Inspired by religious doctrine - or by feel-good liberal atheists - selflessness occupies a great deal of our attention.

Somewhere in America:

- A moist-eyed politician with a quivering lip (but impeccably coiffed hair) conjures up visions of starving or homeless people somewhere in the world

- a charismatic and telegenic preacher speaks with great conviction of our duty to help our less affluent fellow men

- presidential candidates speak of 'public service' in altruistic terms while indulging in shameless self-promotion

- admission committees at major universities consider the spirit of 'progressive volunteerism' as an important attribute in their applicants; in some cases, this can be as important as the applicant's academic record

- our political process is tilting Leftward, with each new entitlement as a stepping stone towards others. Failure of past entitlement programs is not an obstacle - as long as our intentions are 'selfless'.

- inefficient 'non-profit' ventures are placed on a pedestal, while it has become common to impugn the motives of 'for-profit' ventures; e.g Public Schools vs Private Schools

- there is a disproportionate sense of upliftment in the fake smarminess of 'donations', 'volunteerism' and 'not-for-profit'. Not that those actions are bad, but they certainly don't accomplish as much as 'for-profit' ventures. Observe that non-profit ventures would fail but for the contributions of people whose incomes are tied to for-profit ventures.

Instead of relying upon (and demanding) professionalism and competence, we are becoming a nation of parasites and willing victims.

What is killing us (softly), is the "S" word ..

S E L F L E S S N E S S 

Conversely, it is true that the word 'selfish' can be mis-construed.

But there appears to be no other way to describe it. Also, think of the way in which 'selflessness' is mis-construed on a regular basis:

* it has become perverted into the ideological basis of Leftist rationale for Welfare, Public Education

I'm familiar with the point-of-view that personal selflessness is 'good' while the enforcement of 'public' selflessness is 'evil'.

But that distinction is just not enough. We have become predisposed to accept all forms of selflessness (real or imaginary) as a political and economic trump card.

As a result:
* non-profit proposals get more public support than profit-oriented proposals
* selfless-sounding (but unworkable) policies become the law of the land; e.g. Public Education, Welfare, Universal Health Care
* foreign policy based on American self-interest becomes watered down into 'saving' other nations

And, in the end ..
* socialism will replace capitalism in America

If you think that is a stretch, wait until Nov '08 

A comment that is often heard relates to parenting: "How can you speak ill of selflessness? After all, think of parents, who toil selflessly to provide for their kids."

Personal anecdote (perhaps other parents can relate to this): when I held my newborn son for the first time, I was conscious of an emotional surge that was more powerful than any other I have previously experienced. As I looked at him I felt a sense of self - he was my son, and I would do anything for him. I felt the same surge when my 2nd son was born.

I cannot feel that bond with anyone else's child. At that moment, there were, perhaps, 50 other kids in the hospital nursery - but they didn't exist for me. It was (and remains) a selfish emotion that binds me to my children.

A parent who abandons their child clearly doesn't feel that bond with their child. Such a parent has no sense of 'self' - s/he is selfless in the purest sense of the word.
----
Selfish (def): one for whom the self is the sole purpose in life
----
A personal adaptation of the above definition: I include my children (I have two), my wife, my parents and my siblings within the bubble that I call my 'self'. To varying degrees I accept responsibilities towards those in my 'selfish' bubble. Since I voluntarily chose to get married and have kids, I accept a higher level of responsibility towards my wife and kids.

I believe that others feel similarly selfish - but are conditioned to feel guilty about such emotions by our culture's fascination with altruism. We therefore fall prey to anyone else (a politician, for example) who professes to actually adhere to those 'finer feelings' that we know we lack.

And that is the double-fraud of selflessness. It is inconsistent with human beings, but we are 'supposed' to feel guilty if we lack that quality.

Because, in order to believe in selflessness, we have to defraud ourselves into believing that:

1) Selflessness is a virtue
2) Humans are selfless creatures

If the above statements were true, then Communism would've succeeded. It didn't!

Religious people (and socialists) preach one form or another of selflessness as a panacea. It is worth thinking, however, could it be that we just aren't 'selfish' enough?

I realize that it is the prevailing fashion for people to put selflessness on a pedestal. Most of the teachings of organized religion also praise selflessness - in fact, without that concept, there wouldn't be much organization in organized religion.

But, is it possible that we are actually drowning in an orgy of selflessness? Consider that selflessness is the 'enabling agent', the gateway to:

* the welfare state
* multiculturism
* socialism
* affirmative action

Consider some of the most selfish actions that a human being can commit (and I'm guilty of them all):

* getting an education
* working to improve one's own life
* creating one's own biological children
* putting one's family first

By my definition, a male (or female) who abandons his/her biological children is truly selfless! It is an inversion of our morality (and language) that defines such actions as selfish.

This isn't just a linguistic or semantic interpretation. The 'selfless' mindset is what gives moral permission for people to abdicate their own responsibilities.

For example, if a person volunteers precious, productive years in 'selfless' efforts to help the 3rd World - surely their 'nobility' entitles them to have others pay for their medical care, if they happen to contract some disease in the process?

Imagine if everyone indulged in their 'selfless' fantasies. Can anyone seriously expect utopian results from such a worldview?