OBS! Denna textfil ingår i ett arkiv som är dedikerat att bevara svensk undergroundkultur, med målsättningen att vara så heltäckande som möjligt. Flashback kan inte garantera att innehållet är korrekt, användbart eller baserat på fakta, och är inte heller ansvariga för eventuella skador som uppstår från användning av informationen.
### ###
### ###
### #### ### ### ### ####
### ### ##### ### ###
### ### ### ### ###
### ### ##### ### ###
########## ### ### ##########
### ###
### ###
Underground eXperts United
Presents...
####### ## ## ####### # # ####### ####### #######
## ## ## ## ##### ## ## ##
#### ## ## #### # # ####### ####### #######
## ## ## ## ##### ## ## ## ##
## ## ####### ####### # # ####### ####### #######
[ A Cooperative Society ] [ By Leon Felkins ]
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Leon Felkins
First Serial Rights
A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY COMPOSED OF SELFISH INDIVIDUALS
A DISASTER IN THE MAKING
by
Leon Felkins
(leonf@ios.com)
SUMMARY
This essay makes some challenging and somewhat
uncomfortable statements about the behavior of individuals in
groups. In particular, these statements claim that current
efforts to make for a more "social" society are doomed. While a
social group, such as ants, can exist in peace and prosperity
if their genes dictate social behavior, animals that are
genetically predisposed to act individually selfish can never
be successfully socialized.
An important phenomena is at work here that is not usually
addressed in articles on human social problems: For any
particular action, an individual's immediate best interests are
usually at odds with the long term interests that he or she
would accrue from being a member of the group. Further, the
individual typically receives the benefits of the group whether
he or she participates in the action that generates the
benefits or not. This phenomena is often referred to as "The
Voter's Paradox" or "The Volunteer's Paradox". Logical
philosophers claim that it is a form of "The Prisoner's
Dilemma", a much studied phenomena in which the output is not
"zero-sum". If this phenomena actually exists - and no one has
been able to show that it does not - it dooms the efforts of
those who would socialize our society. Several examples
illustrating this phenomena are given.
Our leaders have successfully instilled in the minds of
many in our society the desire to act in the group's best
interest - which they do, at least part of the time.
Unfortunately many members still act selfishly and cannot be
convinced to act otherwise.
Finally, the article shows that we are "programmed" to
take certain actions to change or correct societal ills. These
are mostly useless. For example, voting. While we are taught to
use the vote to correct our problems, the article shows that an
individual will find that his or her vote is absolutely
useless. If change is desired, something much more powerful
than a vote must be used. Practically, the individual can do
nothing to correct the oppressions of the government without
making heroic sacrifices that have little chance of success.
_________________________________________________________________________
A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY COMPOSED OF SELFISH INDIVIDUALS
A DISASTER IN THE MAKING
Society in the USA and many other countries is going
though the stress and chaos of changing from individualistic
driven behavior to socialistic driven behavior which appears
to have started gaining momentum during or just before World
War II. At the same time, we are witnessing an unprecedented
increase in social problems, particularly crime and
dependency on welfare. Although it is rarely carefully and
seriously discussed, it seems evident that the majority of
the people in these countries favor a more socialistic
society. Actually, they been sold the benefits of socialism
and have not been fully informed of the costs. The purpose
of this essay is to examine the consequences to the
individual in a society that cannot seem to decide whether
it wants to be eagles or ants.
There is much ringing of hands and heated exchanges
over the massive crime, health, and welfare problems we
have. Both liberals and conservatives keep babbling that if
"we would only do right", "care more for each other",
"follow traditional family values", etc., etc., our problems
would all be solved. Unfortunately, that is all a bunch of
nonsense - as I will try to show.
To do that, I must take a realistic and, some would
say, hard view of society and its mores. I am aware that
this is not a popular approach in our time, but I would say
that unless the reader can show that an alternate approach
is better, then he or she should hear me out.
The actions we take as we struggle through each day,
tend to be driven by either self interestor group interest.
