Would Adam Smith be a Republican or a Democrat today?

[Into the Night]

I don't think I fully get your point.

Then I will clarify.

But I'm not serving others for free.

I never said you were.

My self interest is satisfied through getting paid.

Agreed.

Self interest is not a bad thing.

Agreed.

People seem to need to soften the edges of it as if it's a nasty thing.

I am not everyone.

Now to clarify myself:

The reason you are paid is because you are worth something to somebody. It's really that simple.
It is no different from a company providing a product or service for it's clients.

Both must serve their clients. For an employee, that client is the company you work for. For the company the client is the customer buying the product or service.

Any company (or employee) that fails to serve will fail in the market. The company MUST satisfy it's clients (by serving them to their satisfaction) at an agreed upon price or they go out of business. The employee MUST satisfy his client (the employer) by serving them to their satisfaction, at an agreed upon price (your wage), or they go out of business (they are fired).

It is your self interest to serve others, just as it is in a company's self interest to serve others. It is the very essence of capitalism. It is the voluntary production of products and services (including the services an employee provides his employer) for sale at an agreed upon price.

If you fail to serve others, either as an employee or as a company, you will simply no longer be worth something to somebody and you will go out of business.

I'm not trying to soften the self interest of serving others. I'm not talking about serving others for free. I am talking about serving others for the agreed upon price. You and your employer CHOOSE to transact. Your services for what your employer pays you. That is no different than a company CHOOSING to go into business and producing a product or service for what clients pay them for.

Socialism, whether it's fascism, communism, or slavery, is all about theft. It is NOT about serving others. It is about taking wealth by force. It is compulsion. There is no choice. It is tyranny.

Now let's talk about charity. Christians and some other religions believe you should help your fellow man in need. This does NOT mean helping people that insist on staying in poverty. Indeed, Christ had some harsh words for the lazy that refuse to work even though they are able to.

How about handicap issues? Well, it may limit what you can do, but I'll tell you, it cannot stop you from being productive unless you WANT IT TO. I've known blind people make good careers in radio, and one I know was the best piano tuner I ever saw. He could even identify you by the sound of your footsteps and talk to you by name.

I knew another that started four successful companies even though he had no use of his legs (lost due to polio).

Yes...even the blind can serve others and collect pay for their services. Yes, collecting that pay is self interest. It sure beats sitting around and being lazy serving no one and living in poverty.


Too many people think 'self interest' means 'selfishness' (which you quite properly corrected them on!). But it's more than just self interest. It's also service to others. It IS capitalism. It is freedom of choice, and experiencing the consequences of that choice (the benefits of being employed or becoming a successful business).

It IS the answer to world peace. You don't attack your clients. You serve them and they buy from you. That's capitalism, the only system that creates wealth.

Theft is the path to war and conflict. It is the path to misery. This is the path of socialism, and why it always fails. Socialism is theft of wealth. It does not create any wealth...ever.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Buzzword fallacy. Omnisicience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everyone. Answer the question put to you.

its only a buzzword if you don't know what it means.

we all know what sound currency is.

if you;re not for sound currency you're ultimately a criminal.

 

[Kamala Trump]

I don't think I fully get your point.

But I'm not serving others for free. My self interest is satisfied through getting paid. Self interest is not a bad thing. People seem to need to soften the edges of it as if it's a nasty thing.

self interest can be a very bad thing.

it's same thing that motivates criminals.

so what does it all come down to?

morality.

 

[Cypress]

Correct, ONLY in self interest but we all act in self interest

I dont ignore them i just realize that wherever and whenever possible people will meet their obligations and responsibilities toward their self interests. Your way of thinking here explains why you think you can pretend to be "defenders of democracy" even though your behavior reveals the exact opposite. You want us to believe you care that trump supposedly raped a woman even though he was found liable even though she didnt know when this supposed rape took place and state law was changed to accommodate the filing of the charges. It's in the self interest of Democrats to do all they can to get rid of trump but you cloak it in your supposed care for the "victim".

Self interest isn't bad it only matters what it's in the service of.

This isn't about Trump or democracy.

