The Artful Dilettante is a native of Pittsburgh, PA, and a graduate of Penn State University. He is a lover of liberty and a lifelong and passionate student of the same. He is voracious reader of books on the Enlightenment and the American colonial and revolutionary periods. He is a student of libertarian and Objectivist philosophies. He collects revolutionary war and period currency, books, and newspapers. He is married and the father of one teenage son. He is kind, witty, generous to a fault, and unjustifiably proud of himself. He is the life of the party and an unparalleled raconteur.
But before we investigate this issue, keep in mind that clear definitions are critical in evaluating statements about the morality of self-interest and altruism. This is especially critical here because both concepts have more than one definition.
One definition of self-interest, selfishness, or egoism is mindless emotionalism. You should do anything you feel like doing. But doing what you want, if based on mindless emotion devoid of reason and ethics is, harmful. Taking illicit drugs could kill you. Smoking will take many years off your life. Rejecting education makes you unemployable. Committing crime may put you in prison. Spending money mindlessly can leave you bankrupt. Treating your partner cruelly can end your chance for romantic happiness. Lying can destroy all your friendships. Conforming blindly to popular opinion leads to other people controlling your life.
In contrast, rational egoism requires thinking about what is actually good for you, including respecting the rights of others. You need to think, for example, about what is good for you to eat and drink. It is in your self-interest to get educated and to develop work skills that will bring you success in your job and career. Being honest in all your relationships leads to you being trusted. Rejecting crime means staying free to act. Romance includes voluntary and honest economic cooperation and spiritual (conscious) exchange between people—mutual enjoyment of each other “you and me together”. In this way, self-interest is moral. It means that you are acting in accordance with what is actually good for you and you would want others to do the same.
Now consider altruism. The original meaning of altruism is “other-ism.” Under this philosophy, you have no rights, no personal values, and no self. You exist only to serve. You are nothing.
But the term is also used, in contradiction to its original meaning, in another way: to refer to helping and supporting others whom you selfishly love or care about, such as your romantic partner and children. You might give money to your children or grandchildren so that they can attend college. You might donate to charities whose goals you support because you can afford the time and money because you take pleasure in seeing the charity fulfill a mission you personally support. True altruism, in contrast, would be serving others whom you do not like or giving donations you cannot afford or to a cause for which you have no interest. Better yet, it would mean sacrificing as a duty to a person or cause that you despise. Worst of all, it would mean, in the name of morality, marrying someone you do not even like out of pity. To be consistent, the sacrifices would have to go down the line. The person who first received your sacrifice would be selfish to accept it so they would have to give it to someone even more needy and so on until everyone in the world was unhappy down to the last miserable person on earth. No one could live this way.
What about police officers and soldiers who risk their lives every day to protect our rights? Are they altruists? The key to answering this question is to ask another question: Do they personally love this work? Does it have personal meaning? Not everyone wants to be a police officer or soldier, but for some people, that is a personally important job. These people enjoy and love protecting their city or country. They are proud of their role and admire the values their city or country stands for. They are, in fact, acting in their own self-interest if helping others involves a personal value (i.e., freedom).
Rational self-interest is good, including when used to help others whom you value, but true altruism (as opposed to helping valued others) works against human life and happiness. (For a deeper look at the virtue of self-interest, see Objectivism The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leoanrd Peikoff, 1991).
Hong Kong and mainland China national flags stand together with copy space. Nation symbol, countries political conflict concept
On midnight July 1, 1997 a century and a half of British colonial dominion was brought to an end with the handover of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China (hereafter PRC). This was in accordance with the 1984 Sino-British Declaration. That treaty, which had been worked out between British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Deng Xiaoping, was to have secured Hong Kong’s relationship with Beijing on the basis of “One Country, Two Systems”—that is, the assurance of Hong Kong’s relative autonomy on certain economic and political matters for at least the first 50 years after its return to China.
This had not been the British government’s first choice; and if certain measures of public opinion at the time are to be believed, it wasn’t what Hong Kongers generally wanted either. If true, this was understandable on both counts. After all, under British rule Hong Kong had come to flourish as a southeast Asian manufacturing and financial hub, enjoying a per capita income in 1996 many times that of their PRC counterparts. And for the British, with the hundred year pro forma lease it had dictated to the decrepit Qing Dynasty nearing its end, a great deal of investment and financial stability stood in perceived jeopardy.
