TheAgitator.com
McCain on Individualism
Wednesday, April 2nd, 2008Beware politicians who demand you aspire to “something greater than yourself:”
Should we claim our rights and leave to others the duty to the ideals that protect them, whatever we gain for ourselves will be of little lasting value. It will build no monuments to virtue, claim no honored place in the memory of posterity, offer no worthy summons to the world. Success, wealth and celebrity gained and kept for private interest is a small thing. It makes us comfortable, eases the material hardships our children will bear, purchases a fleeting regard for our lives, yet not the self-respect that, in the end, matters most. But sacrifice for a cause greater than yourself, and you invest your life with the eminence of that cause, your self-respect assured.
Welcome to national greatness conservatism. If you thought the last eight years were an exercise in wasting tax dollars, blood, and goodwill on grandiose schemes, just wait. It’s gonna’ get worse.
McCain’s “I’m a patriot, not a profiteer” disdain for the private sector is irritating. Capitalism has done more to lift more people out of poverty and destitution and into prosperity than every government program, religious faith, military endeavor, or other cause “greater than oneself” combined. In fact, the latter have probably amounted to a net negative when it comes to the betterment of humanity. And capitalism rests on the premise that people are naturally selfish, and generally act in their own interests. It harnesses self-interest in ways that make everyone better off.
The thing is, “causes greater than yourself” are all full of people who act in their-own self-interest, too. But they operate in a way that pretends that everyone involved in them is altruistic. Consequently, they end up being pretty damned destructive.
I was half expecting McCain to finish with, “Resistance is futile.”
“Success, wealth and celebrity gained and kept for private interest is a small thing. It makes us comfortable, eases the material hardships our children will bear, purchases a fleeting regard for our lives, yet not the self-respect that, in the end, matters most.”
What a complete asshole. Success and wealth gained in the private sector most certainly bring BOTH comfort and self-respect. To suggest that success and wealth in the private sector are not to be respected is absurd. The success and wealth gained by large amounts of productive members of society are what lift up EVERYBODY. Where does he think jobs come from? where does he think capital comes from? who does he think the government steals it’s revenue from?
Radley,
I agree with most of what you say, but it’s not helpful to say that self-interest is harnessed in ways that make everyone better off. That makes you an easy target for collectivist arguments. There literally isn’t anything at all that makes everyone better off, capitalism very much included. I agree that it does more good than any other system, and I think that it’s the only morally defensible economic system, but to say that it genuinely makes “everyone” better off is to deny that there are in fact winners and losers in capitalism, which is self-evident and necessarily true.
But aside from that, right on! Another election completely devoid of anyone who represents even a remotely good option. Wonderful.
I guess McCain’s not a fan of Adam Smith.
People who make lofty declarations about other people’s responsibility to sacrifice for the common good usually have their own good in mind.
#4 Michael Pack
I think McCain is a fan of McCain.
I like Adam Smith’s lines from the Wealth of Nations:
The labour of some of the most respectable orders in the society is,
like that of menial servants, unproductive of any value, and does not fix or realize itself in any permanent subject, or vendible commodity,
which endures after that labour is past, and for which an equal
quantity of labour could afterwards be procured. The sovereign, for
example, with all the officers both of justice and war who serve under
him, the whole army and navy, are unproductive labourers. They are the
servants of the public, and are maintained by a part of the annual
produce of the industry of other people. Their service, how
honourable, how useful, or how necessary soever, produces nothing for
which an equal quantity of service can afterwards be procured. The
protection, security, and defence, of the commonwealth, the effect of
their labour this year, will not purchase its protection, security,
and defence, for the year to come. In the same class must be ranked,
some both of the gravest and most important, and some of the most
frivolous professions; churchmen, lawyers, physicians, men of letters
of all kinds; players, buffoons, musicians, opera-singers,
opera-dancers, etc. The labour of the meanest of these has a certain
value, regulated by the very same principles which regulate that of
every other sort of labour; and that of the noblest and most useful,
produces nothing which could afterwards purchase or procure an equal
quantity of labour. Like the declamation of the actor, the harangue of
the orator, or the tune of the musician, the work of all of them
perishes in the very instant of its production.
Capitalism is the best route to better your life. If you’re not willing to sacrifice to gain a better education so you can get better employment, if you’re not willing to lose sleep because you’re working and going to school, if you’re not willing to sacrifice and examine yourself to change your attitude/thought process/emotions so you can be a better person (which will improve your life, and you only need a good dose of common sense and someone to talk to in order to get this right), if you’re not willing to keep your legs closed so you don’t have children unexpectedly that can make your life far more difficult when you’re not ready for it (children are great, I’m just saying that they make life far more difficult, especially when you’re not emotionally and financially mature), then you DESERVE a lot of the hardships in life that come your way. Maybe not all, there are always exceptions and extenuating circumstances … life is not fair, you don’t get rewards just because you whine loud enough. You CAN get rewards in a democracy (mob rule), which dictates that by having the majority you can steal from others. Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, though.
