On Bums and Entrepreneurs

Great blog!

Thank you. And thanks to the powers that be for selecting this blog to feature.

 

Be well.

While I think tooting ones own horn is nasty, Colleen and I give to charities, Americans is general are the most giving people on the planet, with oddly enough, Conservatives leading the pack by a long shot. There is a social conscious in America and billions are given each year to charities.

Hello MM,

No doubt such giving exists, down I believe of late, but there, none-the-less.  But I am addressing something significantly deeper than charity as an exemplar of social consciousness, I'm talking about the very fabric of our culture.  In this context, the ordinary ways of splitting up the social groups such as progressive or conservative are pointless. Giving and taking itself is pointless.  It is the motivation that is at issue. 

Do we, as Americans, foster a social contract?  Do we really believe in community?  What is the contract, what are the boundaries or limits of community?  Business people of which I chose entrepreneurs as an exemplar, exchange for the sake of profit. Their lives are set up around developing contacts, marketing, selling, producing, etc., etc.  I experienced this with my own company.  Ten years after inception, billing a million a year, I looked at myself in the mirror and didn't recognize the person I had become.  We had a D & B rating, corporate American Express Cards, etc, but all of my friends, every gathering, every social contact, was in service to my business.  I gave. Certainly.  It greatly helped me reduce my tax burden and  I took some good feeling in the act, but it was not about my community.

 

Even in community affairs, as Executive Director of our local Chamber of Commerce, I was busy selling myself and my company.  Sure it was for the community, after all I was the CEO of a major private human services organization, but it was billable hours, contracts for service, and furthering the domination of my company that was my real motive.

I frankly think we've become a nation of whores and pimps.  Our offerings to the community chest are just salve to the wounds we have received in the process.

 

Be well.  

 

ASaxyGirl,

Charitable hearts are not the issue.  Its the fabric that's at issue.  Charitable hearts buck the fabric, thank goodness and God.

I am well aware that we have compassionate and kind souls in our world, a ton of them, but the social systems, economic systems, educational systems, heck, even the language we tend to use lead to conflict and harm.

 

Take a look at the Wiki article on the 1950's sociological classic, The Lonely Crowd for some background on my POV.

 

Be well.

It all depends on how one defines community. 

My community are my friends, neighbors, and family. And I'll do everything within my power to help them.  But do I think I owe something to the faceless, defeated homeless person? No.  Does that make me self-absorbed? No.

Of course, I also don't accept your premise. That there is a "spiritual" base to society.  And even if I did, I would say that the bum is a leach while the entprereneur is simply not contributing to the spiritual base but isn't taking anything from it.

Excellent article Sodaiho!

Here's how I see it- we've become a society that thrives off of the failure of others. Go to any poor part of town (big city or small town doesn't much matter any more) and see how many payday loan and money tree outlets are there. Now, if we really cared about those less well off there would be laws against that kind of thing... the last thing someone who's making minimum wage needs is more debt with usurious interest rates. Instead we're encouraged to pounce on these folks, take em' to the cleaners for all they're worth, and once we've wrung every last dollar out of them, then we shrug and say "hey man, it was your choice to get that loan!"

Look at the diet and weight loss industry. It depends on people failing in their goals in order to be succesful, and takes billions of dollars away from people who would do better spending their cash elsewhere. All manner of ridiculous "one-of" exercise contraptions, drugs that dehydrate you and send your heart rate skyrocketing to dangerously high levels, secret "miracle" cures. And mama-jama dance-kickboxing extreme sessions of course At the end of the day, if these products actually worked as advertised this industry would be small or nonexistent as everyone would have licked their weight problems. Instead the profit that's generated, for the most part comes from repeat customers who failed one diet/scheme and are now schilling out bucks to try something else. There's a joke that the least checked out book in the library is called "the key to weight loss is gradual exercise and eating properly" because that's all there is to it, at the end of the day (yes I know there are exceptions to everything and there are plenty of good programs out there that DO work if you stick to em)

Where I see us right now is a society that is becoming increasingly stratified into different classes, and EVERYONE is terrified of having to move down a rung, so everyone is giving it their all so they don't turn into "that guy" who's on unemployment and has 50 K in credit card debt. This breeds the attitude where we are to look out for number 1 first, and jeer at those less fortunate, or use them as examples of what we will turn into if we fail.

