http://freedomteam.in/
ECONOMICS
Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2012 Sanjeev Sabhlok's revolutionary blog
The most basic distinction between liberalism and collectivist views is this: that these tribal or collectivist views ask people to look after others first, and then after yourself. Apparently you should take care of your nation first, or society, or the world, or the environment. But the order needs to be this: YOURSELF FIRST, then family, then society and environment, then nation, and finally, the world.
I've explained this at length in BFN and DOF. Such collectivist views have destroyed India and won't go away as long as politicians who benefit from such views exist.
Here are extracts from two comments on this blog received today, and my response to them.
VIJAY
Re: We all need to think of country first our “Bharat Mata” ..our egos , our self respect are secondary ..
My response
On egos, I agree, but I assert one basic principle: our self-respect MUST be above the nation. The nation is created FOR US, not we for the nation.
I trust Baba Ramdev’s “Swabhiman” doesn’t mean slavery for the nation, but self-respect for each of us.
HARSH
Re: “Unlike you, Swami Ramdev considers HIS NATION has his FIRST priority.”
My response
I don’t think you anyone does their nation a favour by giving it first priority. It must always be: yourself, your family, then your nation, and finally the world.
The mystery of enlightened self-interest is at the heart of the modern society. Let me quote quickly from DOF (draft):
“At each instant, the karma yogi considers options for action for their long term consequences. Freedom of thought leads like an arrow towards moral action. The free man acts with deliberation, aware of the potential consequences of his actions, always committed to being held to account. In advancing his self-interests though responsible action, he contributes to the welfare of mankind and of all life on earth. Note that this self-interest is broad, not narrow. It is competitive self-interest, at times, but is never unethical and does not harm others nor decimate them. It creates, preserves and fosters.”
As they say in an aeroplane: put your oxygen mask FIRST before worrying about others. If someone is so ill-educated that he/she can’t get a job anywhere or contribute to society, then HOW can that person take care of others?
When I fall seriously sick I don’t want to be taken care of by Baba Ramdev but by an experienced and qualified doctor. So also I want the best policy experts to govern India, not illiterates or semi-illiterates who, by mere virtue of chanting the greatness of India, seem to get voted to power!
DO THE BEST FOR YOURSELF. IN DOING SO YOU DO THE BEST FOR SOCIETY.
I can't do my best for India by becoming poor but by becoming rich (ethically, of course). I can't be a hypocrite like others and fool you by asking you to take care of your country first. I know that will make me more popular, but I speak what I know is good for India. I will never distort the truth for the sake of political power. You want to worship the nation, please do so. As for me, the nation is a creature of our convenience, our creation. It must serve our needs, else it has no intrinsic value. I would much rather make India rich than further advance India's many delusions.
In addition, I ask everyone to be a citizen, and contribute as an EQUAL with others. If others aren’t bothered (as is the case in India), then leave.
====
A question I asked Vijay and Harsh (later!)
Do you know what it would mean to treat the nation first? You would have to give your earnings AWAY to everyone else, and only after FEEDING everyone else you could then feed yourself. That would effectively mean you starve, since you could never finish feeding others (1 billion people!) with your earnings.
Second, if you care for the nation first, then you'd not be earning anything, anyway, since everything you do would belong to others. Therefore you would be giving away your labour and expertise to others for free. In both cases you would starve.
This, by the way, is precisely what socialism requires. Hence all socialist nations starve. Your ideology is socialist. It will fail to benefit either you or India. I do not preach such bad ideologies whereby Indians must starve. I preach the TRUTH. I preach competition. I preach success. I preach greatness!!
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email:
Join the Freedom Team of India or become a Freedom Partner.
Related posts:
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Dear Sanjeev — Let me first comment on you said: "The most basic distinction between liberalism and collectivist views is this: that these tribal or collectivist views ask people to look after others first, and then after yourself."
This shows where you are mistaken. If you have study deeply, you will notice that there are hardly any better solutions for self-care than yoga. Yoga, is done properly and consistently can lead to too many benefits. Let me quote Baba Ramdev, which I originally posted on Baba Ramdev's Facebook fan page here: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/swami.ramdev?ref=ts:
I DO NOT advocate yoga for self-interest only. Yoga, after it has helped us become spiritually and physically fit, should help us fight social and national evils. Otherwise, it is wasted. The benefits of yoga — such as a developed higher intelligence, clarity of thought, fitness, fearlessness, purity, and strength — should be used for fighting corruption!
This sentence clearly speaks for itself. FEW leaders of India lay more stress on taking care of ourselves as does Swami Ramdev. We should take care of ourselves. That is a pre-requirement, a pre-requisite. But it should be for the greater good of all humanity, including the nation, and NOT for our self-pleasure. Only after a nation has progressed, will it help other nations. In other words, we take care of ourselves to take care of the nation. Taking care of ourselves should be used as a medium to serve the nation better. Once the nation progresses, it will serve of us anyway, right? It will be a mutual deal! Remember Swami Ramdev is originally a yogi. And yoga focuses on the SELF. He teaches us to focus on ourselves, so that we can serve others. This is Vedic socialism — NOT the socialism that the Western thinkers proposed, or for that matter, even Nehru followed.
