http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/The-case-for-universal-basic-income-UBI-tp7601843p7602073.html
Glen is right. I was quoting McKibbon writing about Weintrobe. Of course I did that because I thought that see made an important point. Here's the extract again.
"Weintrobe writes that people’s psyches are divided into caring and uncaring parts, and the conflict between them “is at the heart of great literature down the ages, and all major religions.” The uncaring part wants to put ourselves first; it’s the narcissistic corners of the brain that persuade each of us that we are uniquely important and deserving, and make us want to except ourselves from the rules that society or morality set so that we can have what we want. “Most people’s caring self is strong enough to hold their inner exception in check,” she notes, but, troublingly, “ours is the Golden Age of Exceptionalism.” ...
I found this interesting because it related back to our earlier discussion of reciprocity. If it is in our nature to have these two warring parts of our psyches, there is probably no hope that the "caring part" will ever fully triumph over the "uncaring part" and reliably hold the uncaring part in check. Presumably, this has to do with evolution and the need for both parts for successful long-term survival of a species.
If you buy that, and I think it's right, then what kind of society can be constructed of organisms with these two components that drive their behavior? That's the question we've been struggling with both in this discussion and over the ages. The answer presumably has to do with as much freedom as possible but freedom reigned in by enforced rules that prevent our uncaring parts from destroying that society.
The neoliberalism discussion has to do with the observation that our society has been moving in the direction of giving the uncaring parts too much power.
-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .