There is a word for people who say they do everything for their own benefit --> selfish.
I don't buy for a nanosecond that everyone on the planet is purely self interested
at all times and acting solely for their own benefit.
Would Adam Smith be a Republican or a Democrat today?
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
I don't buy for a nanosecond that everyone on the planet is purely self interested
at all times and acting solely for their own benefit.
Lao Tse
Verified User
Lao Tse
Verified User
I don't think you understand the sheer criminality and graft fiat currency enables.
sound currency means an elite cabal couldn't print money for what they want and make the rest of us pay for it while debasing the currency.
fiat currency is defacto totalitarianism.
no amount of you wiggling around can change that.
you're just a fascist totalitarian at the end of the day, dark woods and fancy suits don't change it.
neocons have this totalitarian fascism problem.
" oh if we don;t have counterfeit money we'll have to carry around bag of gold", is dumb idiocy you know is a lie.
Lao Tse
Verified User
lol.
did you type this with a straight face?
you're delusional.
let's just be honest, how about that, internationalist fascist neocon banker Zionist bootlick?
Lao Tse
Verified User
I have provided as much if not more content to this thread than just about anyone else.
Stop lying about everything.
No one said "solely for their own benefit". But SURELY you must agree that most people who do good for others are HAPPY to do so. Meaning they are experiencing HAPPINESS for helping.
We are, after all, simple apes and we tend to gravitate toward those activities that stimulate our rewards centers.
If you can find someone who helps others while HATING THE EXPERIENCE and DESPISING THOSE THEY HELP then you will have found someone doing good without benefit of self-interest.
That's nothing more than a massive pile of bullshit snowflake. Find one Republican leader who has said such a thing. Just one will do.
I don't think you can post without lying and looking like a whiney, thread trolling little third grader.
The best part about debates around "altruism" and other questions about why people do things (self interest or not) is that it reveals those who have actually thought about the topic more than superficially.
Those who think superficially run right to the "self interest" part because that carries emotional baggage and appears to be synonymous with "selfish". Nothing could be further from the truth. But that is how you know the person hasn't thought deeply about the topic.
Self-interest comes in many forms most of which are in no way "selfish". They are probably actually just plain ol' biology. Our brains are wired to help us survive and there's a lot of evidence that many of our inclinations to take actions may be driven subconsciously, or even BEFORE we develop the intent to do something. There's obviously a reward for the brain and the organism for following that directive (or there has been in the evolutionary past, take "fight or flight" responses).
Couple this with the FACT that people who do good for others feel good about doing it. It really does carry a reward for the doer. It is not selfish by any stretch and may actually be beneficial to a social animal like humans. Having an in-built instinct to help as opposed to hurt would be VERY helpful for a social animal.
Doing good FEELS GOOD which is a reward. It encourages us to continue doing the "good" thing.
It's not selfish.
Those who think superficially run right to the "self interest" part because that carries emotional baggage and appears to be synonymous with "selfish". Nothing could be further from the truth. But that is how you know the person hasn't thought deeply about the topic.
Self-interest comes in many forms most of which are in no way "selfish". They are probably actually just plain ol' biology. Our brains are wired to help us survive and there's a lot of evidence that many of our inclinations to take actions may be driven subconsciously, or even BEFORE we develop the intent to do something. There's obviously a reward for the brain and the organism for following that directive (or there has been in the evolutionary past, take "fight or flight" responses).
Couple this with the FACT that people who do good for others feel good about doing it. It really does carry a reward for the doer. It is not selfish by any stretch and may actually be beneficial to a social animal like humans. Having an in-built instinct to help as opposed to hurt would be VERY helpful for a social animal.
Doing good FEELS GOOD which is a reward. It encourages us to continue doing the "good" thing.
It's not selfish.
What is meant by the term "free" market economy? How is it "free?"
Ironic coming from a childlike thread troll who posts like a third-grade mental case.
Censure is always the last resort for mentally challenged leftists who can't put together any coherent arguments or deal with opposing views.
Libhater
Verified User
What Marx and Lenin despised is what is better known as Classical Liberals. Look up the definition of Classical Liberals
if you're a bit confused.
More juvenile thread trolling. ^^ Halfwit seldom disappoints.
Fixed this to be truthful.
So why are you being a drain? Why are you mentally instable? You should kill yourself. No one would care. No one would notice. One less mentally disturbed halfwit can't be bad for the planet.
Where are there no schools in poor areas? List them.
How do you plan to expand businesses in low-income areas?
Who is forcing women to stay at home and collecting welfare?
^Sophistry.
There is a reason we have the word "selfish" in the English language. The word does not exist for no reason at all. We use it for people who only act in their own self-interest or strictly for their own benefit and enjoyment.
Libhater
Verified User
[/QUOTE]
That would most certainly include Karmala the master of being unable to put together coherent or even an argument when dealing with opposing views