Yes, I did.

“I’d suggest you are doing the same, the idea that EVERYONE is good, and will want to give maximum value for maximum gain (not necessarily monetary).”

I wrote what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote. I wrote, “‘The good’ MEANS self-interest and gain.” This says absolutely nothing about how many people are good, let alone that everyone is, nor does it comment on the actual nature of self-interest and gain.

That’s a bit much to cover in detail on Russell’s blog, but if you’re really interested, the big clue was this…

“Because when one values oneself, the most important thing is being the best person one can be. Stealing, looting, mooching–just generally treating others as some different sort of creature than oneself–leads to self-loathing, and self-loathing is the WORST thing one can experience.”

You see, stealing a million bucks might be a gain in a sense, but it’s not gain in any self-interested sense. Why? Besides the fact that very few people would want to live as a thief as a simple pragmatic matter, there’s the bigger problem that treating others in a manner differently than you believe you ought to be treated involves misidentifying the other party as inherently something different than you.

The function of our senses and brains is to identify. Hence any misidentification is de facto “wrong” in both senses of the word. It’s incorrectly integrating something about reality (here, that another person should be stolen from but the actor shouldn’t be) and so does NOT produce gain for the actor, any money acquired notwithstanding. That is, it’s NOT a self-interested action and so is wrong in the other sense as well.

Chew on that a bit and see if you have any (brief) questions. BTW you corrected your own false premise when you wrote, “I’ll concede people are not born inherently EVIL,” which is rather different from what you wrote earlier.

Lastly, as far as everything being “grey,” you might want to visit an industrial factory or even clearer, the aftermath of a speeding train hitting a car. Trust me, there’s nothing “grey” about either; they’re as black-and-white as could be.

Make sense so far? Examples are Bill Gates and Donald Trump. VERY wealthy, acted in their own self-interest, able to give billions to charity if they choose (Not going to look up actual numbers, but the Bill gates Foundation gives a great deal every year, and Donald Trump donates a great deal every year. Precise numbers are irrelevant.)
So – who decides when I have ENOUGH? The bum with his hand out on the street, who refuses to get educated or work at a job? Someone who dropped out of high school, say, without even being in the criminal element (so no alternative income stream or drive, ever). Or would someone like Donald Trump decide? Or Barack Obama? Hillary Clinton? A second-grade teacher from a parochial school? Public school janitor? YOU?

I believe we must own the product of our own work. Anything else is a swindle by those who would control (rule) us.Tithing comes to mind – Mother Church swindling her flock to ensure she always has enough money – gold chalices, tabernacle, Bishop’s crozier, patens, incense (real incense from the tree resin), etc, etc, etc.
No different from Mother USSA tithing 30+% of our income, except the Church’s tithing holds ransom your immortal soul, while the Secular God holds hostage your life. Don’t believe me, just try not paying your taxes, if you’re not “connected.”

Now, tell me again: Are other people actually out to exchange value, effectively interacting in a free market? That seems to be your premise, which dovetails very nicely with the Liberal premise that no one commits crime without being poor, crazy, or other victim of circumstance. This is DEMONSTRABLY wrong, by the way – which is why sites like this EXIST. CopBlock.org and Police one (you’ll have to google it, but that’s a PRO-police site – see how they talk about us as “civilians”… Then tell me all people are inherently GOOD again.)

Some percentage of the population is born specifically deviant or defective. These people will always exist – psychopathic from birth, they feel no remorse for evil actions, no empathy, no sympathy – they are incapable of it, mentally deficient in a legal sense. They KNOW they are hurting others; they just don’t care. This is the type of child who murders small animals, and as an adult will be a serial killer or mass murderer, just because. They are a small but known portion of the population. Hurting others IS their self-interest. And by definition, if they want something you have, killing you is an acceptable way to obtain it.

Yet all people are born good?
Who are you trying to con here? Do you live in the civilized world? Obviously you don’t live in the UNcivilized world, or you couldn’t lie to yourself this way: reality would make you see otherwise, or go extinct. Civilized world would have formed with Adam and Eve if humans were born inherently good, and most (all?) the major religions, and most minor ones, would be out of work. Crime would not exist; Cain and Abel would not be known… you get the idea.

Have you ever lashed out in anger? Perhaps had a rough day, gone home and yelled at the wife / children / dog? Picked a fight with someone over nothing, or even something that on any other day, you’d ignore? Those emotions play a part in our actions, too.

I’ll concede people are not born inherently EVIL, generally (born psychopaths an obvious issue), but I think like most animals, we are born inherently SELFISH. Without selfishness, we inherently STARVE. Law of the jungle made manifest: if you don’t kill something and eat, you die. This does not preclude feeding the pack (society: TRIBE) at the same time: we recognize strength in numbers, and cooperation. Our current society (multiculturalism) is cobbled-together, enforced conforming to “anything goes.” So, if I am a Thug (plural Thuggee, an Indian religious “cult” dedicated to worshiping the goddess Kali in her destructive form, and wiped out by / during the British colonial period), I should be allowed to strangle people as a sacrifice. It’s my RELIGION, I am ORDERED to do this. (And they need to be strangled, BTW, as spilling blood starts rebirth, instead of destruction.)