According to scientists, while our genes would have us
always look after our own self interest, we can be taught to
look after the interests of the group we belong to.1 For the
most part, members of the animal kingdom are always acting
selfishly. But there are exceptions. The ants, wasps and
bees - the "social insects" seem to act for the group's best
interest rather than the individual's interests. In
particular, soldier ants routinely sacrifice their lives to
save the colony. It is hard to see how this could be
anything but promoting the welfare of the group over the
individual.
What about humans? Do we humans generally act as
individuals (like eagles) or do we act as members of a large
organism (like ants)? That is, are we motivated to look
after the best interests of the society we belong to or do
we just try to look after our own best interests? The answer
has to be "both", since we do not just follow our instincts
but also are motivated by what we have learned. This paper
will examine some of the difficulties that result from the
confusion and conflict between looking after the interests
of the self and looking after the interests of the group.
Let me summarize some of the ideas that this article
will explore:
1. For a given situation, the actions taken by an
individual are likely to be quite different based on
whether the individual is acting to promote the best
interests of the group or the individual.
2. A relationship or correlation between the
individual's interest and the group's interest doe not
necessarily exist. That is, a given action may benefit
the individual or the group or both or neither.
3. While we are instinctively selfish, throughout
our lives we are daily taught to think and act to
maximize the welfare of the group - a source of much
confusion and grief in today's society.
4. Since selfishness is genetic, you can count on
everyone acting selfishly. On the other hand,
altruistic behavior is learned and therefore will be
more sporadic in application since some people are more
susceptible to teaching than others.
5. Once the group has decided to act like ants, an
individual that tries to act like an eagle is subject
to getting his/her wings clipped severely.
Many would say that the third statement describes an
approach to life, maximizing the welfare of the group, that
could be quite beneficial for everyone. Our selfish
instincts are moderated by some learned concepts that make
life nicer and more pleasant for everyone. Unfortunately,
this approach appears to have some surprisingly troublesome
and possibly unsolvable problems associated with it. Still
the leaders of society apparently feel that the approach of
restraining instinctive actions and augmenting them with
concepts that are good for the group is the best approach to
general happiness. In spite of much evidence to the
contrary, they have been quite successful in promoting this
concept.
So, while we may be born selfish, we are brought into
line by society and are taught to conform and to act like so
many ants in an anthill. Strangely many people, while
thinking and acting like ants, still proclaim to be
individualists! I am continually amazed and puzzled by the
popularity of movies and books, in which the hero is an
individualist, by people who in their own lives blindly and
meekly follow the dictates of what is best for the group.
Group Behavior Vs Individual Behavior
When we proceed with some activity that costs us time,
money or other resources, we expect to get some return.
Depending on the action, that return could be to me directly
(like planting my own garden) or indirectly just from being
a member of the group (like voting). When we take an action
that we (or possibly our close friends and family) directly
benefit from, it is easy to assess the benefit to cost
ratio. But when we do something for the collective group -
in which we will benefit from as a group member - the
situation is much more complicated.
It would seem reasonable to wonder how the benefits
derived from being a member of the group compare to the cost
to the individual making the contribution? Not so good it
seems, most of the time. Of course, there are some actions
that promote the individual's self interest that can also be
good for the group (like letting the community help
themselves to the vegetables in my garden).
Another complication that really should be mentioned is
that whether an action is selfish or altruistic is often
confused by hidden motives or interests. For example, while
it may appear that the politician is trying to help us by
sending some "pork" our way, he most likely is being
motivated by self interest.
In any case, it seems that we have to chose between
acting to help ourselves or to help the society we belong
to. It is usually one or the other.
To illustrate some of these complications I will
provide an example or two:
Suppose the leaders of society say that we should
quit buying products made in China as they are alleged
to use slave labor there. We will look at this from the
two perspectives that are under study here. We must do
so very precisely and we must not mix the two.
The GROUP VIEW:
We look at the situation from the point of view
of maximizing the "good" to society.
If China is employing slave labor and if all of
society quits buying the product, they will most
likely cease the practice, resulting in a better
society (since slave labor is considered to be of
more harm than the good that comes from having cheap
products).
As a member of society, I would benefit from
this embargo on their products.