Is anyone in this race a fan of Adam Smith?
It seems as if our ‘leaders’ admire the example of the French revolution than the American.
how is what mccain said so very different from kennedy’s equally-pompous bleat to “ask what you can do for your country”?
shall we then bash kennedy for also being “pretty damn destructive”? that’s fine with me, since i DO blame kennedy for *lots* of things he usually gets a pass for. i have noticed journalists are much less likely to do that, however.
What does it benefit a man if he gain the whole world and yet lose his soul? — Jesus
Is Kennedy running for president again?
And capitalism rests on the premise that people are naturally selfish, and generally act in their own interests. It harnesses self-interest in ways that make everyone better off.
Since one could very easily argue that the Iraq War was orchestrated by people who were naturally selfish and generally acting in their own interests, isn’t that also a result of capitalism?
#13 thehim said:
No. The natural self-interest that comprises the primary motivation in capitalism is commercial, not governmental. The Iraq war was started by those in government. While their motives may have been self-interest, their use of the government to accomplish their ends is antithetical to Capitalism.
Thehim,
those are defining traits of capitalism. that does not mean that anything with those traits is also capitalism. sort of like if i said birds fly, so if something flies than it is a bird. Airplanes are not birds.
It’s hard to imagine a man so in bed with corporate lobbyists as to have them working on so diligently on his campaign to have anything approaching disdain for ‘the private sector.’ McCain will be just as friendly to the crony corporatist establishment as Bush.
I call bullshit on worldwide buccaneer capitalism doing more to lift people out of poverty or anything else. I doubt the victims of savage capitalism in Chile, Brazil, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, or Iraq would agree. I’m sure that those who’ve been lifted up by the rising tide of Bakuninist capitalism are well and truly outnumbered by corporatism’s victims.
I’m down with you on individual liberties and the overreaching state, but if you believe that those policies of the state that encroach on civil liberties don’t directly and substantially benefit corporatism, or that ‘the private sector’ is somehow opposed to repressive police tactics then you are delusional. After all, Uncle Miltie thought that the government had only three functions: Open new markets through military adventurism, crush dissent at home through capricious and repressive police tactics, and deliver tax luchre to corporate cronies.
Prof.
Prof., Explain to me how oppressive police tactics benefit the private sector.
As stated above, by crushing dissent. Corporatists/Fascists don’t want you questioning the government’s pro-corporate/anti-democratic policies, they want you buying the latest goo-gaw.
Prof.
@14
That’s what I’m driving at. There isn’t a major distinction between wielding power through wealth and wielding power through government. People who become wealthy enough will eventually have the power to essentially become government. There isn’t a big broad line between the two. Most people understand the dangers of allowing those out for profit co-opting the levers of government for their own advantage, but I hardly ever hear anyone articulate how to prevent it within a capitalist system. I tend to think a capitalist system always ends up with things like the Iraq War.
@15
those are defining traits of capitalism. that does not mean that anything with those traits is also capitalism. sort of like if i said birds fly, so if something flies than it is a bird. Airplanes are not birds.
If they are the defining traits of capitalism, then the things that have those traits are capitalism. That’s what “defining traits” are. Flying is not a defining trait of birds, since, as you point out, airplanes also fly.
Wow, that snippet is right out of Eric Hoffer’s analysis of why people join mass movements.
Motherfuckers are always tryin’ to build monuments and shit.
If O’Bama had given that same speech it would be hailed as more evidence that he’s the one candidate that actually cares.
I’m beginning to wonder if some of you aren’t just reflexively anti-miltary to the point where you think every call to duty and honor means someone wants american global domination. Only one problem, that isn’t what he even came close to saying. The duty he’s calling people to is what Radley does for his living.
If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you are disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them.
It’s sad that in explaining to people that “money and fame aren’t everything” and “you’ll be judged by what you do, not what you own” people instinctively jump to the conclusion that he’s an obvious brown-shirt without the funny mustache.
That third paragraph should have been in a quote from the article. My tagging sucks.
I think I’m going to be sick…
You wrote: “The thing is, ’causes greater than yourself’ are all full of people who act in their-own self-interest, too.”
The phrase you are looking for is “doing well by doing good.” It predates Tom Lehrer by years. Just ask any Beltway Bandit or Stink Tanker.
chsw (grew up in and around DC)
What’s a stink tanker?
That would be any member of a think tank that advocates a philosophy different from my own. And if not, then it should be.
Nah, I’m just guessing. It might have nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with chili.
“If O’Bama had given that same speech it would be hailed as more evidence that he’s the one candidate that actually cares.”
Tokin42 is apparently new here.
Tonkin42 said,
“It’s sad that in explaining to people that “money and fame aren’t everything” and “you’ll be judged by what you do, not what you own” people instinctively jump to the conclusion that he’s an obvious brown-shirt without the funny mustache.”
First, McCain didn’t merely say “money and fame aren’t everything.” He said they were a “small thing.” He also specifically mentions easing “the material hardships our children will bear,” as part of that “small thing,” which suggests a troubling attitude towards family love and devotion.
