A Hobbesian critique of rational self-interest
Posted by jmlesniewski 12 years, 5 months ago to Philosophy
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Your assessment is accurate. In true Hobbesian fashion the author believes the government is the solution not the problem; that we don’t have too much regulation. I read between the lines a bit of uncertainty. This author isn’t certain of her own convictions, she is conflicted. Rightly so, when has true laissez faire capitalism been allowed unencumbered by government to flourish and self correct. There is no proof it can’t work because it has not been tried since the advent of government. Mixed markets are not allowed to self correct. The only regulations that are needed are the ones that force the unscrupulous to pay for their damages, to make restitution.
Her point regarding people acting on their emotional self interest instead of rational self interest is the problem. There is no flaw with rational self interest as the title of the piece implies. There is a problem with people who do not exercise it! People should learn from their mistakes and make better choices. It is not the government’s job to save people from their poor choices. Caveat emptor!
Regards,
O.A.
Yes sir! I have read some Hobbes and some Locke. If I am to choose I will take Locke! I found his Second Treatise on Government and his Letter Concerning Toleration quite illuminating. His first treatise on government was too rambling for me. I felt he should stop beating that dead horse. Hobbes affection for the omnipotent state and social contract requiring government with absolute power is terrifying. Locke, the empiricist, on the other hand while agreeing a social contract of some sort is necessary for civil society insisted that contrary to Hobbes the individual still retains their individual rights regardless of establishment of government! It is the difference between government as master or servant!
Regarding their views of human nature, they were on the same page in stating the principle that people are born tabula rasa, but that is where they began to diverge. Hobbes sacrifices individual sovereignty and thought for the good of the society, whereas Locke retains them for the same reason! Hobbes believed the worst of people, that
they would do whatever they could to get ahead regardless of the harm to others. This means we are all fools and will do whatever, without thought of the damage to others or our own self interest/ our reputation. Locke had a little more faith in the intellect of others. He said “No man’s knowledge here can go beyond his experience.” But he did believe we could learn through experience what was truly in our self interest and co-exist without oppressive governance.
I believe you are well versed on this material, so this entry is probably of more benefit to others.
It is always a pleasure exchanging correspondence with you!
Regards,
O.A.