The INDIVIDUAL VIEW:
I need a certain product - let us say a new
electric drill. I can buy one made in China for
$30.00, that otherwise might cost $50. This is a
significant direct benefit to me.
But some will say, that since I am a member of
the world society, I, along with the rest of the
world will suffer from this purchase. Not so. There
will be no significant impact on the situation of
the slaves in China, from my action! My action of
buying or not buying is just too insignificant and
slavery will continue or cease regardless of what I
do.
Many more similar examples could be presented. This
apparent paradox, in which the cost of a given action to an
individual can be considerable and yet have no significant
impact on the benefits accrued to the individual from being
a member of the group is called the "Voter's Paradox" by
philosophers. It has been a perplexing problem to some of
our greatest thinkers. It seems to have no solution.2
If you are still not convinced of the dichotomy of the
individual's interest vs. the group's interest, try this
simple thought experiment: Suppose you belong to a group
that makes large monetary investments which return a 2 to 1
gain over the amount invested. The contributions are
voluntary while the reward is distributed equally. Suppose
there are 100 members and you contribute $1000. As a member,
like everyone else, you will get a reward of $20 ($1000 X 2
/ 100). As an individual, you will be out $1000, leaving you
a net of $980. Thinking like an individual, you must
conclude that this action, while good for the group, is bad
for the individual. In fact, this is true for most
"contributions" that you daily make to society - especially
in the form taxes.
It should be emphasized that my interests and society's
interests typically have essentially no connection. For a
given situation, the impact on society and the individual is
often complex, requiring careful examination to determine
the outcome.
It is paradoxical that there are situations in which
certain behavior improves the lot of all members of society
but the particular individual can reap even better rewards
if the rest of society follows that certain behavior while
he or she takes a different route! An example is the case
where everyone is honest but me. I get the benefits of the
trust resulting from people being honest but can reap far
greater benefits by taking advantage of that trust and being
dishonest. That is known as the "freerider" problem.
See the references in the notes if you would like to
examine this fascinating paradox further. What I would like
to concentrate on here is the phenomena of the individual
blindly following "what is best for society" rather than
"what is best for him or her". That is, should we think and
act like an ant or like a eagle?
Ant-like Vs Eagle-like Behavior: Examples
The soldier ant calmly and willingly goes to its death
to defend the colony. The eagle does not. Most of the
members of the animal kingdom seem to be driven by
individual selfishness even though the actions taken are
often beneficial to the group as a whole. The interested
reader can follow this subject in more detail in books and
articles on evolution by Dawkins and others.3
Humans use both approaches with some success and some
failures. There are many examples of our behavior that show
that we humans do sacrifice as individuals to promote the
best interests of the group. It is apparent that our leaders
have been very successful in teaching us to act as a group
when our genes tell us look after our own best interests.
Some examples of successful social (ant-like) behavior
of humans:
1. Military combat duty
Most people, when called to serve, will go to
their deaths in a war action that they do not
understand or have not investigated its validity. They
pay with their deaths for something that often is only
serving the ambitions of a few politicians or the
hysteria of a mis-informed public.
2. Welfare programs
We contribute greatly to programs that we
personally get little or no return from.
3. For the most part, we don't steal and lie even
if we could get away with it.
4. We fund schools, art, culture, etc. at great
expense where the benefits are poor compared to what we
could do with the investment for ourselves.
Many more examples of group behavior could be
presented. Of course, some group behavior is good and some
is bad (and we are not likely to agree on which is which!).
Examples of individualistic (eagle-like) behavior
overriding group (ant-like) behavior:
1. Reduction of the National Debt
It ain't going to happen. Why? Because my
community, as represented by my community's
politicians, will thwart your attempts to cut back on
expenditures that are beneficial to us. Each community
is acting like an individual in this case and looking
after the community's interest rather than the nation
as a group.
2. Government waste
When a government employee wastes money, we all
lose - including the individual doing the wasteful
spending. After all, he/she pays taxes too.
Unfortunately, the cost of his/her taxes is
insignificant to the rewards he/she gets directly for
the wasteful spending.
3. Stock Market
Obviously a game of self interest. What profit you
make, other people are losing and vice versa.
