Self-interest run amok

Ok, let me start with a confession. I am an elderly white male – full of white privilege and very fortunate. I know a bit about self interest. I have it, big time, even when I am not conscious of it.

This self interest, i.e. this primordial concern for one’s own survival, seems to be built into every living species on the planet. If we did not have self interest, we surely would not have survived in a brutally competitive world where others are also motivated by their own self interest.

However, it seems like the self-interest gene has leapt out of control. We in the western world now exalt in our “freedom”! We are distinct, we are different, and we are not afraid to flaunt it – in our clothes, our tattoos, our piercings, our hairdos, in all of our material accoutrements, cars, homes, etc.

In large parts of the world, there are emerging conflicts. As usual, the self interest of one group runs up against that of other groups and conflicts emerge over land resources, mineral rights, food supplies and shelter.

Long ago, I was taught that my “rights” were in jeopardy whenever they ran up against the “rights” of others. Here in Canada, the 1960 the Liberal government under Pierre Elliot Trudeau passed the important “Canadian Bill of Rights”. The intentions then were good. We wanted to ensure that even the less privileged in society would receive the same basic human rights as everyone else. 

However, the process may now have run to its logical conclusion. Now everyone is screaming about their individual rights. The communal glue that previously held people together to strive for the common good seems to have weakened, and the consequences have not been good.

I was recently talking with a friend about what has gone wrong. He asked me, “What do you think that sin is?” I answered that what we used to call sin, that primaeval flaw in human nature, now seems to be “self interest that has run amok”.

Ancient civilizations devised systems to control individual self interest such that society could be held in check. This common glue could be a nation’s common mythological story about its heritage and history. Sometimes it was religious or else another form of communal culture to which all subscribed.

Now, in our time, this common glue seems to be eroding. Several factors are at work here. It could be because of technological change, emerging scientific thought or because of growing affluence that enables us to live beyond common concerns about food and lodging – for the affluent privileged few at least.

Politicians have always appealed to citizens’ self interest. They continue to do so, at least in their words. It is populism. Leaders appeal to people’s basic fears and self-centered needs, even though the end-game may have a much different goal.

If the basic problem in the world is excessive self interest, especially on the part of the powerful and the wealthy, what is to be done about it? 

Well, Marxists have analyzed the state of things and have come up with a solution. According to their analysis, the problem is rampant capitalism. If we can control this, then we should be able to find a solution. But first we must answer these three questions:

- Who is making the money?

- How are they making the money?

- What are they doing with the money?

The Marxist conclusion is that, since maximizing profit is not a good socio-economic goal, we need a new system and a new goal. The new system is communal socialism, where ownership is much more equitably shared. This is to be implemented by the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. In other words, the working class of the people en masse will take control of the system.

Marxist analysis is intriguing. It has much to be said for it so it is a pity that it has not worked out well in practice. Why is this so?

It is true that the present system needs to be changed, or at least radically reformed. New structural systems have been implemented in both Russia and China. They still bear the labels of “communist”, but the present governments in Russia and China do not seem in any way to reflect the Marxist ideal. They are now exhibiting the same ills as the societies they replaced.

The heart of the problem is that although the outer form of the systems seems to have changed, the inner motivations of the people involved did not change. Once in power, excessive self interest of the leaders soon became apparent, proving the old adage: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

This phenomenon is on dramatic display in Africa where corrupt leaders abound. Good leaders are revealed by relinquishing power when their terms have expired (Mandela of South Africa and Nyerere of Tanzania). The good ones have not been driven by excessive self interest, in contrast to the bad who follow their self interested attempts to stay in power forever.

So, there you have it. This characteristic of excessive self interest is at the root of the problem of human existence. Assuming I'm right about this, the answer to our situation will only be resolved by facing this issue head on. But how?

We should know the answer intuitively: It is by adopting a philosophy (or a religion if you are so inclined) with the following qualities:

-       - It will not revert to violent (i.e. military) solutions, except in the most extreme of cases, no matter how tempting it may be to do so.

-       - It will yield power and authority to the common good, over and above one’s own personal desires.

-       This yielding to the common good will ultimately support the redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation. By this means, excessive inequality will be curtailed.

-       Furthermore, enterprise and initiative would be encouraged while a balanced and honest citizenry would use governmental authority to regulate economic behaviour in a fair way.

-       The rock bottom requirement of all of this is:

(1) Free speech, as long as it is not hateful, nor advocating violence

(2) Absolute free and transparent elections with fixed time limits on elected officials along with monetary constraints, and,

(3) Communal authority that rules supreme, not in any tyrannical sense but rather insofar as no small moneyed class is able to gain control.