Selfishness and Society

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

What I don't like is the insidious social programming which makes a virtue of self denial, ostensibly for the sake of others, but really just to make the task of institutionally managing the sheeple easier on the bean counters.

This makes sense at a very abstract level. I guess I need more specific examples. I personally see very little in the way of altruistic themes in the American variety of socio-cultural programming. When the president talks about fighting the enemy in order "to preserve our way of life," doesn't he mean to say that he is ostensibly helping us make sure we can continue to do our thing? That reminds me. On America's highways, cars usually have only one occupant: the driver. Isn't that what we want - the luxury of wasting resources for our own narrowly-defined selfish pleasure?

As for church propaganda, how many Sunday sermons have you heard with a socialistic slant?

Maybe things have changed, but when I attended public school back East I don't recall the education system trying to hoist "selflessness stuff" on students. College prep was about getting into one of the more prestiguous universities in order to improve one's own earning power, not about benefiting society.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

When the president talks about fighting the enemy in order "to preserve our way of life," doesn't he mean to say that he is ostensibly helping us make sure we can continue to do our thing?

I'd say he was helping make sure that he could continue to do his thing.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

That reminds me. On America's highways, cars usually have only one occupant: the driver. Isn't that what we want - the luxury of wasting resources for our own narrowly-defined selfish pleasure?

The overwhelming majority of single occupancy driving is the travel to work so that a person can non-selfishly do what someone else in society wants them to do.

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

As for church propaganda, how many Sunday sermons have you heard with a socialistic slant?

Is attending a church NOT a social event?

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

College prep was about getting into one of the more prestiguous universities in order to improve one's own earning power, not about benefiting society.

Is the purpose of a college prep or a university to inform students of how they will best benefit society? I had to work for and pay for my college level education. Would I have been less selfish to seek a more socialistic... state funded education?

[Pathless]

An interesting quote from Senator Dawes (of the Dawes Severalty/Allotment Act of 1887 fame)

"The head chief [of the Cherokees] told us that there was not a family in that whole nation that had not a home of its own. There was not a pauper in the nation, and the nation did not owe a dollar.... Yet the defect of the system was apparent. They [the Indians] have got as far as they can go, because they own their land in common.... There is no enterprise to make your home any better that that of your neighbor's. There is no selfishness, which is at the bottom of civilization. Until this people consent to give up their lands and divide them among their citizens so that each can own the land he cultivates, they will not make much progress."

The idea of dividing and alloting the land did not serve the communal interests of any Indians. The Dawes Act itself is a fraudulent piece of legislation designed to divide up tribal land and put it into the posession of individual or family units that will "cultivate" and "improve" the land in the civilized ways of farming and taming. The result of the act was to rob Indians of the communal use of their ancestral lands. It is true that some of the land was given to qualifying Indians, but they had to go through and application process to validate their claim to the land as well as their intention to use it for farming or otherwise cultivate it. Also, many of the parcels, deemed "surplus, were sold to non-Indians. Furthermore, the act was not the idea of any Indian, but of the federal U.S. government, which was (and continues to be) interested in acquiring Indian ancestral lands for industrial purposes (farming, but also coal and [later] uranium mining, etc)

But the point in posting this quote in this thread is to highlight the idea that selfishness is "at the bottom of civilization;" which is to say that it is foundational to the way of competitive enterprise, and entirely antithetical to the traditional ways of the land-based cultures that inhabited the vast expanse of the Americas and Canada before the arrival of Europeans.

Selfishness may be the way things are, but that does not mean it is the best way, or moral, or even ultimately a viable way to live.

[cyberpi]

Pathless,
Viewed another way the Native American Indian tribes were selfish in expecting that the land remain theirs. The Native American Indians did fight and war with each other over land because there was little agreement between tribes of what belonged to whom. Inheritance and lineage are equally values in the Native American Indian tribes... and that is selfish. Inheritance is usually not earned but is selfishly and thoughtlessly given to those immediately closest: one's own tribe or one's own immediate family. Furthermore it is selfishly received and held onto and defended with war. If a person here says that the lifestyle of Indians was to not own land, then why do people say that the land belonged to the Indians? The selfishness that is denied on an individual basis is very much alive on a tribal basis, and individuals comprise a tribe. Today there are reservations of land owned by tribes wherein I have often found a healthy degree of selfishness with a complete disregard for people, environment, and the relationships between people. Many tribes are advocates of casinos wherein people gamble, deceive each other, and screw each other for cash.

