? Well, I think each of us has to determine that ourselves. First, only we really know what our interests are and, second, it isn’t really fair to slough that responsibility (or even authority) off on someone else … they already have a full-time job deciding what is in their own best interest (and they, like the rest of us, are doing it imperfectly).
Of course, all that assumes that individuals have a right to decide what to do and to be free of outside forces telling them what their role is to be. Granted, to an extent, we do let outsides forces tell us what to do every day by adhering to the rules, social mores, regulations, laws and contracts, social and otherwise, that we engage in routinely. But, by and large, at least so far in the United States, we are free to make a lot of our choices on our own (although those choices seem to be getting more and more restricted as I get older, and I am not referring to my own abilities and capabilities, but those permitted by the society that I live in). The libertarian in me says this is a bad thing, but I understand those who see things happening and want to intervene, to help protect people from their own stupidity. I just question the wisdom of it. Especially if you go so far as to relieve the individual of the responsibility to become aware of what their own interests are and to provide for them.
I guess that goes back to the question whether people are even smart enough to take care of themselves. My view is, for the vast majority, is that they are. It is just that a large proportion are quite willing to delegate that authority to another so that they can feel that they have met their responsibility, while not having to work at it.
Others may see it differently and say the smarter have an obligation to take care of the less smart and make their decisions for them … for their own good, of course, or for the good of those they have assumed responsibility for – such as children.
I happen to disagree with those folks, but then I am one who believes in individual liberty at the expense of community comity. I do, however, believe that it is in our own self-interest to help develop and protect our selected communities, but note that I said in my “own self-interest.” I don’t think I should do it because I owe it, necessarily, to the community, except in exchange for the benefits I receive from that community.
Well, enough rambling. Thank you to those who come and visit these random thoughts. I would encourage others, particularly those from other nations than the US of A, to give me feedback … even if it is not in English … I will figure out how to translate it. I actually enjoy dialogs, even with those people with whom I vehemently disagree (as long as we keep our tongues civil and don’t come to blows … that I don’t like).
No comments:
Post a Comment