Saddly modern charity has largely turned into a device where we absolve our conscience by giving a bit of money, sort of like how people could buy pardons for their sins from the church in the middle ages (I forget the exact title, were they called indulgences?) Anywho, the truth is while a donation of money does help rarely is it addressing the underlying problems. But it makes us feel good and allows us to justify not trying to fix the problems!

I enjoyed reading your commentary about your time as a business owner. I worked for a fellow once who ran a very succesful small business. Built it from the ground up, using his car as his office when he first started. By the time I came on as a new hire out of college he had about 25 employees, multiple reseller contracts, top awards from big name suppliers, and a fleet of standardized company vans with uniformed technicians that would fan out every morning for the various jobs that day. And, his life was that company. 24/7, sun up to sun down, everything and I mean everything took a back-seat to the almighty dollar. His family knew him in only a monetary capacity- meaning that he never had time to spend with them so he threw money at them. He was a nice enough fellow but the needs of the company over-rode all other priorities. And you're right about always promoting the company, you rarely saw him as a fellow human being but more of a constant advocate selling his business. Saddly it is this model that we are told is the epitome of success that we should devote our lives to. Perhaps this is part of the problem?

 

Relationships that only begin with "my" are by definition "self-absorbed".  There are relatioships that are not ego-centric, they begin with "our"  as in our families, our community, our country.  You make my point for me.

Society is an aggregate of social systems, a larege social system, if you will.  As such is reflects the same characteristics of all living organisms: it is born, it grows, it subdivides, it decays. Within these processes it exchanges energy.  It is this energy, this vitality, I call its "spiritual" base.  To the extent that a social system, like a society, exhibits "vitality" is the extent to which it may be spiritual. 

On some levels, entrepreneurs bring about a certain vitality, much like the vitality exhibited on the exchange floor. There is a hopefulness, an anticipatory excitment as regards daily business, but these energies are not communal.  They are not in service to the greater good, but rather to the enrichment of the entrepreneur or, in the case of the exchange, stock holders. 

When we define our communities by such vitality we are only able to see bums as drains, as the reeks and wrecks of "my" society.  Yet, in the larger picture, bums are, indeed, a part of "our" community. 

 

We all have obligations to our community. To the extent that we turn our back on them, refer to them as "not our responsibility" is the extent to which we are spiritually defeated.

 

Dear Draginol,

Thank you for your response.  I have had tudents like yourself in my sociology classrooms and in my therapeutic offices, as I am sure you have had professors like myself.   I was always pleased to see such young bucks dueling it out in arguments over free will or determinism or Marx verses Capitalism, etc.  Yet I have also been disappointed in the pernicious and seemingly growing sense that these same people had which suggested "my" was far more important than "our".

It is this point that I make and I think this point that is so deadly to our sense of community. It is a point shared by both bums and entrepreneurs.

Be well.

 

LW, sugar was a tad too sweet...i prefer my coffee black

Be well.

 

i tried to edit a couple of typos in my reply (#12) to Draginol, but apparently, if there is another comment following (#13), a preceeding comment (#12) cannot be edited.

"tudents" should read "students"  "larege "should read "large" etc.

 

This statement really exemplifies the problem I have with your reasoning.  You assume that there is only one "correct" philosophy for life. 

For instance, it does not seem to occur to you that a life philsophy based on enlightened self interest is not self-absorbed.  Rather, it would seem that only actions that go against ones own self interest or provide no benefit for the person performing the action are valid.  Historically, such thought had led to a great deal of human misery.

There is nothing self-absorbed in defining a community based on people you actually know. 

From my philosophical stand-point, deeds are what distinguishes people, not beliefs.

No, society is a group of people in which strict definition depends on the individual. 

The problem with you and people like you is that it rarely occurs to you that there are other ways of living life. You are so cocooned amongst people who feel the same way you do that when you do face someone who disagrees with you, you simply try to patronize them or make them out to be a subordinate in some way.

To people like you, the wisdom of those who interact with is based on how similar their views are to yours.

You want to talk about self-absorbed, re-read your response. It reeks of narcisism. What is more self-absorbed than someone who believes that objective reality only exists based on their own, specific, unique interpretation of it? In which all individual interpretations are flawed by the amount that they differ from yours.

No, I have never had a professor like you.  As a student of engineering, my professors were focused on teaching skills that would allow me to meet my professional objectives.

I have, however, had employees like you.  They choose beliefs based on what emotionally satisfies them rather than employing beliefs that will allow them to succeed in their life objectives.

Employees like you ultimately fail because they cannot grasp that in the real world, tangible, measurable outcomes are how we determine success.  We cannot measure "spiritual energy".