4. Sex
Usually motivated by self interests. It is not
always clear that the rules for sexual activity that
limit self interest are really in the best interests of
the group, however.
5. Medical
While it is true that I would like for health
costs of the group to be reduced, when I am sick I
would like the best care that the group can afford - if
you don't mind.
As with the examples of group interest behavior, there
are examples of both good and bad for self-interest
behavior. Scientists and philosophers say that we are
naturally motivated by self behavior and that looking after
the group's interest has to be learned. Unfortunately, much
danger lies in the teaching.
How we are Taught to Think and Act like Ants
Our social leaders (church, schools, politics, the
press, etc.) recognize the value of having each individual
act in such a way as to benefit the group as a whole. As
mentioned above, it would be of great benefit to all the
members of society if the members were honest, did not
steal, etc. Unfortunately, it is all too obvious to most
individuals over three days old that it is easy to take
advantage of this situation - by being dishonest - with
potentially great personal rewards. Our leaders recognize
this and try to convince or deceive the individuals into
thinking and acting in ways that make society better for
everyone (or at least, better for the leaders).
But it is extremely difficult to pull this off. Every
youngster knows that there are immediate and direct rewards
for lying. While she may realize that in the long run it
would be good if we all could trust each other, she is about
to get severe punishment if she admits that she skipped
school and spent the day partying with her friends.
So what do the leaders do about this paradox?
The political officials try to counter "aberrant" (not
good for the group) behavior by threat of punishment. As the
situation stands before outside interference, if no one
steals property we would all be better off but there is a
great temptation to the individual to steal since he or she
would benefit greatly. This can be countered somewhat by
imposing the threat of potential punishment for the person
that gets caught. Now the rational individual has to weigh
the rewards of the theft against the possibility of being
caught and punished - which could greatly exceed the value
of the theft.
There are a couple of problems that diminish the
success of this approach. One is that it is a fact proven by
research that people have a difficult time rationally
assessing probabilities. While direct response is easy to
assess, the chance that something may happen, no matter how
good or bad, is not assessed very well by most people.
People still have sex with strangers even though there is a
chance of contracting the deadly AIDS disease or getting
shot by a jealous husband. On the other hand a person will
usually be inhibited if there is obviously an immediate
minor consequence - such as getting punched in the nose.
Another problem is that knowledgeable people are more
skeptical of the effectiveness of crime control methods than
the ignorant. While in the past, the mass of individuals
might easily be deceived into believing that law enforcement
was all-wise and powerful, the majority of individuals,
being better educated, are now somewhat cynical about the
whole business.
The church leaders try to solve the problem by the
simple and effective technique of convincing folks that even
though you may pull off your theft or lie undetected, you
can't hide from God. We are taught that HE is always
watching us. Great idea, but unfortunately does not work on
those that are not into religion and, again, is much less
effective on educated and knowledgeable people.
Another effective tool that the church and others use
is to convince the individual to feel guilty when they
violate a rule. This extremely effective tool has been
picked up on by the more "liberal" members of our society
and used with great success. That this method of using guilt
to control can get out of hand is easily observed at the
universities trying to outdo each other with "political
correctness".
The press and the educational establishment use all of
the above to help control aberrant behavior but primarily
use the last one, the "control by strings of guilt".
Without reference to religion, we are daily bombarded by the
concept that it is "wrong" to steal, lie or to have
unapproved sex. The success of this approach is obvious as
most individuals do feel guilty if they commit such acts
even if they don't know why and are not religious.
So, our educational, political and church leaders
constantly try to pound into our psychological makeup that
"we should not steal or lie", "we should not have improper
sex", "we should be fair to each other", " we should share
our good fortune with the less fortunate", "we should not
have a second thought about sacrificing our lives to a war
that may only exist to further some politician's career",
"we should not indulge in unapproved drugs or alcohol", "we
should not break the speed limit", etc., etc.
Without passing judgment on whether any of this is
"right" or "wrong" (much of it clearly benefits society), it
is obvious that the methods for implementing "group think"
have had significant success with the mass of our society.
Unfortunately, these methods do not work on a significant
portion of the members of our society - to our great expense
and aggravation.
