The "Self-Absorbed" Generation

An OpEd by William Klemm, a professor at Texas A&M, in Sunday's Chronicle declares that today's youth are "self-absorbed" because of technology. According to the article, developments such as cell phones, Facebook, and text messaging breed laziness, narcissism, and a sense of entitlement:

The most egregious consequence is a growing collective feeling of entitlement. This manifests itself in many ways, from expectations of better grades for less effort in school work to political beliefs that there really should be a “free lunch” of government social programs. As one example of a common attitude of middle schoolers, I know of one student who, when being pressed to study, actually said unabashedly, “I don't need to learn. Somebody will always take care of me.”

While I would agree that today's children to have a sense of entitlement, it isn't because of technology and it certainly isn't a manifestation of self-love. Indeed, the root cause is selflessness, which is precisely what these children have been taught.

Self-love (that is, self-interest or rational egoism) requires that one first identify one's interests. It requires that one identify the long-term requirements of one's life and the values one seeks. It requires that one recognize the fact that life is not a series of disconnected days, but a continuum that spans decades.

Contrary to what Klemm implies, self-love is not the pursuit of any whim or momentary desire, nor does it lead to a sense of entitlement. Neither is truly in one's self-interest. The momentary "pleasure" of taking heroin or engaging in indiscriminate sex or ignoring one's education is ultimately destructive to one's long-term well-being.

In contrast, consider that we are continually told that we must serve others, that we must place the needs of others before our own interests. Morality we are told, demands that the renunciation of our own interests and values, that is, our own self-interest. To do otherwise is selfish and immoral.

The advocates of altruism--the creed of service to others--presents a false dichotomy. Either we must sacrifice for others, or sacrifice others to ourself. Life requires sacrifice, they claim, and the only issue is the victims and the beneficiaries.

Faced with this false alternative, the "self-absorbed" generation is choosing to sacrifice others for their own momentary pleasures. Others will take care of them--others will assume the responsibility of providing the values that life requires. And what if others refuse? What if others decide that they will not support these parasites?

Well, the little tykes haven't thought that far ahead. They believe that food, clothing, and shelter, along with I-Pods, cell phones, and flat-screen televisions will fall from heaven. And when they aren't deluged with such material goods, their "self-absorption" will not have served them well. Their wasted hours sitting in a classroom will have prepared them for wasted hours sitting in front of the television whining about how unfair life is.

The fact is, an entitlement mentality is not in one's best self-interest. It is an abnegation of self-responsibility. It is a declaration that one will place his life in the control of others and all that that implies. If someone wishes to live off of me, he better be prepared for crumbs.

Those who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives should get exactly what they deserve--misery. Unfortunately, most Americans believe that the mere fact that someone is born entitles him to food, clothing, education, transportation, and perhaps health care. They ignore the fact that someone must pay for these values. They ignore the fact that someone must create these values. They ignore the fact that someday their meal ticket will expire.

If today's youth truly wishes to be "self-absorbed", they must reject altruism and the cult of sacrifice. They must embrace the morality that holds that life does not require sacrifice--whether of others or of oneself. They must embrace rational selfishness.

Strange Bedfellows

The Chronicle reports that anti-gay activist Dave Wilson has sent out 35,000 fliers attacking Annise Parker "in part because of her sexual orientation". I'm not sure which is more disgusting, Parker's position on the issues or Wilson's superficial attack. (For a really good parody of Wilson's position, click here.)

I could care less what Parker does in her bedroom. I only wish she would extend the same respect to others in the boardroom--she has a long record of supporting proposals that dictate how people use their property. If Wilson really cared about something important, he would attack Parker for her horrible record on property rights, not whom she is sleeping with.

If the implications of Wilson's attack were not so serious, I would dismiss them as the ravings of a Neanderthal. Wilson told the paper:

There's a cultural war going on in our society today. I feel that homosexual behavior is an affront to the family values of one man-one woman, and homosexual behavior, to any society that's embraced it, has led to the extinction of that society.

Wilson is certainly entitled to his opinion, as archaic and ignorant as it is. But he does speak an element of truth, even though it is highly unlikely that he understands how or why.

There is indeed "a cultural war going on in our society today." But it isn't between gays and straights, or between Bible-thumpers and pagans. It is between individualists and collectivists, between egoists and altruists. It is between those who believe that they have a moral right to live their own lives as they choose (so long as they respect the mutual rights of others) and those who believe that the individual must live in service to others.

It is said that politics makes strange bedfellows. So does an irrational philosophy. Despite Wilson's disgust with Parker's sexual orientation, he shares much more with her than he realizes.

In terms of essentials, there are only two choices in morality: 1. The standard of morality is the pursuit of one's own happiness, or 2. The standard of morality is service to others. On this point, which derives from more fundamental philosophical issues and ultimately leads to specific positions on political issues, Parker and Wilson agree.

