If I had a bitch dumb enough to participate in that shit, I'd tie her up like that, leave the house, lock the door, and GTFO out of town. All the while with this face.
If I had a bitch dumb enough to participate in that shit, I'd tie her up like that, leave the house, lock the door, and GTFO out of town. All the while with this face.
Do you not consider what the elected officials say when they are doing these acts that you consider "acting in self-interest"? I understand what I am about to say is skimming the surface of a really large on complex economic situation, so please allow us to only talk in generalities. Obama and his Health-care package was not Obama acting in his own self-interests. He had said it was our moral obligation to make sure all citizens of this society have access to health-care. How can you claim that this is Obama acting in his own self-interest when he benefits nothing from this health-care package? He had great coverage and can afford the best doctors in the world. Clearly Obama is actions regarding this package can more be thought of as moral altruism (defined as "selfless concern for the welfare of others").
Before you respond to the above, let me just come clean and say that I totally understand that Obama most likely was using this as some political ploy to gain some extra political power. This is such a common thing for elected officials; Preach how you need to do something to "save the world" and really behind closed doors it is lining your pockets. Regardless, this is what I mean when I claim that Moral Altruism is to blame for the injustices by our governments. Moral Altruism in name is to blame for the injustices in our legal system. I don't care if that Moral Altruism is just a wolf in sheep clothing, the people are too dumb to see through this lie and it pushes us further down the spiral of bigger government, more ethical and moral injustices, and just simply less freedom. I believe Moral Altruism has NO place in politics... Its only use is deceit and deception.
Politically speaking, Objectivism holds that the only purpose of the government is to protect the individuals right to life, liberty, and the product of their efforts (or property if you like). You can try and widdle down the meaning of Objectivism to acting in your own self-interests, but that I really only half the story. The full story is it is acting in your own self-interest in an arrangement that is agreeable to all parties involved. Your liberty shall not trump the liberty of others. In that sense, I would say Objectivism isnt to blame for any governmental crimes against humanity. Yes, the crimes might be elected officials acting in their own self-interest, however they are doing so at the sake of others liberty. This is not Objectivism.
Wow. This thread has taken an interesting turn.
First of all, you've deviated from talking in generalities here by narrowing down your example pool to, only, health-care. It's a perfect example for you to use for this point because it, somewhat, backs your point. However, remember I said "governments," meaning I wasn't specifically referring to the U.S. There are tons of other examples (far more numerous) I could use to back my point. But let's focus on yours.
Health-care is a rare case because it's unclear, at least to me, why Obama pushed so hard for it (especially given the times). I don't know if it was an effort to pay off his constituents (not likely given his constituent base) or just a personal goal he was hell bent on tackling (more likely). One thing was very clear: it wasn't a popular issue with the public. In January of '10 the polls showed the largest concerns of the American public were (and this is well documented) unemployment, federal spending, and the exploding deficit. So the Obama Administration (borrowing from Dave Barry here), displaying the keen sense of awareness that has become its trademark, decided to focus like a laser on: health-care reform. The centerpiece of this effort was a historic bill, the contents of which I'm ignorant of, because in printed form, the bill has relatively the same mass as a UPS truck, thus I haven't read it. For all I know it permits federal bureaucrats to club old people to death. I don't know what the bill says, and I don't know why Obama decided to push it when he did. Honestly, I think it was just a personal ambition. I think he wanted health-care to become the trademark of his administration. In this sense, he wouldn't benefit directly from the health care, but rather, from its legacy (which I fully believe he perceived). It can certainly be interpreted as an effort to "selflessly care about the welfare of others," however, I probably wouldn't choose to interpret it that way. There's definitely a position to be taken on your side though. The unpopularity of it among the public strongly backs your stance because Obama pursued it regardless.
