The Importance of Self Interest

People cannot be fully free unless there is no fear and insecurity (individual rights and freedoms). In a Left (socialist) type of government fear can be used through the use of secret police which would make the people extremely cautious of what they say/do. Since the people cannot say or do things that they want to do then they have no freedom. A welfare state (welfare capitalism) would give people the freedom to grow financially and educationally so the individuals can be a part of the all American dream (self interest & economic freedom) without the fear of the government, hunger, homelessness and racism while having the ability to develop their individual capacities (through the use of competition) as assured by Freedom and the Welfare State.

Vital Speeches of the Day is saying that the socialist government (the Left) will take things, like farms and natural resources from the people who own them and spread it out to everyone. The farmers do not have self interest so they can grow economically and their private property becomes public property. When the socialist government does this, it leaves the whole fed but not with full stomachs which leads them into hunger. The individuals will grow poor and leave the country hungry from the lack of human labour when applied to natural resources. Without private property, self interest, competition and economic freedom then the individuals will soon meet their demise.

The cartoon represents the rich and elite in their huge house that shows their indulgeant lives. The one male in the cartoon are reading the newspaper in which the title reads “Good times: even the poor gain”. The rich men do not like the poor gaining capital because with self interest, the rich become richer. The economic boom helped out everyone and the individuals who strongly believe in self interest, like the men in the cartoon, do not like that fact that everyone prospers.

With all of the sources they all have self interest that exists among them. Self interest in the first source is represented in “to receive just awards for their talents and to engage in the pursuit of happiness” in that the individuals must have the ability and chance to put themselves first (economically in this case) above anyone else. The cartoon had the same interpretation in that the men had put them first before everyone else economically. In the second source, self interest is mandatory for the individuals in order to grow economically and to keep food on the table. Self interest is shared among all three sources as a principle of liberalism that people should have.

Position Paper: Issue 3

In a democracy like here in Canada there tends to be either a conservative or liberal (not including the results of the previous elections of 2011) government in power. Friedrich von Hayek was a conservative himself so he had thought that society should embrace self interest and economic freedom. Hayek used directed economy to represent a socialist economy which has no economic freedom for the individuals without the use of force, since there is no economic freedom then there is not self interest which backs up economic freedom. No equality can be achieved with a directed economy. When self interest and economic freedom have been abused then that is the point where it should be embraced more in order to bring back a part of a conservative democracy.

Hayek believed when a directed (socialist) economy uses force, fraud or theft when it comes to production, trade and consuming then economic freedom should be embraced by that society/country. Russia is a prime example of a socialist economy, especially during Stalin’s five year plan. The state owns all of the farms and so when the government wanted more exports of grain then the state would force the farmers to grow more grain. The farmers were hardly paid as the Russian government wanted to save a few more bucks by paying people less like the farmers and during this time there was no subsides for the farmers. It was almost like theft since the government took the goods from the farmers and left them with nothing. Life was hard for the farmers to earn wages and to keep food on the table for their family. Through Hayek’s quote it is safe to say that if the Russian government were to embrace economic freedom then the farmers would be able to make an income and be more equal with society. Canada, on the other hand, currently day has economic freedom. The citizens can go and put their financials into the market on free will. Canadian farmers has the freedom to produce, trade and consume any good and services acquired which shows that Canada has economic freedom since it is done without the use of force, fraud or theft. Canada has embraced economic freedom because it is good for the people which is what Hayek believed in. If a society were to embrace economic freedom to the point of which people were to become too selfish then it must be more controlled until the position where that country has economic freedom without people fighting over producing, trading and consuming goods to the extreme.

Self interest goes almost hand in hand with economic freedom in that without economic freedom requires the pursuit of self interest. When Hayek talks about how a socialist economy it is saying that the government has self interest for itself rather than giving the people of that country self interest. This is the past what Hayek said is good for the people in that they do not have self interest. During the great depression in the dirty thirties, there was little self interest for the people in the United States. The government had to think of the whole rather than then individuals and so self interest was put on the back burner until the depression was over. The U.S. did implicate self interest before and after the great depression and so it had embraced self interest after the depression was over even though it was self interest that had caused the depression from people buying stuff that they want and did have the money the pay it off. Every country has its times when they are having issues and so it is sometimes better to think for the whole rather than for the different individual types. Self interest should be embraced until the country focuses primarily on the individuals and hardly on the whole group. When there is no self interest in place then there tends to be a self interest type of government. An example of this would be with Stalin and his government; they had put their needs and wants above the people of Russia which is inequality and which Hayek had stated. While there is an inequality then there is no self interest amongst the people and so self interest should be used by and for the people.

Hayek supported self interest and economic freedom for governments and when the principles are rejected then they should be embraced. If a country does not accept economic freedom then that limits what the people can produce, trade and consume and goods and services acquired which leads to economic issues for the people. Now if economic freedom is accepted then self interest is typically accepted since they mostly go hand in hand with each other. Self interest should be embraced until the government only uses it and does not give the citizens self interest and denies the people personal advantage. With self interest it can create official enforced inequality amongst the government and the people. Hayek proposed that a directed economy is no good for the people and that self interest and economic freedom should be used in its place along with other classical liberal principles.

IL 4

I think that Canada would be best run by a parlimentary (democratic) government. As a citizen in Canada, I was born and raised while Canada has been a parlimentary system and I have been pleased with the way how our government is run. I like the fact that the executive and legislative branch do not hold enough power to conqure anything they please and that every citizen (about the legal age of 18) has the right to vote and not fear the "consequences" of doing so; like in Afghanistan the Taliban cut off the arms of the people who have their finger covered in purple ink (after voting their finger is dipped in ink so they won't be able to vote again). But I digress back to the main issue: having a parilimentary system has worked pretty well for us Canadians. In Canada we have rights and freedoms and that allows us to really think about what is best for us and we approve of our parlimantary government.

IL 3

IL 2

I think that Canada does have some responsibility to protect the new democratic system in Afghanistan since we are a part of NATO. As a democratic nation, we view things differently then how other countries (with other government systems) view things like the treatment of women. One thing that I agree with is how Canada is increasing the capacity of for democratic government, and help with the carrying out of democratic elections; as well as helping the ministry plan, which is to explain effective budgeting. We (Canadian Government and army) should not push things to the limit by getting too involved in their government any further than we already are. However, since Canada is a part of NATO they can use the excuse that they are just there to help Afghanistan create and democratic system.

Team Resistance

Huge Liberal Assignment !!!! on Prezi

IR #5 Justine, Hannah and M'Lynn

Rejection of Liberalism on Prezi