I am simply pointing out the flaws in your consequentialist way of thinking. Everybody isn't always strictly just acting on what make them feel good and is in their self-interest.

The English language has words like duty, obligation, responsibility, moral imperative and these words exist for a reason. And they do not always overlap with enjoyment, benefit, feeling good, or self-interest.

My opinion is reflected in the teachings of great thinkers like Aristotle, Confucious, Kant. They taught that one should relentlessly practice and cultivate virtue, so it just become second nature without even having to think about it - without thinking about the consequences and whether you will enjoy it do not factor in. They did not link virtue to self-interest or limit it to feelings of self-interest, self-benefit, enjoyment, and self-pride.

 

[Cypress]

I do not see how @Cypress is that rigid although I can see why you never graduated college, Perry. Is it because you have a below average IQ? Didn't have the money? Dropped out of HS? What was the reason, Perry?

It is not "rigid" to disagree with the opinion that everything humans do is calculated on whether or not it will make us feel good, be in our self-interest, or enhance our self-pride.

The English language has words like duty, responsibility, obligation, commitment, moral imperative for a reason. These words do not exist for no reason at all - and they do not necessarily have to be linked to self-interest, enjoyment, or self-benefit.

 

[Kamala Trump]

This isn't about Trump or democracy.

I am simply pointing out the flaws in your consequentialist way of thinking. Everybody isn't always strictly just acting on what make them feel good and is in their self-interest.

The English language has words like duty, obligation, responsibility, moral imperative and these words exist for a reason. And they do not always overlap with enjoyment, benefit, feeling good, or self-interest.

My opinion is reflected in the teachings of great thinkers like Aristotle, Confucious, Kant. They taught that one should relentlessly practice and cultivate virtue, so it just become second nature without even having to think about it - without thinking about the consequences and whether you will enjoy it do not factor in. They did not link virtue to self-interest or limit it to feelings of self-interest, self-benefit, enjoyment, and self-pride.

YOu're trying to talk about morality.

you get as far as virtue, then it all falls apart in word games.

virtue is virtue signalling aka blowing smoke up your own ass. that's what you do best.

now try actual morality, satanic butt child.

 

[Cypress]

Stop lying about everything!

^ Constantly angry at me, constantly lurking my threads, and constantly trying to derail my threads and turn them into a discussion about your festering resentments.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Then I will clarify.

I never said you were.

Agreed.

Agreed.

I am not everyone.

Now to clarify myself:

The reason you are paid is because you are worth something to somebody. It's really that simple.
It is no different from a company providing a product or service for it's clients.

Both must serve their clients. For an employee, that client is the company you work for. For the company the client is the customer buying the product or service.

Any company (or employee) that fails to serve will fail in the market. The company MUST satisfy it's clients (by serving them to their satisfaction) at an agreed upon price or they go out of business. The employee MUST satisfy his client (the employer) by serving them to their satisfaction, at an agreed upon price (your wage), or they go out of business (they are fired).

It is your self interest to serve others, just as it is in a company's self interest to serve others. It is the very essence of capitalism. It is the voluntary production of products and services (including the services an employee provides his employer) for sale at an agreed upon price.

If you fail to serve others, either as an employee or as a company, you will simply no longer be worth something to somebody and you will go out of business.

I'm not trying to soften the self interest of serving others. I'm not talking about serving others for free. I am talking about serving others for the agreed upon price. You and your employer CHOOSE to transact. Your services for what your employer pays you. That is no different than a company CHOOSING to go into business and producing a product or service for what clients pay them for.

Socialism, whether it's fascism, communism, or slavery, is all about theft. It is NOT about serving others. It is about taking wealth by force. It is compulsion. There is no choice. It is tyranny.

Now let's talk about charity. Christians and some other religions believe you should help your fellow man in need. This does NOT mean helping people that insist on staying in poverty. Indeed, Christ had some harsh words for the lazy that refuse to work even though they are able to.

How about handicap issues? Well, it may limit what you can do, but I'll tell you, it cannot stop you from being productive unless you WANT IT TO. I've known blind people make good careers in radio, and one I know was the best piano tuner I ever saw. He could even identify you by the sound of your footsteps and talk to you by name.

I knew another that started four successful companies even though he had no use of his legs (lost due to polio).

Yes...even the blind can serve others and collect pay for their services. Yes, collecting that pay is self interest. It sure beats sitting around and being lazy serving no one and living in poverty.


Too many people think 'self interest' means 'selfishness' (which you quite properly corrected them on!). But it's more than just self interest. It's also service to others. It IS capitalism. It is freedom of choice, and experiencing the consequences of that choice (the benefits of being employed or becoming a successful business).

It IS the answer to world peace. You don't attack your clients. You serve them and they buy from you. That's capitalism, the only system that creates wealth.

Theft is the path to war and conflict. It is the path to misery. This is the path of socialism, and why it always fails. Socialism is theft of wealth. It does not create any wealth...ever.

but you actually believe in too big to fail and banker bailouts.

that makes you a fascist not a free marketeer.

 

[Yakuda]

Then I will clarify.

I never said you were.

Agreed.

Agreed.

I am not everyone.

Now to clarify myself:

The reason you are paid is because you are worth something to somebody. It's really that simple.
It is no different from a company providing a product or service for it's clients.

Both must serve their clients. For an employee, that client is the company you work for. For the company the client is the customer buying the product or service.

Any company (or employee) that fails to serve will fail in the market. The company MUST satisfy it's clients (by serving them to their satisfaction) at an agreed upon price or they go out of business. The employee MUST satisfy his client (the employer) by serving them to their satisfaction, at an agreed upon price (your wage), or they go out of business (they are fired).

It is your self interest to serve others, just as it is in a company's self interest to serve others. It is the very essence of capitalism. It is the voluntary production of products and services (including the services an employee provides his employer) for sale at an agreed upon price.

If you fail to serve others, either as an employee or as a company, you will simply no longer be worth something to somebody and you will go out of business.

I'm not trying to soften the self interest of serving others. I'm not talking about serving others for free. I am talking about serving others for the agreed upon price. You and your employer CHOOSE to transact. Your services for what your employer pays you. That is no different than a company CHOOSING to go into business and producing a product or service for what clients pay them for.

Socialism, whether it's fascism, communism, or slavery, is all about theft. It is NOT about serving others. It is about taking wealth by force. It is compulsion. There is no choice. It is tyranny.

Now let's talk about charity. Christians and some other religions believe you should help your fellow man in need. This does NOT mean helping people that insist on staying in poverty. Indeed, Christ had some harsh words for the lazy that refuse to work even though they are able to.

How about handicap issues? Well, it may limit what you can do, but I'll tell you, it cannot stop you from being productive unless you WANT IT TO. I've known blind people make good careers in radio, and one I know was the best piano tuner I ever saw. He could even identify you by the sound of your footsteps and talk to you by name.

I knew another that started four successful companies even though he had no use of his legs (lost due to polio).

Yes...even the blind can serve others and collect pay for their services. Yes, collecting that pay is self interest. It sure beats sitting around and being lazy serving no one and living in poverty.


Too many people think 'self interest' means 'selfishness' (which you quite properly corrected them on!). But it's more than just self interest. It's also service to others. It IS capitalism. It is freedom of choice, and experiencing the consequences of that choice (the benefits of being employed or becoming a successful business).

It IS the answer to world peace. You don't attack your clients. You serve them and they buy from you. That's capitalism, the only system that creates wealth.

Theft is the path to war and conflict. It is the path to misery. This is the path of socialism, and why it always fails. Socialism is theft of wealth. It does not create any wealth...ever.

Agreed. You are worth something to the self interest of the person that pays you.

 

[Yakuda]

self interest can be a very bad thing.

it's same thing that motivates criminals.

so what does it all come down to?

morality.

Anything CAN be a bad thing

I think it's exactly the same but I get your point

Yes I agree it's morality but sadly the left has reduced morality to personal preference. Just another way of saying self interest

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It is not "rigid" to disagree with the opinion that everything humans do is calculated on whether or not it will make us feel good, be in our self-interest, or enhance our self-pride.

The English language has words like duty, responsibility, obligation, commitment, moral imperative for a reason. These words do not exist for no reason at all - and they do not necessarily have to be linked to self-interest, enjoyment, or self-benefit.

