The Idea of Atruism as an Ideal

What seems to permeate the minds of most Americans today, and the rest of the world, is altruism as the goal. Altruism, for the most part, is accepted as something to be desirably achieved in the life of the world’s populous, and developed towards fellow human beings. It is one aspect of human compassion that can be measured. It culminates its reality in the actions of humans towards others in a number of ways. I will address three of many examples.

Homelessness, as altruistic minded individuals perceive it, is a social decease. At first glance of the problem of homelessness it seems sad to the senses of emotion. To be homeless is an experience that I personally haven’t felt, although there have been times in my life that can be qualified as being close.

The public use of tobacco is another altruistic example of individuals who turn to altruism for the compassionate concern of its consumption, public or private. Those who have expressed concern move in the direction of altruism to call for the end of public consumption of tobacco.

To address a more sensitive subject are the victims, and their personal situations, of hurricane Katrina in the Louisiana and Mississippi delta area. Focusing specifically, the engineering endeavors of the New Orleans dikes that were built along the Mississippi River. It can be understood, by the residents of New Orleans, and the surrounding area, that it was altruistic for the Corp. of Engineers to erect dikes to keep the waters of the river from entering the city.

Homelessness

My question addressing altruism towards the many homeless individuals in the world, and many here in the United States, is really about the application of it. There is no denying that there is a problem with people having difficulty in the arrangement of housing for themselves and their families. How private and public institutions move altruistically in remedying homelessness is where I want to focus my attention. It is one thing for private institutions to move resources into the direction of altruism, but it is quite another for public institutions to move public resources in that direction.

For private entities to act altruistically can do so with ease of financial and resource departments within these institutions has foreknowledge of what it can do. Public institutions that act altruistically do not have the same structure of resources and finance, and therefore do not have the same foreknowledge.

In light of this example there is a difference how altruism is applied to humanity. Private institutions rely on either donations or sales for their income. Public institutions rely on their capability to force the constituency to pay taxes. In this respect those that are in positions of making decisions within public institutions resort to increasing taxes when resources are low when really they should be managing how monetary resources are spent. With this mentality in the forefront decisions are not made with the institution’s existence on the balance.

Tobacco

For many years tobacco has been burned for private consumption, and it has been used as money. Lately, it is looked upon as a public nuisance. Second hand smoke has been demonized due to it being easier to advertise obscurities. To object to the so-called facts and figures rhetoricalized by the liberal left of second hand smoke is a monumental battle. All the anti-smokers have to do is wave signs and the general public doesn’t know the difference.

In this example it is not altruistic to force one section of society into behavioral modification, and to be altruistic to the other. Again, altruism is pacing upon humanity goodness as a whole. How can a particular behavioral pattern of one section of society be cordoned off and be altruistic at the same time.

New Orleans’ Dikes

Years prior to the dikes of New Orleans been erected danger of the Mississippi River flooding the area was well known. At that time it was considered to be altruistic to have the Corp. of Engineers build great walls, dikes, forcing the Mississippi River from entering the city. Now that a hurricane slammed through the area the result was that the dikes were rendered useless. Now the city is useless, and many are homeless. Instead of objectively looking at the idea to cordon off an area sure of flooding as a nonsensical endeavor, altruism was a major factor to kill thousands of people thinking they were safe from the floods.

The idea of being altruistic to others first has to be sure of not harming some for the sake of others.

The Invisible Hand vs. Chaos

The liberal left would like for “the people” to think there is power in numbers (the collective). The “power,” they claim, is for making changes in how society operates, or rather, a better term is what direction society travels (progressivism). In the liberal left’s misguided notion is a progressive direction in which society evolves, and that there will no longer be human inconveniences. The lack of retirement income for the elderly and social health care provisions to name just a few. A long list of liberal left concerns could fill this page.

On the other hand the conservative argument is to leave these “human inconveniences” to the individual that are effected by them. More to the point, those who are effected by life’s realities is more efficient for solving such problems only when society’s political leaders adhere to the principles of freedom.

As in the suggestion in the previous paragraph affords, altruistic ideas or notions, which are derived by the liberal left, always have an element of from whom, or what, these solutions come. If social resources are born out of the philanthropic heart of an individual, the idea of altruism is correct. The liberal left is very quick to bloviate the same philanthropic thread that comes from their collective heart.

The problem with this kind of false notion of altruism (collectivism) is that the collective concern for solving human inconveniences is empty of real social resources. This can be put into perspective by the following: my friends and I can come together to discuss our collective concern for dog owners to have an area for their pets to run free without the city leash ordinances applying. A suggestion is to have the city provide, through the park system, a plot of land. This solution was not altruistic and philanthropic. The plot of land did not come from my friend’s resources. The real resources that had to be fulfilled must come from somewhere. It came from another source, the public’s government. It would have been altruistic for an individual, hearing of the concern of my friends, and donated a plot of land.

This story can be analogous to a robber pointing a gun at a victim wanting cash. The resources that the robber was wanting had to come from somewhere else other then the robber. The robber most inevitably was in dire straight, to solve his inconvenience would have been better solved by obtaining a job; any job.

The invisible hand works within individual circumstances to solve social ills. The power of individual freedom, the conservatives argue, is better served when it is applied in this manner. The liberal left brushes this notion away by citing it as being chaos. The liberal left notion of altruism and philanthropy is dictatorial fascism, and progresses in the direction of elimination of individual freedom. In the end it is chaos for the real individual philanthropists.

Power in the hands of a collective in the name of altruism is dictatorial fascism. Power in the hands of a few individuals with resources for philanthropic endeavors is freedom. It is this “power” the liberal left desires in their hands is the argument.

For a post-script thought is that why is it that throughout human history evil doers always seem to harbor the need to control the good, and redefines the notion of control as being “good.” Chaos vs. the invisible hand places in whose hand the notion of what is good. The collectivist, i.e., the liberal left, argument is the need for power (the source of evil) on their side vs. the individual freedom (good) should always reside.