You say we have a responsibility to the bums and that entrepreneurs, like bums, are a drain on spiritual energy as if the two are somehow equivalent.  But you don't really define how that is other than taking the narcisitic view that entrepreneurs and other producers don't share your philosophical belief and therefore are somehow flawed.

Like the employees I've had who have failed professionally, you focus on motive rather than result.  My motive is impure therefore I am "self absorbed".  Your motive is pure and therefore the results are irrelevant to you. 

It doesn't occur to you that the reason you have the luxury of teaching in the first place is because entrepreneurs are the ones creating the jobs and opportunity which generate the wealth that allows our society to function (and for you to get a pay check).  And it doesn't occur to you because the entrepreneur is operating on the concept of enlightened self interest.

Not at all.  There are many philosophies of life and in each they must account for community.

This is a vast distortion of my point of view.  Enlightened self-interest is wonderful in the abstract, but in practice leaves gaping wholes in civilized society. You are using hyperbole to make your case.  No one has suggested that we should take actions against ourselves: acting in service to others is acting in service to ourselves from a community POV.

What of the people in your community that you don't know?  Your country goes as far as your personal network?  We agree strongly on the deeds defining people POV.

This is the most egocentric response I could imagine.

What are you talking about?  How do know what occurs to me or people like me?  Draginol, I was trying to give you a little respect, but it is fast dwindling.  I think your softer side is showing.

Now your prejudice slip is showing...what is this constant "people like you" nonsense?

There is no such thing as objective reality.  All reality is perceptual. My point is that society is comprised of living systems and living systems require a flow of energy.  Apparently in your college you never took a sociology class?  Never studied systems theory?  Differing interpretations are not flawed on the basis of opinion, but on reasoning or evidence or both. 

 

What sort of college does not require a broad distribution in the humanities?  But even in the sciences, systems theory is taught and discussed as an essential foundation to understanding our world.  Professional objectives and development are wonderful, I applaud them, but I also recognize they are all about you, aren't they?  What about the world outside of you?

 

This is just plain silly.  When I ran my company, tangible objectives were all I cared about.  That is precisely my point. Again, you make it for me.

 

 

I say we have a responsibility to both as both are a part of our community. An entreprenureal focus on materialism, as if objectives in terms of sales are all that matters and promulgating this point of view is a drain on the moral and spiritual base of our society.  I think of Enron as a prime example, and all those spiffy junk bond folks, as another.  Such points of view and the people who assume them are often willing to celebrate greed at the expense of ethics. It is in this sense that entrepreneurs can be a drain. 

 

Bums are a drain, as well.  Feeding off the labor of others, contributing little, they consume alone.  No one gets a free pass, not the bum on the street or the spiffy guy in the Porsche. We are in this world together and we really need to learn how to manage it.

I don't know if your motives are pure or impure or on what dimension the purity test would reside.  I do think that people who can be so highly focused they become one dimensional.  I think entrepreneurs are prey to this problem.

Results are always relevent.  Its just that I like to see how one person's reults fit in the larger community's picture.  One should aim for a good fit.

Again with the suppositions of my thought or lack thereof.  Teaching is not a luxery but an obligation one generation has to another. Your point of view seems to suggest that the only people who pay professors are entrepreneurs, just like you seem to hold that it is owners of companies and not everyone from consumers to employees who make a economy.

Its been nice discussing things with you once again.

 

Be well.

And yet you described my philosophy as being "self-absorbed" simply because I define community more narrowly than you do -- based on personal relationships. 

You talk about hyperbole and yet you were the one who accused me of being self-absorbed. You were the one who has argued that entrepreneurs are a drain on the community simply because the motives of entrepreneurs are based on enlightened self-interest. 

Your philosphy explicitly states that entrepreneurs consume the labor of others, contributing little. Those are your words.  It ignores the economic energy that helps make our society grow, prosper, and thrive. 

Where you seem to loathe individualism I see people free to make individual choices that are to mutual beneift. The entrepreneur and the worker agreeing on something that is mutually beneficial. A result that is greater than the sum of its parts which in turn makes our community, our society, better off.

LOL. Now your hypocricy is showing. Perhaps you forgot what I was responding to:

"I have had students like yourself in my sociology classrooms and in my therapeutic offices"

So when you essentially start talking about "people like me" it's okay. But if I respond in kind, now it's prejudicial nonsense.

Your thesis is based on the premise that your philosophical position is the only way. You have a blind spot to certain prejudices in your philosophy.