But whatever local opinion, and though Mrs. Thatcher’s government had just a few years before fought a war with Argentina to keep the Falklands (1982), China’s battle-hardened, million-man army and hydrogen bombs meant continued British control of Hong Kong had been for decades entirely at the discretion of Beijing. And no amount of negotiating was going to change the fact that Beijing was in no way willing to countenance an extension of the prior humiliating “lease” of its territory. Much as in the case of Taiwan, the Chinese made clear that while a peaceful transfer was their aim, a military solution to the restoration of Chinese sovereignty over its internationally accepted territory was never ruled off the table.
And so the British packed up and left, with the people of Hong Kong left behind with only their agreed upon Constitution, or “Basic Law,” as a guarantee of their promised, separate rights. Even so, though now one of Beijing’s “Special Administrative Regions” with the central government responsible for “interpreting” that law in points of actual practice, for the first decade and a half things proceeded relatively smoothly. Apart from small and sporadic pro-democracy demonstrations by local NGOs—often with the open support of outside groups like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)—the trouble really began in 2014, when Beijing decided that it would effectively pre-screen candidates for Hong Kong’s highest office, the Chief Executive.
The controversy can be summed up as follows: while Article 45 of the Basic Law says the eventual aim is the election of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong by universal suffrage, the same Article 45 stipulates that Chief Executive still has to then to be “appointed,” essentially approved, by the Cetral People’s Government. That was what was agreed in the Joint Declaration and it is what is written in the Basic Law. Whether there was universal suffrage or not, it was never and nowhere written that whomever was elected had to be accepted by Beijing.
Here it is also worth noting that the structure of Hong Kong’s democracy under the Basic Law was further limited by the Legislative Council, or law-making body. There nearly a third of all seats are unelected, with representatives being accorded to various business or administrative interests. These tend to lean toward Beijing on questions of concern to it on account of the obviously considerable economic interests at stake. Therefore, though regularly grabbing the majority of the popular vote, pro-autonomy and pro-democracy parties in Hong Kong have never been in a position to exclusively pass laws of their preference.
Whatever else one might say about such a system, that Beijing pushed for and got such an acceptable arrangement for itself comes as little surprise. What government with the means to do so would not have?
This was little consolation to the people of Hong Kong. Citing Article 68 of the Basic Law, which like Article 45 states the ultimate aim is the election of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage, frustrated pro-democracy activists took the streets following the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress’ (NPCSC) decision regarding the candidate selection process for the forthcoming (2017) elections. As they would be in subsequent years, in 2017 and again in 2019, the 2014 protests were totally defeated.
And in the case of the last, which were officially against an amendment to existing extradition arrangements with Taipei and Beijing, these led to the imposition of a new “national security law.” Passage of such a law, prohibiting among other things the public advocation of Hong Kong’s secession, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces, was stipulated by Article 23 of the Basic Law; the one finally signed by Xi in 2020 was similar to one almost passed in 2003. In point of practice the law empowers the government to virtually ignore the familiar liberal freedoms purportedly guaranteed to Hong Kongers by Article 27 of the Basic Law, including freedom of expression, assembly, and press.
This series of events culminated, at least for now, in 2021 when electoral changes were finally enacted; shrinking the number of directly elected seats to the Legislative Council while simultaneously expanding the Election Committee and the number of seats filled by government appointment or allotted to Beijing-leaning corporations or organizations. These reforms increased Beijing’s hold over the territory.
From Washington, these events were all viewed with displeasure. However, until President Donald Trump, this disquiet was largely confined to the pages of policy journals and think tank papers no one but a handful of people ever read. The Council on Foreign Relations (hereafter CFR), as near to officialdom as it gets, kept a running score. But it wasn’t until 2019-2020 that Congress passed the Human Rights and Democracy Act (2019) and Hong Kong Autonomy Act (2020) for Donald Trump to sign, and the Treasury began sanctioning members of the Hong Kong government, including its Chief Executives. This has continued under the Joe Biden Administration, whose stance toward China has been, if anything, even more hawkish.