Further, we should recognize that while these methods
may generally work for the good of society, these same tools
may also be applied to encourage actions that may not be in
our best interests. Examples already given hint at this: eg,
while it is good for society to convince everyone not to
steal, it is bad for society to have people go to war to get
maimed or killed just to further the ambitions of
politicians.
Predicting Group Behavior
It seems obvious that predicting what a group does is
simply the act of predicting what the individuals in the
group do. That is, group behavior follows from what the
individual action. Well, it may be obvious but it is
apparent that a lot of folks - particularly our leaders -
tend to think in terms of making the "group" do the right
thing. It does not and will not work!
If you want the group to act in a certain fashion, you
must provide incentive for the individuals in the group to
act in the desired fashion. Government employees are going
to continue to waste, goof off and spend us into oblivion
unless we provide incentive for the individuals in the
government to act otherwise. Education is going to continue
to go to hell unless we can make it attractive for the
individuals involved in education (educators, students,
parents - at least) to act otherwise. Crime is going to
continue to increase unless we find some way to make it
attractive for the police, the judges, the criminals to want
to personally contribute to the elimination of crime.
Universities are going to continue to turn out politically
active but work-avoiding air heads if we can't come up with
a way to make the professors, the administration, and the
students personally want to correct that situation.
For example, how do we stop excessive waste and
spending by our government? At the present time, government
employees in management positions are rewarded for spending.
There is no real reward for not spending. Government
employees frantically search for ways to spend money at the
end of the fiscal year so they will not be in the
embarrassing position of not spending all their budget. It
is very important to realize that they do that because they
are rewarded for spending. You can moan and rant all you
want to at this mythological thing called government but
nothing will happen until you direct your attention to the
individuals that make up the government.
And so on for all the rest of the groups mentioned.
So, the rewards and/or punishments must be directed to
the individual rather than the group. It will do no good to
make a law that requires "congress" to stay within the
limits of a specified national debt. But providing
incentives to the members of congress to reduce their
personal spending would work. Of course, that is not easy,
but who said it was going to be. It just happens to be the
only solution. It will do no good to rant at the general
population that they ought to have "family values", but it
might help if the individuals in these families were
rewarded for following these values (whatever they may be?)
If you want to correct such ills as the Savings and Loan
mess then make sure there is not an incentive to the
managers of these institutions to spend other peoples money
recklessly. And so on.
The Myth that You can do Something about it
While the leaders have successfully indoctrinated most
of us into looking out for the group, one of the confusing
myths constantly promoted and readily consumed by our
society (which may be part of the overall strategy to keep
us "playing the game", I suppose), is that you are a free
individual and if things are not to your liking, you can do
something about it. Not really.
The fact is, the individual can do no more to change a
burdensome societal ill in a social democracy than he/she
can in a dictatorship. Sadly, in some ways, the situation is
worse in a democracy, because in a dictatorship you know you
can do nothing, but in a free society you are deceived into
thinking you can do something. Practically, you cannot.
From discussions on this topic I have had with my
friends, I have come to realize that this is a difficult
concept to follow. The following arguments are easier to
understand if examined in terms of the impact on an
individual rather than the impact on society.
Imagine yourself as the victim of a robbery and not
just a member of a group that has a certain average number
of robberies per month. Passing a harsher crime law (maybe,
by eliminating a few more rights) may reduce the statistical
parameter, "number of robberies per month", but does nothing
to alleviate your suffering, the person that just got
robbed. That is what we are trying to focus on here - the
individual's plight - not the statistics for the group.
Examples? Here are a few:
1. What can you do about the Forfeiture laws
passed a few years ago that apparently are in violation
of the Bill of Rights? More specifically, what could
you do if you were the victim of the application of
these laws? Very little. There are many who have lost
all they own to this scam and I'm sure that if they
could do anything about it, they would. As far as
changing the laws, you, the individual, could just as
easily change the courses of events in the former
Yugoslavia.
2. What could you do if you were called to fight
in another "Vietnam" type war?