You state things such as:

• "There are many philosophies of life and in each they must account for community."
• "Teaching is not a luxery but an obligation one generation has to another."
• "I say we have a responsibility to both as both are a part of our community."
• "entreprenureal focus on materialism, as if objectives in terms of sales are all that matters and promulgating this point of view is a drain on the moral and spiritual base of our society."

Statements like these are incredibly narrow-minded.  You assume that philosophies must account for community. You assume that we are obligated to have professional teachers. You assume we have a moral responsibility to a broadly defined community. 

And most offensively at all, you assume that entrepreneuralism is about materialism which simply shows that you have very little experience with entrepreneurs.  Entrepreneurs, generally, are people who want to DO something concrete.  Money and material wealth may follow from their success (just as it does from success in most areas in our society incidentally) but they are not what incent most entrepreneurs.

But you claim to know the motives of entrepreneurs. You wrote:

The entrepreneur assuages his conscience by believing through his efforts others earn a living, yet this is really mental masturbation.  In truth, he cares not a wit for anyone but a blank faced customer willing to buy his product.  The rest of us be damned.

You make a very specific judgment call on what the motives of entrepreneurs are.  You seem to define enlightenment based on "caring" without defining what caring really is. And while doing that, you seem to deny that other philosophies can be morally valid even if they place the invididual as supreme.

You begin by saying that there is no such thing as objective reality. But the rest of your statement indicates that you really think that there is and that you have a lock on it and the rest of us are merely masses of unenlightened.  That's certainly how it comes across anyway.

One particular point of disagreement is what constitutes "energy". You seem to refer to it as "spiritual" energy. I would argue there are many types of energy necessary for the survival of a sentient society.  In fact, you seem to have a particular blind spot to economic energy which is far more tangible than "spiritual".

Clearly one that results in people with happy, successful lives.  I didn't go to college to be indoctrinated. I went to learn skills that would help me achieve my life goals as I saw fit. I am an unapologetic individualist. But that is not the same thing as being self-absorbed.

Are you really so arrogant as to believe that those who do not share your philosohpical views are somehow really just empty shells of self-involved materialism?

When it comes to doing actual, tangible, measurable good for society, the entrepreneur does far more than the bum, or the average person, and especially the typical college professor. 

You talk about communities. I build them.  This community wasn't created by you. It was sfounded by an entrepreneur. And my objective to have this community meant hiring other people who could code and develop the site which in turn created economic opportunity with far reaching, positive, consequences.

Enlightened self-interest is what created JoeUser.com and WinCustomize.com.  And you benefit directly from this enlightened self-interest.  Was my "consumption of labor" to produce this site a drain on society? Really? Do you really want to make that case?  What about all the other things produced via "consumption of labor"?

Do you not recognize the irony of lamenting the spiritual bankruptcy of entrepreneurs in the decline of communities as you debate one on the very community founded and paid for by an entrepreneur?

Individualism, not collectivism, is what moves the tides of history and moves the cause of humanity forward.  And enlightened self-interest has done more good for the world than any forced attempt at collectivism has.

Am I the only one that finds it laughable that Sodaiho claims "entrepreneurs" don't invest in their community when this community (i.e. JU) was created by an entrepreneur. Brad could have pointed out that individuals that he has never met thrive and make new communities of their own as a result of the community he built.

I happen to know many entrepreneurs who put everything they have on the line to make a better future for their families and the people in their community who either are employed by the resulting business or benefit from said business. I also know many entrepreneurs who give to perfect strangers who have had financial strife or to causes that they see are benenficial and not just causes that have affected them personally.

I find this entire blog completely flawed in every premise.

I think this is the bit that bugs me about this post.  How does one put a strict definition to "community"?  Saying that the bum belongs in my "community" seems wrong to me.  If they do not add to my community, or participate in my community, how are they part of the community?

Community is usually defined as: a group of people with a common background or with shared interests within society.

So, how is Draginols community self absorbed?  If everyone took care of their community (friends, family, and neighbors), you would never have to worry about the nameless bum as their friends and family would be taking care of them. 

 

 I think that the importance of entrepreneurship and what it does for society is being blown out of proportion. The spirit or "energy" of entrepreneurship is entirely neutral. By itself it is neither good nor bad for society, it is nothing more than a tool. What matters is HOW one chooses to use that tool. This is where social conscience, responsibility, common sense and hopefully love for your fellow human beings come into play.