Our Judeo-Christian heritage makes this whole thing repugnant in America, but as a key counter-point, Islam converts by the sword or by demographic conversion: They either wage war to convert the infidels, or they move in and proselytize to convert, and then when the infidels band together to suppress this conversion and demographic influx, they are permitted to wage JIHAD on their OPPRESSORS. (Surahs – look ‘em up. )

Are we to forgive the effective genocide of Native Americans due to smallpox and “fire-water” (whiskey)? The consistent creation of treaties followed by forced relocation to reservations is undoubtedly proof of the inherent goodness of humans…

OK – how about “Be All That You Can Be”, or “Be your Best”, closer to what you said…
Well, was Cassanova a GOOD man? HE was the “Best person he could be”, at least WRT womanizing.
Kervorkian is being the best DOCTOR he can be, which happens to include killing people who wish to die. IS he a sinner… or a saint, for ending their suffering and releasing them from decrepit mortal shells?
Is the best soldier the one who kills the enemy? Or the one who makes it so the enemy never attacks? Or the assassin who kills a general, stops the invasion? Etc, etc etc.

You claim I am starting from a flawed premise; I’d suggest you are doing the same, the idea that EVERYONE is good, and will want to give maximum value for maximum gain (not necessarily monetary). Usually, people seem to want to GET the most while giving THE LEAST. I worked tech support – any clue how many people read the manual? I’m now doing Quality Assurance at the system level (performance engineer – make system faster and able to handle X users). Most people don’t understand it – so every project starts by explaining WHAT we do, HOW we do it, WHY we do it. Why its different from “Does it work?” type testing, which is black and white (Yes / No). It’s ALL greys. But we get all sorts of IDIOCIES, from users, developers, vendors. Favorites are, “Of course the system can handle more than one user. What do you mean, AT ONCE?” (online payroll system.) “We need it to handle 1,000 concurrent users.” (After tests prove it can’t handle 5 users) “Three users is the maximum load we’ll have…”

Get the idea? Never underestimate the power of human stupidity… And while it might be good to never attribute to malice what is most easily explained by stupidity, don’t DISMISS malice out of hand, either.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and watch your people carefully.

Thanks for confirming my hunch…you’re working with a faulty fundamental premise. Maybe read “Man Alive!” over at selfadoration.com

“The good” MEANS self-interest and gain.

“they won’t give a shit about hurting you.”

Uh, no. When you work with a faulty premise, you draw faulty conclusions. When one cares about oneself, one WANTS to get along with others. One WANTS to derive benefits from the value they offer. One WANTS to offer value in return.

Why? Because when one values oneself, the most important thing is being the best person one can be. Stealing, looting, mooching–just generally treating others as some different sort of creature than oneself–leads to self-loathing, and self-loathing is the WORST thing one can experience.

But that wouldn’t matter unless one valued oneself in the first place. You’ve fallen for the con of the ages, along with most everyone else. When people wake up, the dawn will come.

Wow, Alan. Is that an overt claim of ownership…”my country”???

Are you claiming ownership of the land, the people or both?

I think you’re saying, “the country which I like to consider being mine” or maybe even, “the country of which I’d like to be a member.” Is that right? Well alright, that’s cool. Is it okay if I consider my little homestead as mine, or do you need to fantasize about owning that too? Just wondering, cuz at some point I’m gonna ask about my life itself, not just the homestead.

You see, I think I own THAT. Do you disagree?

And is it okay if Russell, or anyone else, wishes to be a member of some other country, state or community? If not, WHY NOT?

In a battle of wit, you are unarmed. I have posted your overt threat on this website so that my readers can see it. First, I already have someone in my life that has sex with me. So, thanks for your kind offer, but I must decline. Second, if you have not read Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason,” you are pitifully ignorant about the Constitution. Third, don’t call me “brah.” Plainly we are not brothers. Fourthly, I don’t have any intention of bringing about the demise of your country. But some of us may band together in one geographic location…a state… and secede from your country. Your friends in DC are using their thoughts, words and deeds to bring about the demise of the USA. They don’t need my help and it appears that they have your unflagging support. And even though secessionist ideals ARE in fact great, they are not practical until the demise of your country happens…the economic meltdown of the US Dollar…that will throw your country into chaos. By the way, what happened in 1776 was a secession. What happened in 1860 was secession. One was successful, one was not. Batting .500 is a pretty good average. Finally, you are cordially invited to come to my home and see if you have what it takes to shut me the fuck up. Thanks for writing, Russ

There’s nothing wrong with our constitution. What’s wrong is that evil men have taken control.

I’ll cut you some slack brah. There’s nothing that says a state can’t secede. In fact, if a state decided to do so, I might support it.

But be careful my friend. Should you work to bring about the demise of my country through thought, word, or deed in order to further your secessionist agenda, I will kill your ass.

If your secessionist ideals are so great, implement them now and demonstrate to all of us how wonderful they are.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

Opting out, whether by beating the game or escaping the madness, seems like a good idea.
Being too good to offend when offended does not give one the moral high ground however; it merely shows you’re an easy mark.