3. What can you do if your community decides by
majority vote to raise taxes 50% to pay for building a
home for the "motivationally impaired" citizens? Or
worse, establish a law to allow taking of property of
those that "motivationally excel" to be distributed
among the "motivationally impaired" (and their agents,
of course!).
4. What can you do about it if you own an abortion
clinic and your clinic and your home is constantly
under harassment by a bunch of anti-abortion
extremists?
5. What can you do about it if your community
chooses to give "equal time" to the religious view of
creationism and have the textbooks modified to that
effect? Taking your children out of school doesn't
completely solve the problem, you surely realize.
The fact is you can do essentially nothing to change
some dictate from the government, be it federal or local,
that is impacting your personal life whether you live in a
democracy or a dictatorship.
A comparable falacy is the idea that your local
highschool basketball team can win the state tournament if
"they will only try hard enough". What if every team "tries
hard enough"? Apparently trying hard cannot insure success.
Think about it. What can you do if society decides to
allow seizure of property from individuals "suspected" of a
crime - without a trial? What can you do about it if the
government decides to turn deadly criminals loose because of
"inhumane" treatment that is provided by overcrowded jails?
Zilch! And just like the example of the highschool
basketball tournament, even heroic effort is likely to fail.
If you think you can correct any of the many
oppressions of the government, I would be interested in
hearing the details. Yes, I am aware that there are some
instances of some individuals, with great personal sacrifice
and expense, successfully correcting a societal ill. The
odds of success are about the same as winning the lottery -
which certainly does happen, but I wouldn't stake my life on
it.
One more example, examined in some detail:
I don't like paying taxes to support those citizens hit
by a natural disaster (actually, I don't like any compulsory
"charity"). Folks in Oakland, California hit by earthquake
or fire should take care of their own problems - in my view.
You may not agree - but nevertheless, allow me to express my
views just for the purpose of providing an example.
As far as I am concerned, where you live (at least when
you become an adult) is a matter of your own choosing. Risks
from natural disasters are fairly well known for every area
and I assume the people living in each area have taken them
into consideration. Being a conservative about such things,
I chose not to risk the welfare of myself and my family by
living in these high risk areas. The tradeoff, of course, is
that the area I have chosen to live in is not nearly as
exciting and beautiful as the San Francisco Bay area.
Nevertheless, that's my choice.
On the other hand I might change that choice if all of
you generous taxpayeres guarantee to compensate me for any
natural disasters I might be subjected to. I might just
start living the good life in Oakland instead of the
healthy, relatively hazard free, but sometimes dull life in
Fayetteville, Tennessee!
You may not wish to make that offer, but the federal
government has gladly done just that. As you know, for the
most insignificant of disasters, the Feds now rush in with
piles of money for the natives with much political fanfare.
It is an opportunity for vote buying that will have little
opposition from the press or the rest of the country. Only
the most crass and cruel person would object to the
government giving money to someone who just had their home
blown away. In any case, the Feds forcibly take money from
me and send it to the saps in San Francisco and I have
absolutely no choice about it.4
Sure, I could protest. Sure, I could vote against it
(not sure how). Sure I could write letters to newspapers -
write my congressman - vote for a different politician -
etc. But would any of that really do anything?
No, none of these personal activities have any
significant effect. If there is general support for such
channeling of tax money to those who live in high risk
areas, but I disagree with it, my desires will go unheeded.
But what if I refuse to pay? Simple, I spend my life in
jail! In fact, to take any significant action to thwart this
oppression would destroy my life style. And with little
chance of success of correcting the problem.
A rational person must conclude that I can do no more
about it that I can if a ruthless thug is holding a gun to
my head demanding by wallet.
One more thing: one of the biggest myths promoted by
all those in power is that if I don't like something to
correct it, all I have to do is vote. Crap! There is nothing
more certain in this world than the fact that my vote
absolutely and positively will have no effect! While I might
be successful (but not likely) in convincing others to vote
in massive quantities to correct a bad law, my individual
vote will do nothing.5 Except to make me feel complacent -
if I understand what most people are saying.