Did you ever see that movie "it's a wonderful life"? Classic from the 1940's. If you haven't, this is one movie you should definitely see. In it, you have two entrepreneurs- George Bailey, and Mr. Potter. Both of them have the entrepreneurial spirit, the desire "to do stuff" as Draginol likes to state frequently. But that's about all the two have in common. George Bailey, although an entrepreneur, wants to build an affordable housing development for poor people, and he genuinely wants to turn the town into a good place for people to live. Mr Potter is essentially an evil scumbag who wants to own the town and profit as much as possible.

Both are succesful entrepreneurs. Bailey uses his talents for good and Mr. Potter, essentially for evil. We see that Bailey has a social conscience, whereas Potter cares only for # 1 and lives his life to dominate and personally profit as much as possible, all else be damned. When Bailey is transported into the future where he never existed, we see that Mr. Potter's application of the entrepreneurial spirit has essentially turned the town into a cesspool of misery, main street is full of run down pawn shops and brothels and the area where Bailey wanted to build his housing development is a graveyard. All of it, of course owned and run by Potter.

So, to say that entrepreneurs advance society can be true, under the right circumstances and applications. If used differently though, it can degrade society immensely while a small number of individuals profit enormously.

One question, where would society be without entrepreneurs?  It certainly would do well without "bums".  Are you really saying the same about entrepreneurs?

Community can be a micro system, mezzo system, or macro system, such as city, county, or state or country, state or nation.  We rarely speak of community as family and friends...or at least I don'tr, but then I might be wrong.

I am not attacking entrepreneurs, I am attacking entrepreneurs whose lives are consumed by their work. There is a serious difference. 

If am deeply frightened by the general response here, suggesting we not have any real responsibility for those less fortunate for us, tauting the poor entrepreneur as a model for world savior.  Time will teach these unfortunates they do not live in a vacuum.

I am trying to remain respectful, yet it is clear to me, Draginol feels no need to demonstrate common respect.  He assumes he knows me, he does not.  He could challenge my ideas with an idea toward dialogue and exploration, but seems intent on attacking, using his JU as a bully pulpit.  So be it.

 

Be well.

I can't speak to spiritual energy. I've only seen ghostbusters a couple of times so I can't speak on the potency of spiritual energy.

I can say, however, that entrepreneurship is the very lifeblood of our economic energy which. It has been entrepreneurship that has directly led to our vastly improved material living conditions. As you type on your computer on this website you should be firmly aware of the role of entrepreneurship in your ability to do what you are currently doing.

Your article compared entrpreneurs with parasites - a drain on society. Even entrepreneurs who are single mindedly consumed by their work are not draining society in any sense. They are not taking away anything more than they give.

You said I was self-absorbed. That's respectful? You wrote a post that broadly compared entrepreneurs with bums. That's respectful?

You explicitly stated you've had students like me as if you know me but then complain that I pretend to know what you are like? 

I have to ask, do they teach the concept of empathy at your college?

You didn't address any of the counterpoints I raised. Instead, you seem to see disagreements as being "attacks".  You speak of communities and society even as you side-step the awkward fact that you are speaking on a community created by an entrepreneur.

If you want an attack let me spell it out: I find your intellectual argument to be sloppy. You don't set out the parameters of your philsophical point of view. You do not define the very concepts you are trying to convey.

For instance, who is to say that bums are a drain on society. How are they a drain? How do you define a drain on society? How do you define self-absorbed? You seem to use these terms in different ways than is the norm.  I don't like semantical discussions but you seem to make use of terms and concepts in ways that are not widely accepted.

You don't even define what you mean by "responsibility" for the less fortunate. How much responsibility do we have? In what form are we responsible? You seem to have a disdain for material contribution.  Does it count that people like me provide the bulk of the material responsibility for the less fortunate? Or does it only matter that we feel deeply about things without actually doing anything concrete?

Well, what I'm trying to get at is that what you're saying is true, some of the time, if the application of said entrepreneurial skills is used properly and with a social conscience. Stating that our quality of life (which is, by the way, completely unsustainable, if all 6 billion humans on the planet had the same quality and standard of living as western nations we would need 17 earths to provide the resource base with current technology) is due entirely to entrepreneurship is a bit of a stretch. That's like saying that the entire game was won due to a quarterback, completely cutting out the rest of the team from the picture. This computer that I'm typing on is mostly thanks to countless millions of man hours put in by thousands of engineers over the last 50 years or so. Of course entrepreneurs were a part of that venture, and played a critical role. But not the only critical role!

