Here Peter is first tending towards the mind/body dichotomy fallacy. There is no regulation of a person by his mind, will or self. These are not separate entities; they are merely descriptions of different aspects of the whole individual. So once again, this is voluntary self-regulation rather than anything imposed. However, Peter's last statement is far worse. Humans are not parts of a whole, but rather individual units cooperating with each other for their own ends. The purpose in life of each human can logically only be the highest possible lifetime happiness of his/her (hir) self. The regulation that Peter seeks (and we certainly agree is necessary) arises through each individual discovering and practicing the truly best methods by which to attain the goal of cooperation for mutual benefit. Unfortunately few have been able to discern such optimal human principles and practices, and no one to date has been able to convince enough people to follow them. This is why society continues to flounder.
No. It only appears to do so when one does not apply long-range, wide-viewed thinking to all one's self-interest choices and actions - ie. when one does not fully utilize one's rational faculty. Moreover, the trend of cradle-to-grave exemption of self-responsibility that government welfare and other regulations have created is what inhibits humans from naturally developing and fully utilizing such a rational faculty.
Peter's first part above is shown to be incorrect by his last phrase - "a narrow sense of self-interest", because such "a narrow sense" is not actually self-interest at all as we explained above. The problem with society is not the self-interest of humans (that is a fundamental and necessary motivation of all life), but rather that they do not sufficiently use their most important human faculty - reason.
We think that it is enormously arrogant of anyone to conclude that Smith "forgot to put a vital word" in an important statement. It is more likely that Smith understood, as we have been saying, that rational self-interest includes many actions that will benefit others. The reason for this is very clear; without everyone benefiting at the same time according to the amount of their production of value, neither we nor Peter (nor anyone else) will benefit as much. If there is fully rational self-interest, then there is no need for any such irrational concepts and actions as benevolence and altruism. This is why our motto for fully rational self-interest is "All for one and one for all".
Interestingly Peter begins the above with 3 very important true statements, very much related to what we have been saying in this article. However, "wise regulation" from without is not in any way similar to such self-regulation, and rather than freeing one from tyranny, because it is not voluntarily chosen by the individual, is merely another form of tyranny.
All human evaluations are necessarily individual to each and every human. There is no collective of humans which thinks, evaluates, chooses and acts as does an individual human. The concepts of "common good" and "common will" are anti-concepts that are undefinable for reality and are just as destructive to rational thought and to human society as are the oxymoronic notions of "common property" and "public goods".
Hopefully those who are serious about a better society than that which exists will give some serious thought to the errors we have pointed out above in Peter Michaelson's article - just some of many (often repetitious and self-contradictory), and in conjunction with doing so, will read "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Human Interaction". That essay presents the basis for the paradigm shift in human thinking that is needed to develop a society in which individuals rationally interact to the mutual benefit of the highest lifetime happiness of each.
"Capitalists claim that Smith’s book identifies self-interest as the foundation of rational economics. Conveniently, that claim bestows upon them an idealized self-image and sanctions their exploitation of the poor."
No. It only appears to do so when one does not apply long-range, wide-viewed thinking to all one's self-interest choices and actions - ie. when one does not fully utilize one's rational faculty. Moreover, the trend of cradle-to-grave exemption of self-responsibility that government welfare and other regulations have created is what inhibits humans from naturally developing and fully utilizing such a rational faculty.
"As Lux notes, the importance given to self-interest overlooks the fact that the self-interested individual would logically feel justified in being dishonest, cheating others, and writing loopholes in the law that the biggest rats can squirm through. Embracing short-term profits by overlooking pollution, resource depletion, and global warming also appeals to a narrow sense of self-interest."
Peter's first part above is shown to be incorrect by his last phrase - "a narrow sense of self-interest", because such "a narrow sense" is not actually self-interest at all as we explained above. The problem with society is not the self-interest of humans (that is a fundamental and necessary motivation of all life), but rather that they do not sufficiently use their most important human faculty - reason.
"Lux convincingly demonstrates, as well, that Smith forgot to put a vital word in a much-quoted statement from the Wealth of Nations. That favorite statement of capitalists reads: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner but to their regard to their own self interest.” Lux writes that four sentences in the book immediately preceding that statement make it clear that Smith had in mind to include the word “only,” as in “It is not only from the benevolence . . .” This inclusion dramatically changes the meaning of Smith’s words, and benevolence now becomes a factor in his idea of sound economics."
We think that it is enormously arrogant of anyone to conclude that Smith "forgot to put a vital word" in an important statement. It is more likely that Smith understood, as we have been saying, that rational self-interest includes many actions that will benefit others. The reason for this is very clear; without everyone benefiting at the same time according to the amount of their production of value, neither we nor Peter (nor anyone else) will benefit as much. If there is fully rational self-interest, then there is no need for any such irrational concepts and actions as benevolence and altruism. This is why our motto for fully rational self-interest is "All for one and one for all".
"Self-regulation doesn’t infringe on freedom at all. It bestows more freedom. It frees us from negative emotions and self-defeating behaviors. Similarly, wise regulation of the economic world frees us from the tyranny of the corrupt."
Interestingly Peter begins the above with 3 very important true statements, very much related to what we have been saying in this article. However, "wise regulation" from without is not in any way similar to such self-regulation, and rather than freeing one from tyranny, because it is not voluntarily chosen by the individual, is merely another form of tyranny.
"The common good won’t be enshrined without a common will."
All human evaluations are necessarily individual to each and every human. There is no collective of humans which thinks, evaluates, chooses and acts as does an individual human. The concepts of "common good" and "common will" are anti-concepts that are undefinable for reality and are just as destructive to rational thought and to human society as are the oxymoronic notions of "common property" and "public goods".
Hopefully those who are serious about a better society than that which exists will give some serious thought to the errors we have pointed out above in Peter Michaelson's article - just some of many (often repetitious and self-contradictory), and in conjunction with doing so, will read "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Human Interaction". That essay presents the basis for the paradigm shift in human thinking that is needed to develop a society in which individuals rationally interact to the mutual benefit of the highest lifetime happiness of each.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