Honestly, I'm getting confused here. The United States is an example of an egoistic society hiding behind the disguise of altruism. Just to be clear, Altruism is an aspect of moral philosophy in which it's argued that moral decisions should be based upon the interests of others instead of the interests of the self, which is precisely the propagandistic pseudonym the U.S. hides behind. Egoism is the belief that one ought to make decisions based on the interests of the self, despite those decisions possibly being detrimental to others, which is ultimately how every government in the world behaves. The only difference is, one has a slightly higher probability to produce good. Societies like the U.S., Australia, Canada, etc... do produce good in more abundance, just given their philosophies (in essence being "the very disguise they hide behind"), than purely egoistic societies do. Both are bad, but one is worse than the other. Both have the capability to be worse than the other though, if for example the egoistic society hiding behind altruism commits an evil act. In that case the altruistic society would be worse because not only did it commit the act, but hid behind propaganda in doing so. *And know when I talk about producing good, I'm talking directly in reference to the country's population, AKA: domestic policy*
To bring this all together, and judging by what you said (specifically looking at the bold text in your second paragraph), you lead me to believe you think propaganda is what's to blame for injustice (since we've established altruism is the disguise/the propaganda). In response I'd argue propaganda is second to blame behind the act itself - the act itself being a product of egoism.
Comments
Gee, I am wrongo
annnnnd this
{Upload|9514}
But seriously, you don't know how bad I giggled at that.
First of all, you've deviated from talking in generalities here by narrowing down your example pool to, only, health-care. It's a perfect example for you to use for this point because it, somewhat, backs your point. However, remember I said "governments," meaning I wasn't specifically referring to the U.S. There are tons of other examples (far more numerous) I could use to back my point. But let's focus on yours.
Health-care is a rare case because it's unclear, at least to me, why Obama pushed so hard for it (especially given the times). I don't know if it was an effort to pay off his constituents (not likely given his constituent base) or just a personal goal he was hell bent on tackling (more likely). One thing was very clear: it wasn't a popular issue with the public. In January of '10 the polls showed the largest concerns of the American public were (and this is well documented) unemployment, federal spending, and the exploding deficit. So the Obama Administration (borrowing from Dave Barry here), displaying the keen sense of awareness that has become its trademark, decided to focus like a laser on: health-care reform. The centerpiece of this effort was a historic bill, the contents of which I'm ignorant of, because in printed form, the bill has relatively the same mass as a UPS truck, thus I haven't read it. For all I know it permits federal bureaucrats to club old people to death. I don't know what the bill says, and I don't know why Obama decided to push it when he did. Honestly, I think it was just a personal ambition. I think he wanted health-care to become the trademark of his administration. In this sense, he wouldn't benefit directly from the health care, but rather, from its legacy (which I fully believe he perceived). It can certainly be interpreted as an effort to "selflessly care about the welfare of others," however, I probably wouldn't choose to interpret it that way. There's definitely a position to be taken on your side though. The unpopularity of it among the public strongly backs your stance because Obama pursued it regardless.
Honestly, I'm getting confused here. The United States is an example of an egoistic society hiding behind the disguise of altruism. Just to be clear, Altruism is an aspect of moral philosophy in which it's argued that moral decisions should be based upon the interests of others instead of the interests of the self, which is precisely the propagandistic pseudonym the U.S. hides behind. Egoism is the belief that one ought to make decisions based on the interests of the self, despite those decisions possibly being detrimental to others, which is ultimately how every government in the world behaves. The only difference is, one has a slightly higher probability to produce good. Societies like the U.S., Australia, Canada, etc... do produce good in more abundance, just given their philosophies (in essence being "the very disguise they hide behind"), than purely egoistic societies do. Both are bad, but one is worse than the other. Both have the capability to be worse than the other though, if for example the egoistic society hiding behind altruism commits an evil act. In that case the altruistic society would be worse because not only did it commit the act, but hid behind propaganda in doing so.
*And know when I talk about producing good, I'm talking directly in reference to the country's population, AKA: domestic policy*
To bring this all together, and judging by what you said (specifically looking at the bold text in your second paragraph), you lead me to believe you think propaganda is what's to blame for injustice (since we've established altruism is the disguise/the propaganda). In response I'd argue propaganda is second to blame behind the act itself - the act itself being a product of egoism.
{Upload|9535}
:O
Apparently Genghis Khan liked to make women wear skins of animals while he fucked them.
He was a furry!