I can take any relationship between any two individuals or groups of individuals and show how either side can be selfish. The employee can be selfish and the employer can be selfish. The employed can be selfish and the unemployed can be selfish. The parent can be selfish and the child can be selfish. The land owner can be selfish and the neighbor or society that doesn't own it but covets it can be selfish. It is not necessarily the foundational root principle of a relationship or of ownership that is selfish, it is the choice of each individual whether or not to be selfish within the framework of their relationships and their ownership. It is not a generalization of a people... it is the choice of each individual whether or not to screw over their neighbor for their own gain.

For example: selfishness can be within a marriage, within those individuals who seek a single person to live with, share with, or have children with... and selfishness can be outside of marriage in those who avoid it altogether... and selfishness can be inside the framework of polygamy. It is not the framework of a relationship that is selfish, it is the choice of individuals in any framework whether or not to be selfish. Selfishness is an individual (self) choice over an individual (self) trait.

So I disagree with the Senator. Selfishness is not the root of a civilization... but selfishness is an individual trait whose aggregate sum can cause the boundaries between civilizations. Selfishness is slapped in the face by giving across boundaries. As individuals we can give outside of the family, the race, the class, the country, the tribe, the ally, the compound, the marriage, etc... and give into another race, class, country, tribe, ally, compound, and marriage. Giving across the boundary where it is not for personal gain. Being inside a relationship we can give outside of it, and being outside of a relationship we can give inside it. Being married we can give outside of it, and not being married we can give to someone inside of one. So I submit that it is not that marriage or the framework of any relationship is itself selfish or not, but that individuals inside of and outside of any framework or relationship can be selfish. Another way to slap selfishness in the face is to seek the evaluation of others. Seek the judgment of people across those very same boundaries. Seek their evaluation and give more than an ear... give a vote. That does not breakdown the value of the existing marriages, or tribes, or countries, and the boundaries that they represent... it strengthens them and forges new ones inside and outside of them.

I submit that selfishness is first in the mere thoughts of an individual. It is an entrenched way of thinking. It was in the flesh at birth and it is there to be overcome. Selfishness is in the self evaluation and the self placement over others... selfishness is good for self preservation, and it is bad for relationships wherein we are strengthened and ultimately preserved by others.

[Pathless]

cyberpi, I appreciate the thoughtful reply.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Pathless,
Viewed another way the Native American Indian tribes were selfish in expecting that the land remain theirs.

Would you be acting selfishly if I were to come into your home and take it from you, and you acted to defend it, or pursued any means available to keep it from me who would take it by force and by fraud? Perhaps, but I think I would be the more selfish party in that exchange, seeking as I would be to steal what is yours and deny you your home and/or livelihood.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

The Native American Indians did fight and war with each other over land because there was little agreement between tribes of what belonged to whom.

Perhaps, perhaps not. There are differing perspectives and accounts on the ways in which Indians related to one another and settled disputes. More to the point, since there were so many bands and nations relating to each other in so many different ways, it is probably true that some fought wars over land; it is probably also true that other, less aggressive and confrontational approaches were used to resolve conflicts.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Furthermore it is selfishly received and held onto and defended with war. If a person here says that the lifestyle of Indians was to not own land, then why do people say that the land belonged to the Indians?

Because they lived on it and took care of it for thousands of years. They did not own land in the way that you are conceiving of it; they saw (and see) themselves as part of the land. They understand the land to be alive, which is why it was unthinkable for them to sell or buy land. They were (and in many cases continue to be) stewards of their land to a much greater degree than modern progressive-type people have proven themselves to be. If the land were given a choice, who do you think the land would choose to occupy it? People like Indians, who live lightly on the Earth, or modern industrial people, who tear the land open for minerals and "resources," and then dump the toxic cast-off parts that they can't or won't use back onto the land, or in rivers?

Would you say that the land is being selfish if it chose the one who utilized less "resources" and created less waste? Possibly. But who is more selfish? The land or the people who want to disembowel the land and deny it any rights as a living being?

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Today there are reservations of land owned by tribes wherein I have often found a healthy degree of selfishness with a complete disregard for people, environment, and the relationships between people. Many tribes are advocates of casinos wherein people gamble, deceive each other, and screw each other for cash.

Please entertain the idea that the Indians did not create the reservations they are now confined to, nor did they choose to indoctrinate their young through boarding schools created and run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Many of the westernizing influences currently found on reservations, like casinos, are an outgrowth of the federal government's attempts to Americanize and assimilate native people.

[wil]

Just poppin in no time to read the good stuff but had to post this.

I had Chinese for lunch today. Looked at that Chinese astrology that I haven't looked at in ages...I'm a Cock - A pioneer in spirit, you are devoted to work and quest after knowledge. You are selfish and eccentric Rabbits are trouble, Snake and Oxen are fine.