Society is indeed a very, very complicated web of interdependencies, with critical niches that need to be filled by competent people and entrepreneurs are indeed one of those niches. But so are policemen and the legal system, without whom chaos would reign and there probably wouldn't be much productivity besides people attempting some form of enclave survival.

Engineers are a key, key component to any industrialized society. Without them our roads, bridges, power plants and water treatment systems wouldn't be what they are. People in western countries take water treatment for granted without realizing what a truly critical component of life it is.

Doctors and nurses to keep you alive and help you recover when you're sick and injured, scientists to tackle crazy avenues of thought and subject their findings to peer review, then once accepted engineers tackle the problem of turning a concept into a piece of technology, etc.

And then of course, yes, entrepreneurs, who quite often will be the "glue" that connects several key concepts or groups of people together into making something happen. What they make happen though doesn't necessarily make society better- most of the time thankfully it does, if used properly, or it can make things much worse without giving much back. Remember, Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling were both entrepreneurs. Many of the banking czars in the 20's who caused the great depression were entrepreneurs.

Which leads me to the other issue, that most entrepreneurs do fail. Not by any fault of their own, or lack of intelligence or skill- it's just the risk you take when you venture into the unkown. I have some close family members that are very entrepreneurial, over the years aquiring and running a whole host of businesses from ice-cream shops to golf courses to farms. At one point in time they decided they would get in on Ostrich farming. All the numbers were there to back them up- things looked promising. So, they went out and got themselves an ostrich farm with plenty of big ol' ostriches and all the various equipment they'd need to make things go. Well, turns out that it just didn't take off in north America. While they did everything right, and all signs pointed towards a very promising market, at the end of the day they took a risk and it didn't pan out. Set em back a pretty penny too. And we need entrepreneurs to take those risks, as I said they fill a critical role, but not the only critical role.

Bums <-------------------------> entrepreneurs

And everybody falls somewhere along the continuum, huh?

Not in my opinion. Because that's the crux of my disagreement with the author.  I don't believe a person's value is based on their service (spiritual or otherwise) to society.

 

I am not arguing the relative value of entrepreneurs.  I am simply saying that they are not parasites or the moral equivalent of bums like the author implied.

We could debate all day the relative value of entrepreneurs but it's all subjective. But I think there's a huge difference between debating how much value an entrepreneur has and implying that entrepreneurs are a drain on society.

 

en·tre·pre·neur  
1. a person who organizes and manages any enterprise, esp. a business, usually with considerable initiative and risk.
2. an employer of productive labor; contractor.
–verb (used with object) 3. to deal with or initiate as an entrepreneur.
–verb (used without object) 4. to act as an entrepreneur.

By the above definition of entrepreneur, I'm just left wondering what prompted you, Sodaiho, to have it out for entrepreneurs?  Why not lawyers, car salesmen, stock brokers, etc.  There are just as many "drains on society" as you defined it in other venues as there are with entrepreneurship...probably many more.  So what's your beef?

I think there were some clues in the course of the discussion.  I'm an entrepreneur. I own a Porsche (also mentioned in one of his comments).  I regularly post insensitive, uncompassionate articles about the poor.  I have mentioned that I work lots and lots of hours.

So I think it's pretty clear why he chose entrepreneurs for his ire.  But that's okay. After all, it's okay for him to say he knows people like me but if you return the favor, he objects loudly.

This particular drain on society, besides being an entrepreneur:

1. Happily married to the only woman I've ever truly loved for 14 years.
2. 3 wonderful, well adjusted children.
3. Lots of friends.
4. A life style that is stimulating intellectually
5. Traveled substantially meeting lots of different people from around the world.
6. Taught classes in college
7. Provide jobs as well as provide substantial contributions to charity and people in need.

I don't normally mention these things because it's a bit unseemly to toot ones own horn.  But a lifestyle based on enlightened self-interest not only is a valid, unselfish and rewarding way to live, it does a great deal of good for society in general as a byproduct.

In my experience, those who most loudly talk about "responsibility" to society actually do the least in terms of real world deed. 

I am not willing to frame the value of a human being in terms of their utility to a community or a society. I do not live for the benefit of society. I don't care about society or community at all.  I do not have a responsbility to my community or my society.  But that doesn't make me self-absorbed nor does it make me a drain on society either. I simply have an alternative value system. A value system shared by millions of other people who, when it comes right down to it, do more practical good for society -- as a by product rather than as their primary purpose -- than most of the people who speak of "responsibilities".