An obvious question is whether the above events have impacted thinking about Taiwan inside the Beltway. While the CFR’s flagship periodical, Foreign Affairs, has openly asked the question, and the topic is one that is regularly raised in the corporate press, the author could find no publicly available official document linking any change in official Taiwan policy to what has happened in Hong Kong over the past decade.
That isn’t to say it hasn’t; nor is it to nod along to Washington’s protestations that it hasn’t substantially revised or abandoned the “One China Policy” or “Strategic Ambiguity.” It is only to say that we don’t know.
What is clear in all of this is that China is China and no part of America is over there. According to the CFR, Beijing’s actions have “dimmed hopes” that Hong Kong will ever become a “full democracy.” Such hopes were always delusional to anyone who had read the Basic Law or knew anything about great power politics. Continued involvement in what are internal Chinese affairs will bring nothing but potential trouble to the United States and its people. Because the truth is that what happens to Hong Kong, or Taiwan for that matter, has no long-term relation whatever to the security or prosperity of the people of the United States. It is high time the American people recognized this and reined in their government.
Joseph Solis-Mullen is a political scientist with degrees from Spring Arbor University and the University of Illinois, and is currently a graduate student in the economics department at the University of Missouri. An independent researcher and journalist, his work can be found at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, Eurasian Review, Libertarian Institute, Journal of the American Revolution, Antiwar.com, and the Journal of Libertarian Studies. You can contact him through his website http://www.jsmwritings.com or find him on Twitter @solis_mullen
You have to understand the leftist mentality. To a leftist, government is their “God.” Government is the answer to everything. Government, so long as in the hands of “progressives”, can literally do anything. Government is reality. Government is our source of knowledge and truth. Government is the source of right and wrong. Government is their religion.
That’s why Donald Trump must be punished and imprisoned. It’s not because he supports tax cuts or an America first defense. It’s not that he’s much friendlier to capitalism than to socialism or Communism. It’s not that he wants to obliterate all the cronies holding our pathologically dysfunctional government together. These policies do make them crazy, but not as crazy as Donald Trump himself (and what he represents) makes them. They must have him removed from the ability to function or be free, because Government is their religion, and Donald Trump single-handedly stands in the way of implementing that religion via progressives. It’s as simple as that.
A reader replies: There will be violent events as the trials proceed but when Trump is elected watch Antifa destroy cities and attack conservatives. Civil War will explode.
My reply to the reader: I agree, assuming Trump wins. How will Trump win against the same fraud — and then some — that the Commie fascists will impose this time? Either way, some kind of civil war or civil breakdown will be coming — unless those who oppose the radical leftists are prepared to take anything and everything, forever. So far, that has been the case. The left wing attacks and the right does absolutely nothing, except applaud Trump. But applauding Trump is not enough to stop the worst tyrants in American history.
Posted by Donald Trump, Jr.: “Hey Deep State – He’s coming for you. See you on January 20th, 2025.”
The people applauding Trump’s arrest and mug shot are not good but misguided people who want the same things you and I want. They want entirely different things. They know what they are applauding, however much they may evade that knowledge. It’s their loathing of the Constitution, rule of law, free markets, free speech, freedom of association and rational values that lead them to applaud what’s happening.
I cut them no slack.
Ignorance and evasion of such a spectacular magnitude are NEVER innocent. Eventually they will discover that life under tyranny serves nobody’s interests; and they will deserve what they get.
Donald J. Trump and Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason
It was a terrible mistake for DeSantis to call Trump supporters “listless vessels.” Every one of those Trump supporters was a potential DeSantis voter, down the road if not sooner. Now, why would anyone consider him, at least if they previously supported Trump? Who wants to vote for someone who calls you a “listless vessel”?
Such comments, in a way, are not mistakes. They are revealing. To even think such a thing, much less it say it, DeSantis must have awful contempt for his own supporters. It calls into question the sincerity and reality of everything he has done.
DeSantis caught the presidential disease. He so badly wants to be President — NOW, not in four years, but NOW — that he lost the sense of strategy, purpose and even integrity that he accuses Trump supporters of not having. He also shows a shallow disregard for the importance of what’s happening to Trump. He’s basically conveying, “Sure, the Commiefascists trying to imprison Trump are no good. They’re weaponizing the federal government against dissenters. But damn it, I WANT TO BE PRESIDENT NOW.”