Perry PhD AKA @Kafka isn't much of a reader although he's very good at cut'n'paste. LOL

 

[Yakuda]

This isn't about Trump or democracy.

I am simply pointing out the flaws in your consequentialist way of thinking. Everybody isn't always strictly just acting on what make them feel good and is in their self-interest.

The English language has words like duty, obligation, responsibility, moral imperative and these words exist for a reason. And they do not always overlap with enjoyment, benefit, feeling good, or self-interest.

My opinion is reflected in the teachings of great thinkers like Aristotle, Confucious, Kant. They taught that one should relentlessly practice and cultivate virtue, so it just become second nature without even having to think about it - without thinking about the consequences and whether you will enjoy it do not factor in. They did not link virtue to self-interest or limit it to feelings of self-interest, self-benefit, enjoyment, and self-pride.

Again with the conflating. You need to think friend. I have NEVER said anything about acting on what makes you feel good. What's wrong with you? I said self interest. You either understand difference of you dont. If you can't then there is no point to continuing the conversation with you.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Anything CAN be a bad thing

I think it's exactly the same but I get your point

Yes I agree it's morality but sadly the left has reduced morality to personal preference. Just another way of saying self interest

that's why focussing on self interest is an idiotic discussion..

the real discussion is what is moral, but masonic retards who live on banker sperm and totalitarian butt-kissing avoid morality like the plague.

cypress is human garbage.

 

[Cypress]

Again with the conflating. You need to think friend. I have NEVER said anything about acting on what makes you feel good. What's wrong with you? I said self interest. You either understand difference of you dont. If you can't then there is no point to continuing the conversation with you.

I think it was someone else who said that people practice virtue to feel good.

I think you have a very expansive and almost universal definition for self-interest, which I don't agree with. And Adam Smith did not use the term self-interest in the way you are either. But you are entitled to have your expansive definition of the term.

 

[Yakuda]

that's why focussing on self interest is an idiotic discussion..

the real discussion is what is moral, but masonic retards who live on banker sperm and totalitarian butt-kissing avoid morality like the plague.

cypress is human garbage.

Well I don't necessarily agree discussing self-interest is idiotic because that's what motivated us. Morals though should direct our self interest. For those with a personal moral code self-interest can become disordered.

 

[Yakuda]

I think it was someone else who said that people practice virtue to feel good.

I think you have a very expansive and almost universal definition for self-interest, which I don't agree with. And Adam Smith did not use the term self-interest in the way you are either. But you are entitled to have your expansive definition of the term.

I think my definition of self interest better fits the human experience. You seem stuck on the idea that self interest = bad. It can but self interest is how people are motivated. The question is is their self interest healthy or disordered.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Well I don't necessarily agree discussing self-interest is idiotic because that's what motivated us. Morals though should direct our self interest. For those with a personal moral code self-interest can become disordered.

personal moral codes are not automatically disordered or wrong, if they're actually moral.

Moral codes become MORE disordered under centuries old institutions, who spend billions to destroy the meanings of words.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think it was someone else who said that people practice virtue to feel good.

I think you have a very expansive and almost universal definition for self-interest, which I don't agree with. And Adam Smith did not use the term self-interest in the way you are either. But you are entitled to have your expansive definition of the term.

It's part of social indoctrination to "feel good". Children should be rewarded for good social behavior such as sharing toys or food, treating others with respect and avoiding public tantrums. As they grow older, they won't need rewards, but will "feel good" by seeing the results of good social behavior.

 

[Cypress]

I consulted Wikipedia, and found that Cypress is correct.
But I am begging you, please join me in complaining about Cypress! I hate him!

This thread is about Adam Smith, not me Perry.

 

[Yakuda]

personal moral codes are not automatically disordered or wrong, if they're actually moral.

Moral codes become MORE disordered under centuries old institutions, who spend billions to destroy the meanings of words.

That's the point though. A personal moral code can't be "disordered" if you personally decide whats moral. That's precisely the problem with a personal moral code. Those who hold such a view though resort to saying the majority decides what moral. They can't even be consistent with their own screwed up philosophy