[Pathless]

I'm a Dragon. Creative and energetic. I like Rats and Monkeys. I eat Dogs.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by wil

Just poppin in no time to read the good stuff but had to post this.

I had Chinese for lunch today. Looked at that Chinese astrology that I haven't looked at in ages...I'm a Cock - A pioneer in spirit, you are devoted to work and quest after knowledge. You are selfish and eccentric Rabbits are trouble, Snake and Oxen are fine.

Rooster surely wil!!

[greymare]

im a goat (chinese) and a capricorn (astrology) just cant escape it............ im a goat

[Snoopy]

I'm a fish (no surprise there) and a rat (shut up).

s.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Pathless

Would you be acting selfishly if I were to come into your home and take it from you, and you acted to defend it, or pursued any means available to keep it from me who would take it by force and by fraud? Perhaps, but I think I would be the more selfish party in that exchange, seeking as I would be to steal what is yours and deny you your home and/or livelihood.

Your analogy appears very selfish to me. You are really worrying about an immigrant coming to the USA today. Oh no! Another immigrant here to take our land... another immigrant here to take our jobs. You are really worrying about how many children a neighbor has. Oh no! Another mouth to feed in the welfare line, and more competition for employment. I'm not saying the discussion shouldn't be had between people as to what a reasonable population is, but I am saying that trying to keep this world for yourself is selfish. Your anology compares an entire continent to something that I own... yet your words are that the Native Americans did NOT own land. I don't own the USA either... do you? It is selfish to claim that I do.

If there is an agreement that my home is mine to work with then yes it would be wrong and selfish to break the agreement and to break in without notifying me. However if someone comes to my door begging or stealing then I would be rather selfish to just turn them away... wouldn't I? They should receive something that might help them whether it be what they expected or not. For all I know God might have sent them my way on purpose. If they beg I might offer a job. If they steal then they will receive: a healthy rebuke, a job, and whatever else they might need. If they need a bed and food for awhile then there is room. Or should I just turn the selfish criminals away as you might advise? Call the police and lock em up, right?

The US government... the IRS... comes to me as either a thief or a beggar. The US government takes what is not theirs. What shall I do? I assure you that a healthy rebuke is in there somewhere. Shall I call in my friends to help lock the tax collector up? How do you advise that I contend with government's selfishness? The government is a closer fit to your analogy.

[Tao_Equus]

Here you go snoopy... the ratfish

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Your analogy appears very selfish to me. You are really worrying about an immigrant coming to the USA today. Oh no! Another immigrant here to take our land... another immigrant here to take our jobs. You are really worrying about how many children a neighbor has. Oh no! Another mouth to feed in the welfare line, and more competition for employment. I'm not saying the discussion shouldn't be had between people as to what a reasonable population is, but I am saying that trying to keep this world for yourself is selfish. Your anology compares an entire continent to something that I own... yet your words are that the Native Americans did NOT own land. I don't own the USA either... do you? It is selfish to claim that I do.

If there is an agreement that my home is mine to work with then yes it would be wrong and selfish to break the agreement and to break in without notifying me. However if someone comes to my door begging or stealing then I would be rather selfish to just turn them away... wouldn't I? They should receive something that might help them whether it be what they expected or not. For all I know God might have sent them my way on purpose. If they beg I might offer a job. If they steal then they will receive: a healthy rebuke, a job, and whatever else they might need. If they need a bed and food for awhile then there is room. Or should I just turn the selfish criminals away as you might advise? Call the police and lock em up, right?

What a curious post. ( I apologise Pathless for responding to this before you but...) Have you ever read what else Pathless writes here? If there is anyone here less likely to object to immigration and internationalism, in the noblest sense of the word, then it is he. I see only a weak and implausible response to climb out from a previously poorly thought out post. You can do better than that Cyberpi!! I hope that your God spares you from your words and does not send too many freeloaders your way.

Tao

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

What a curious post. ( I apologise Pathless for responding to this before you but...) Have you ever read what else Pathless writes here? If there is anyone here less likely to object to immigration and internationalism, in the noblest sense of the word, then it is he. I see only a weak and implausible response to climb out from a previously poorly thought out post. You can do better than that Cyberpi!! I hope that your God spares you from your words and does not send too many freeloaders your way.

Tao

You think immigrants coming to America 300+ years ago were more like thieves breaking into the Native American's home to take their land... than the immigrants who come to America today to take a piece of American land? I am comparing immigrants with immigrants, and thieves with thieves. I am speaking against the analogy that cross compares and calls an immigrant a thief.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Here you go snoopy... the ratfish

Ooh thanks, not quite as handsome as a lionfish

s.