It is a farce to say that you can't complain about law
X if you didn't vote in the election (for or against
politician Y). First off your vote didn't count - the
politician would have been elected with or without your
vote. Second, what she does after election is not under your
control. If she is honest, she would go by the majority
(this is a democracy, supposedly). If she is less than
honest, she will go by whoever screams the loudest, hurts
the most, helps the most, pays the most, or whatever. Unless
you have complete control of one or more of those things,
you, the individual, can forget it.
Conclusions
What is to be made of all this? If nothing can be done
about it what is the value of recognizing these facts?
First, I believe that an informed life is a better life.
While a case can be made that living in this world can be
enhanced by remaining ignorant, I personally do not care to
live under delusions and to blindly follow myths. I
recognize that there are arguments for living a life in
which reality is greatly augmented by the imagination and
wishful thinking. But that is not for some of us. I think
that keeping "the rose colored glasses" on all the time can
lead to great harm in the long run. The best example I can
think of is the situation of Germany that lead up to World
War II and the attempted extermination of the Jews. Many
Germans wore the rose colored glasses right up the instant
that all hell started falling from the sky's.
Basically, it appears that the leaders of our society
have convinced a large portion of our society to act in
society's interest rather than their own. Unfortunately
there are many that continue to act in their own self
interest, which includes taking advantage of the fact that
others are being altruistic. This flaw is catastrophic to
the concept of a benevolent society optimized for the
benefit of all members. This single fact accounts for the
major troubles we have: crime in the streets, massive
welfare, massive blood-sucking government, a national debt
that will grow until we collapse, continued loss of
constitutionally guaranteed rights, breakdown in education,
and on and on.
It is important to realize that this sorry situation
results from both groups - the group that tries to do right
and tries to help all of society and the group that looks
after its own interests. If either group went away, the
current mess would go away. Think about it.
It is not productive to think in terms of making a
group "do the right thing". If you want the group to do the
right thing, then make sure there are incentives to the
individuals in the group to do the right thing. To do that
you must carefully analyze what it is that motivates the
individuals in this group. Or, simply go ask them.
As an individual, we can do little about correcting the
oppressiveness of government. But if we think like an
individual rather than a statistical member of a group, we
are likely to take actions to minimize the impact of this
oppressiveness on us personally. For example, we can try to
minimize the taxes we pay. We can chose to live in an area
in which crime and government oppression are minimal. We can
try to be responsible for our own defense and protection.
We can even try to take advantage of the system, where
possible, if I may be so crass to suggest. We can use the
system against them. We can make use of the free medical
care and welfare rather than contribute to it. A good
example of this is the situation of the farmers. While at
one time they were fiercely independent and self reliant and
greatly opposed government interference with their business,
they now take advantage of every government program they can
(known as "farming Washington"). Which of course is a form
of welfare. Maybe we should all take this approach.
The secret is to always think in terms of your benefit
both as an individual and as a member of society. While what
happens statistically to the group is of interest, what
happens to you is a serious personal matter. Don't confuse
the two.
_______________________________
1See Dawkins, Richard; The Selfish Gene; (1989; Oxford
University Press )- Page 3. Note that an action that is
based on self-interest but is also beneficial to the group
is also a possibility. But is certainly not guaranteed - as
some would have - nor excluded - as others would have. The
selfishness of some individuals in the marketplace provide
the rest of us with lots of fancy but cheap worldly goods,
for example.
2For more information on this, you may want to consult
the book by William Poundstone, Prisoner's Dilemma, (1992,
Doubleday).
3Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
4Recently, on Public Radio, I heard an interview with
some top government bureaucrat in which it was strongly
suggested that there are no safe places to live in the
country. Apparently this was a bit of propaganda to assure
the rest of us living in "safe" places, getting a little
uneasy sending all this money to the risky places, that all
is fair and we will eventually get ours. This fits with the
other well known piece of propaganda that "we are all
created equal".
5This apparent paradox was examined in some detail in
"The Common Good and the Voter's Paradox", IDEAS, August
1992 by Leon Felkins and Mack Tanner.
[Please send comments (if any) to the author at leonf@ios.com]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
uXu #226 Underground eXperts United 1994 uXu #226
Call SECRET TECTONICS -> +49-40-823326
---------------------------------------------------------------------------