I would have thought that DeSantis, of all people, would understand that the federal government as we know it might not be sustainable, and that states like Florida may have to lead the way in pulling away from the monstrosity that has been created in the Imperial City. If Trump goes down, it’s all the more reason to conclude there’s no salvaging the office DeSantis so lusts after. His failure to realize this point may turn out to be the most disqualifying thing about him.
The city of Chicago might as well not exist to Democrats on the national stage. Yes, that party has ruled the city with an iron fist since 1931, and the dead there has a remarkable turnout rate for elections, but in Washington, DC, the city doesn’t exist. Joe Biden and the swamp gang don’t mention it because they’d have to acknowledge the piles of dead bodies the city racks up annually. While they’ll show up occasionally in the region for a photo-op, they won’t talk about the murders, the drugs, or the terror citizens there feel on a daily basis. It is, for lack of a more perfect word, evil.
Republicans have zero say over what happens in Chicago; everything terrible there is directly a result of liberal policies. All the blood spilled drips off the hands of Democrats. They know it; they don’t care.
Why would they? What consequences have Democrats faced for their failure? In the last 92 years, there hasn’t been a blip on the radar of a threat to Democrats winning elections there, so why would anyone give a damn? The city had a chance to pull up, just a little, from its nosedive when they tossed out the incompetent Lori Lightfoot in the mayoral primary last year. But rather than go with a more sane option, they voted for someone even worse. The new Mayor gets more upset when someone refers to murderous goons as a mob than he does any of the murders in the city.
Why is anyone supposed to care if the people who live there don’t? If you continually vote for people who beat the hell out of you, why would people care that you’re regularly getting the hell beat out of you?
Still, it’s an embarrassment to Democrats to see what Chicago has become. The same goes for Detroit, Baltimore, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and every other city controlled by Democrats for generations. Not all the crime, not all the death, the pointing out of the crime and the death by Republicans. That’s what Democrats are concerned with – the extent to which the white, suburban chardonnay-swilling soccer mom who votes blindly for Democrats become aware of the indifference with which the progressive power structure views human life and how those dots are connected in their heads between the violence and their “safe” lives. If those voters realize they aren’t more than a few election cycles away from their quiet slice of life being overrun by the same mentality, they might not slavishly vote and donate to Democrats.
These Democrats in power only care about anything to the extent that it can harm their electoral prospects. In these killing fields called cities, those electoral prospects are unburdened by responsibility – Democrats will continue to mine the votes of people who’d elected the morons they’ve elected to mayor’s offices in perpetuity. It’s the suburbs they’re afraid of losing.
It tells you something that the left doesn’t care about all the murders. From “Black Lives Matter” to “Shut up about all the black people getting murdered by black people,” people don’t look to politicians for intellectual consistency. It’s one thing when the neighborhood liquor store or downtown shoe shop gets looted by a group of “teens,” it’s something else entirely when it hits their suburban salon or boutique of choice.
The thought of that keeps Democrats up at night. The thought of that makes Democrats believers in walls, at least metaphorical ones enforced by culture and police. If that wall is breached… lookout.
In the meantime, Democrats have to do something, usually, the bare minimum, to pretend to care about the carnage they really only seek to contain. Which brings us back to Chicago.
In their latest attempt to put a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, the Democrats in the city are calling for a ceasefire…between the hours of 9 am and 9 pm. This, presumably, means it’s game on from dusk till dawn. It’s like holding “The Purge” every night, just as long a suburban Karen can make it home safely from her early dinner downtown. The people who live there…screw them.
It truly is evil. But to not practice evil, you have to view the people being harmed as, well, people. Then you’d have to care about them on top of it. Since the days of slavery, Democrats haven’t viewed black people as people. That’s an “I’m better than you” attitude, not one based on skin color, so the black leadership in the city carries it with them as well.
As long as the violence can be maintained as a “made for TV event,” specifically made for Fox News, nothing will change because there’s no threat to Democrats. Scores of people will continue to die, children will continue to have their future set on fire by a failed education system, and Karen will still get her suburban mani-pedi with her morally superior future cirrhosis circle of friends while watching Bravo, utterly oblivious to the destruction in the wake of her voting habits. And Democrats will laugh all the way to the end.
They’re going to be in for a rude awakening when they get to Hell.
“THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.”