Second, context matters. When I talk about “justice,” I mean one thing; if a socialist uses the term, he probably means something very different. If the libertarian Radley Balko said that anti-discrimination laws are wrong, I would draw a different conclusion about his intent than I would if a guy with a shaved head, sig rune tattoos, and 3,000 posts at the StormFront Message Boards said the same thing.
Likewise, if a local minister raising money for a homeless shelter called on people to sacrifice for something greater than themselves, that has different implications than when a statist, militarist politician running for President says it. In the context of that sort of politics, glorification of self-sacrifice and contempt for private life has a history, and it’s an ugly one.
Thehim said,
“That’s what I’m driving at. There isn’t a major distinction between wielding power through wealth and wielding power through government. People who become wealthy enough will eventually have the power to essentially become government. There isn’t a big broad line between the two. Most people understand the dangers of allowing those out for profit co-opting the levers of government for their own advantage, but I hardly ever hear anyone articulate how to prevent it within a capitalist system.”
Libertarians have said how to prevent it until they’re blue in the face- greatly shrink or eliminate the state, thereby leaving aspiring plutocrats with no levers to co-opt. Sadly, the people who are the most vociferous in condemning plutocratic manipulations of state power are almost always the people who would be most horrified by the idea of actually reducing the state’s reach. Furthermore, libertarian and classical liberal thinkers like F.A. Hayek and James Buchanan have written at length about ideas for constitutional structures less vulnerable to abuse. Your own political ideology may make those solutions unacceptable to you, and that’s fine, but it’s ridiculous to claim that people aren’t offering solutions.
“If they are the defining traits of capitalism, then the things that have those traits are capitalism. That’s what “defining traits” are. Flying is not a defining trait of birds, since, as you point out, airplanes also fly.”
No. Giving birth to live young is one of the defining traits of placental mammals; a species that does not reproduce that way is not a placental mammal, by definition. This does not make kangaroos, scorpions, or hammerhead sharks placental mammals. Autocracy is one of the defining traits of Stalinism, but that does not make Mussolini, Louis XIV, or Diocletian a Stalinist.
At any rate, you are merely playing with semantics. Words have meanings, and “capitalism” does not mean “any system where people generally act in their own self-interest.” That’s true whether you’re using the word “capitalism” to mean a laissez-faire free market or the interventionist mixed economy.
At any rate, you are merely playing with semantics. Words have meanings, and “capitalism” does not mean “any system where people generally act in their own self-interest.” That’s true whether you’re using the word “capitalism” to mean a laissez-faire free market or the interventionist mixed economy.
This was my original point.
Libertarians have said how to prevent it until they’re blue in the face- greatly shrink or eliminate the state, thereby leaving aspiring plutocrats with no levers to co-opt. Sadly, the people who are the most vociferous in condemning plutocratic manipulations of state power are almost always the people who would be most horrified by the idea of actually reducing the state’s reach. Furthermore, libertarian and classical liberal thinkers like F.A. Hayek and James Buchanan have written at length about ideas for constitutional structures less vulnerable to abuse. Your own political ideology may make those solutions unacceptable to you, and that’s fine, but it’s ridiculous to claim that people aren’t offering solutions.
No, I do believe that the answer lies in developing constitutional structures that are less vulnerable to abuse. But I also tend to think that the average self-described libertarian is not walking down that path. Granted, I have not read as much classical liberal philosophy as I should.
“Capitalism has done more to lift more people out of poverty and destitution and into prosperity than every government program, religious faith, military endeavor, or other cause “greater than oneself” combined.” I would argue that capitalism combined with religious faith has done the most good to lift people out of poverty and into prosperity. I’m slightly troubled by your apparent disdain for Christianity, but hey at least you’re right about everything else. One of the major problems I see going forward into the 21st century is that the Christian right has become the Christian left, increasingly advocating government programs to help the poor (particularly as it relates to the problems facing Africa), rather than free trade and philanthropy. Scary times in the 21st century for sure.
[...] of whom do not share McCain’s “national greatness conservatism” (which I distrust almost as much as Rodney Balko does), Barr could emerge as an election tipper. If he were to get 5% of the national vote — and I [...]
John McCain has no authority to talk about greatness. He has no concept of it.
As to sacrificing for a cause greater than myself, there is no cause greater than myself.
He wasn’t addressing his supporters with his calls for sacrifice. He was addressing me. And fuck that God-damned, worthless piece of retarded shit. How fucking God-damned stupid does he think I am to swallow that sanctimonious bullshit?
You want sacrifice? Go suck urself dude. I want the free ride, the limos, the hookers, and the cocaine at taxpayer expense the gop inner circle has been getting these past 8 years.
[...] This is less obviously a “Check” than it seems. During the 20s and 30s, “liberalism” more likely meant what today we’d call libertarianism or individualism (though social liberalism was already beginning). But, still, check. [...]