Parker believes that it is proper for government to force individuals to act contrary to their own judgment. Witness her support for "preservation" ordinances, her opposition to the Ashby High Rise, and her support for light rail. She believes that it is proper and just to deny individual rights to some Houstonians in the name of the "public welfare". She believes that we have a moral duty to serve others.

In principle Wilson agrees, though he answers to a different authority:

I have nothing but compassion, respect, and sensitivity towards those trapped in homosexual behavior.... With God's grace, I carefully balance this love and respect for these individuals with warnings about the promotion and demand for legal and political approval for homosexual behavior that will stifle religious freedom and trap millions of more people in its deadly grip.

Wilson, who previously led an effort to deny benefits to the same-sex partners of city employees, told KHOU:

I'd like to energize the conservative Christian base in Houston, and get them to vote.

Because he regards homosexuality as a sin, Wilson believes that gays should be denied legal "approval". He believes that it is proper and just to deny individual rights to some Houstonians in the name of God. He believes that we have a moral duty to serve God (or his alleged earthly spokesmen).

Contrary to what both Parker and Wilson believe, individual rights apply to all individuals--gays and straights, Christians and atheists, developers and single-family home owners. Both believe that the rights of some individuals may be violated for the alleged benefit of others. They merely disagree on whose rights should be violated and who should benefit.

Like Parker, Wilson seeks to mobilize his base. Like Parker, he believes that might makes right--that if enough people vote for some proposal then it is justified. They may not agree on much, but they certainly agree on that.

A Snowball Racing Downhill

Like a snowball rolling downhill, the Houston Hope program is picking up momentum and growing larger and more destructive. Mayor White has previously proposed that the city help consumers pay off their debt and and more recently he wanted to offer bribes to Realtors. Now he wants to pay developers to build houses. The Chronicle reports that the city will spend $620,000 to build 10 single-family homes.

One of the three council members to oppose the idea--Melissa Noriega--told the paper:

We can't afford certain kinds of luxury ideas, and this is a luxury idea. We're just giving money to developers to try to pull them into an area, and I'm just not comfortable with that at this time.

In other words, Noriega doesn't have a problem with the program as a matter of principle. Under different circumstances she is in favor of redistributing wealth. Under different circumstances she isn't opposed to "giving money to developers". Indeed, she told the paper as much:

Noriega said she could vote for the idea if it were part of a more robust multi-year housing plan.

To Noriega, the problem isn't that the city is stealing money from taxpayers to subsidize the housing costs of citizens, the problem is that the city isn't stealing enough. Subsidizing ten homes is wrong, but subsidizing 1,000 homes is something she could get behind.

Noriega's "logic" might seem twisted, but it is perfectly consistent with the moral premise underlying the Houston Hope program. If, as we are continually told, we have a moral duty to help those in need, then it is not acceptable to be so selective in extending that help. Until we help everyone in need we are falling short of that moral "ideal". So long as Houstonians accept the premise that one man's need is a claim on the life and property of others, no program will ever be sufficient--there will always remain someone in need.

This of course, will not stop city officials. Oblivious to the principles underlying their schemes, they merrily promote one boondoggle after another in the name of "quality of life", or "protecting neighborhoods", or economic stimulation.

While the city is facing a budget deficit and crime is increasing, city council finds it more important to throw money at feel good programs. Rather than protect our rights--including the right to spend our money as we choose--council would prefer to engage in give-aways like Houston Hope.

And while the city is selectively fighting development--such as the Ashby High Rise--it is simultaneously trying to encourage other development. It is using its muscle, and our money, to dictate and control what is built and where. City officials have a vision for Houston, and they will use whatever combination of coercion and bribery is necessary to create that vision.

City officials and their accomplices in the media love to point to the beneficiaries of their programs. KHOU for example, carried a story touting Houston Hope:

Gwendolyn Scott used the program to purchase a newly constructed 1,900-square-foot home for $110,000 after almost 20 years of apartment living.

She put $500 down, and her monthly mortgage note is $745.59. Through the home ownership program she received $37,000 in subsidy money, which came right off the price of her new home. That left the amount she had to finance at $73,000. She also qualifies for the federal government’s $8,000 new homebuyers’ tax credit.

What this story--and countless others like it--doesn't tell us is the negative impact these programs have on taxpayers. They don't tell us about the families that must continue to rent because their tax dollars are subsidizing Scott's home purchase. These stories tell us about the dreams that are magically fulfilled by government programs, but they don't tell us about the dreams that are shattered by those same programs. They don't tell us about the victims, and there are victims. Mayor White's program may be benefiting some, but it is also destroying the hope of many more.