Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kaslin

Altruism is magnificent in theory, but is practically impossible in the real world. This is even understood in Buddhism in the concept of karma, but in the western sense, it could be looked at as a physical truth.

Call it “the capitalism of the universe”, in which if something is given, then something must be returned in some form or another, even if it is just gratitude or recognition of the gift. Credits and debts only end when they are concluded with a zero balance. But such credits and debts create movement in things, so have to be.

I read a good description, a thought problem, of how difficult it is to achieve altruism. It began with the arrival in a small rural town of a wealthy man, who wanted to bestow some of his money on the citizenry. But who to give it to?

At first, he decided to give money to the poor. But the poor had no experience with how to deal with a lot of money, so they quickly wasted it, leaving themselves just as poor as they had been, but also hungover, sick, their families unhappy and angry, and generally miserable.

So he then tried giving money to the wealthy. And while they accepted it, for them it was just marginally important, so they just invested it and forgot about it. It achieved little or nothing.

Then he tried giving it to the town’s middle class people. Small businessmen, mostly. But while they spent some and saved some, they kept doing what they had been doing, and their lives were also pretty much unchanged.

What did change, and in the whole town, was that soon everyone tried to become the wealthy man’s friend, in hopes of getting more money; and became somewhat resentful when he showed no sign of wanting to give more. So they annoyed him a lot, pestered him, tried to bribe or threaten him, and at one point somebody even built a small temple to him hoping to pray themselves some more money.

Eventually he decided to leave town, not appreciating their return on his efforts at altruism. But that was not enough, for they followed him for some distance, telling other towns that he was giving away money. Only with great effort did he finally escape their clutches, so he resolved to not do *that* again.

About the only lasting change was the guy with the temple, who still prays that he comes back someday to give him money. His prayers are not heard, but gives him some solace.

So in the final analysis, the rules of altruism are pretty stiff. That to be a real gift, it must be given without expectation of reward of any kind, even gratitude or recognition of the giver. It cannot be directed to someone with hope that they will do something with it, even that they will keep it and not just throw it away or waste it.

So an anonymous giver and an anonymous receiver.

An altruist must even sacrifice the satisfaction of giving, for that is a reward to oneself for being a “good, altruistic” person.

This is why it is far better to not even try to be altruistic, but instead make a generally fair bargain, an exchange, with no strings attached. This is the “capitalism of the universe” I mentioned. It is easier, simpler, more likely to achieve the desired result, and creates credit and a debt which are then resolved, so things return to balance.


20 posted on 04/27/2012 9:43:18 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("It is already like a government job," he said, "but with goats." -- Iranian goat smuggler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth – the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. ~~The Money Speech.

Your post essentially says the same thing. Altruism or money or “gifts” to people who did not have the mind to build upon it. As where selective charitable acts are often done as the giver observes some value in exchange for the charitable act. And the charity is given in proportion to the perceived value.

Altruism creates the evil kind of greed and selfishness. The kind that not only destroys the giver, but the receiver.

For Rand, it has always bothered me as her idea of self preservation is described as selfishness. I consider the example of Dagney when she first arrived in Galt’s Gulch. While they did tend to her wounds and injuries, she understood she needed to return value for value. Whether it was washing clothes or preparing meals, she knew she could not ‘freeload.’

Another example is during the depression when Mom would pay the lady down the road a dime to do the ironing. Sure Mom could have done that herself or she could have just given the lady the dime, but it was the exchange of the value of work that kept the self respect of all involved.

And so this is why I have such a difficult time with the concept of socialism and even our welfare system or unemployment system. I do view it as inherently evil as it rots the person from the inside and out into the culture.

None of us can make another man wealthy by charity/altruism, wealth is what one must do for himself. The American culture has been looted.

26 posted on 04/28/2012 4:48:53 AM PDT by EBH (God Humbles Nations, Leaders, and Peoples before He uses them for His Purpose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson