Pathological altruism is at the root of the liberal left’s crisis of authority, which we discussed in our May 20 column. The left derives its sense of moral authority from the supposition that its intentions are altruistic and its opponents’ are selfish. That sense of moral superiority makes it easy to justify immoral behavior, like slandering critics of President Obama as racist–or using the power of the Internal Revenue Service to suppress them. It seems entirely plausible that the Internal Revenue Service officials who targeted and harassed conservative groups thought they were doing their patriotic duty. If so, what a perfect example of pathological altruism.
Oakley concludes by noting that “during the twentieth century, tens of millions [of] individuals were killed under despotic regimes that rose to power through appeals to altruism.” An understanding that altruism can produce great evil as well as good is crucial to the defense of human freedom and dignity.
While I agree with some of it, I find there to be a fallacy of division, in assuming that all libertarians supported the actions mentioned in the OP.
Please. I ask conservatives and libertarians for evidence that their ideas will "work" all the time. 99% of the time, they avoid the request and respond instead with some deflection. I also provide my own evidence in defense of or in opposition to conservative and libertarian ideas. 99% of the time, they respond with a deflection. Why? Because they're lazy, uncritical thinkers who just want their way without regard to consequences. They're morons who believe that everybody's "opinions" are equally valid - who refuse to see the difference between an opinion backed by evidence and an opinion backed by nothing but irrationality.
Now, there are plenty of people on the left like this too. This isn't a problem that is exclusive to any part of the political spectrum. It's a problem that is endemic in a country that has a huge problem with critical thinking.
I find this to be very true. The left generally has nothing but the best intentions, they just fail to operate in reality and refuse to contemplate the unintended consequences of their ambitious ideas.
You're getting very abstract to the point where what "works" is entirely dependent on what one is aiming for. I'm talking more specific. For instance, a libertarian who advocates an entirely privatized school system as a solution to the problem of educational inequity never provides evidence that his plan will work - most likely because there is no evidence that his plan will work.While it could be argued that an extreme authoritarian government, China for example, "works", which of us would choose such a regime over one that respects individual liberties?
Freedom works. It might not be perfect, does produce some unhappiness from time to time, but is still preferable to having Big Brother telling us what to do.
So you are saying that the Right has less then the "best intentions" in mind? That's what I see too. Selfishness does not lead to good outcomes.
You're getting very abstract to the point where what "works" is entirely dependent on what one is aiming for. I'm talking more specific. For instance, a libertarian who advocates an entirely privatized school system as a solution to the problem of educational inequity never provides evidence that his plan will work - most likely because there is no evidence that his plan will work.
I find this to be very true. The left generally has nothing but the best intentions, they just fail to operate in reality and refuse to contemplate the unintended consequences of their ambitious ideas.
Well, it's always the "best intentions," but for other people. Liberals can't keep their nose out of other people's business.
So you are saying that the Right has less then the "best intentions" in mind? That's what I see too. Selfishness does not lead to good outcomes.
A driving desire to help people, even if it is misguided, sounds like a much better philosophy than rabid selfishness to me.
No, the republicans have their own issues, for sure.
I just find the left tends to push through ambitious, yet insanely naive legislation without any real concern for the unintended consequences.
Unchecked, the left would take 100% of everyone's wealth, pool it together, then divy it out. Sure, that sounds great in theory. No poor, no rich, everybody has enough, but it just never works out that way.
A government powerful enough to take and do whatever it thinks is best, will soon be doing things it thinks is best but the people find horrifying.
The right is concerned about others also. (They certainly give a lot more to charity than the left!) It's just that their ideas are tempered by the realization that 1) there isn't always a viable solution to a problem. 2) negative consequences have to be considered. 3) efficacy has to be determined and corrections made when needed. Remind a member of the left with some brilliant idea or another of all this and he will usually accuse you of being motivated by selfishness, of not caring, etc., which was the whole point of the idea in the first place -- the sense of moral superiority he gets out of it.
We could have skipped most of LBJs Great Society and poor and minority people would have been much better off in the long run. Their families and cultures would not have been destroyed for one thing. But from that day to this liberals will insist that the important thing was that they meant well.
You're getting very abstract to the point where what "works" is entirely dependent on what one is aiming for. I'm talking more specific. For instance, a libertarian who advocates an entirely privatized school system as a solution to the problem of educational inequity never provides evidence that his plan will work - most likely because there is no evidence that his plan will work.
1. This is incorrect. The vast majority of schools K-12 in Sweden are public. However, private and "free" schools (aka "charter schools") have been growing in the country and been getting a lot of attention. The Swedish school system, though, is not privatized.actually the privatized school system was tried in sweden,and sweden ranks among the best schools in the world,so infact it not only was tried but succesful.
1. This is incorrect. The vast majority of schools K-12 in Sweden are public. However, private and "free" schools (aka "charter schools") have been growing in the country and been getting a lot of attention. The Swedish school system, though, is not privatized.
2. The United States is not Sweden.
In my post, I said "an entirely privatized school system". That's what I meant. Sweden does not have that. Therefore, Sweden is not evidence that such a system works anywhere, let alone the United States.the swedish system is not fully privatised,but the privatised schools are given the same funds as public schools,which shows fully he system can and does work,regaurdless of whether its the us or not.
also the largest advantage of swedens systemis that it gives public schools competition,forcing them to perform better or lose favor in favor of private schools,since in sweden they have a choice of public or private.
In my post, I said "an entirely privatized school system". That's what I meant. Sweden does not have that. Therefore, Sweden is not evidence that such a system works anywhere, let alone the United States.
When people claim that they are acting out of altruism but it may reasonably be foreseen that their actions will hurt rather than help then their altruism is pathological.
Pathological altruism is central to understanding the motivations of the liberal left.
Liberals will often advocate programs on altruistic grounds without even seeming to care whether the programs will do any good or not.
That's nice, but that's irrelevant as it relates to my original comment.but the privatised portion does work quite well,so there is no evidence a purely privatised system wouldnt.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?