Given this explanation, WHAT YOU SAID ABOVE COMES FROM A MISTAKEN PERSPECTIVE.
You said, "As for me, the nation is a creature of our convenience, our creation."
If you view the nation ONLY politically, then yes you are correct. In that case, nation would be our creation. But if you dig deeper, you will realize that in fact, it is the other way round. WE are created by our nation. Who would you be if the nation did not exist? Your body is made up of the soil of your nation. If the soil did not exist, would you exist? If the minerals in the soil were absent, would you (or any other person) be as healthy as you are now? So, you are the nation's creation, and NOT the nation your creation.
You said, "In advancing his self-interests though responsible action, he contributes to the welfare of mankind and of all life on earth."
While this is true, it reflects the an unintentional approach to welfare. When you perform an altruistic act unintentionally, it loses its significance. It is ONLY when you INTENTIONALLY do good for others, you earn good karma. Intention matters! When you work for your own self-interest, you do not intend good for others. You only intend good for yourself. Welfare for others is only a by-product of being utterly self-interested. So, while economics may propose the approach you mentioned above, principles of dharma deter it. The rule of the markets may reflect your view, but it does not lead to the self-realization of an individual, which is the ultimate goal of human life (the end of ALL suffering through self-realization).
Lastly, you said, "Do you know what it would mean to treat the nation first? You would have to give your earnings AWAY to everyone else, and only after FEEDING everyone else you could then feed yourself."
This is again a mistaken view. If you consider treating yourself first, do it mean you will remain immersed in yourself all your life? No. Because once you have looked after your own wellbeing, you have to serve others.
Similarly, it does mean that once I look after my nation, I can look after my own family and so on. To look after my family, etc., I do have to save a part of my income. So, Swami Ramdev encourages us to spend 10% income (after taxes) for the nation. If course, if possible, we should give more, according to individual capacity. Apart from finance, the most important thing he asks us to give is our time. He asks us to spend at least 4 hours daily (if not more) toward the betterment of the nation.
Lastly, let me ask you: If your mother is seriously ill, would you forsake her? No. Then, why would you forsake your motherland just because it is corrupt? As I said, it is from her soil that you nourish your body.
Dear Harsh
I'm flummoxed by your logic. First you say that the nation must come first. Then you say that we should spend only 10% of our income for the nation.
Let us think this through:
I am one, the nation is 100 crore. Therefore if nation and I are of equal value, then nation is worth 100 crore times myself. So if I earn Rs.100 crore, I get to keep Rs.1 for myself. If I earn 1 crore, I get 1 paisa for myself. If the nation comes FIRST, then the nation must get even my 1 paisa.
Isn't it illogical for me to keep 90% of my earnings for myself and still claim that the nation comes first? How does the math add up? This is absurdly illogical.
My problem with all these kinds of thinking is that they are confused. There is not a single shred of clean thinking in such statements. Just confusion.
And each time I outline such absurd confusion you'll perhaps tell me "But this is not what Baba Ramdev means".
Sorry, you can't do that to me. I am very 'literal'. I am simple minded. I don't believe in illogical things. I prefer plain logic.
You can't first tell me that the nation comes first and then refuse to accept its implications – which is that you must starve.
In my model (and the ONLY viable model for the world) I come first. Then my family. Then the society and environment, then the world. This model always works. Indeed, I pay more than 30% of my salary as tax to the society – not merely 10%. I pay for the services I get, including the service of elimination of poverty of those too poor to pay taxes.
10% is TOO LITTLE FOR THE NATION! I suggest the chauth in BFN (i.e. 25%).
Please read BFN and DOF. It presents the most HONEST and simple system of thinking. There is no hypocrisy, no confused thinking, just plain honesty.
And lastly, I have not forsaken my 'motherland'. My motherland has forsaken my principles of honesty. I DEMAND HONESTY from India. I say to my fellow citizens of India: Follow my standards of ethics or you don't get me. I am not a cheap fellow who will run after you.
India, instead, elevates the corrupt to power. I have offered solutions to change things. No one wants to read them, leave alone follow them. These are the world's best solutions.
So what can I do? When a patient refuses to listen to the doctor, what can the doctor do? Run after the patient?
And let me suggest that you (or Baba Ramdev) can't change India by preaching such things. You can change ONLY by good policy. There is no shortcut to achieving honesty and prosperity.
Let's forget these debates and get on with the task of understanding policies for India.
Regards,
Sanjeev
See, your 'literal' extrapolations are what prevent you from understanding the gist. Let me again quote the exact lines I wrote above: "So, Swami Ramdev encourages us to spend 10% income (after taxes) for the nation. Of course, if possible, we should give more, according to individual capacity. Apart from finance, the most important thing he asks us to give is our time. He asks us to spend at least 4 hours daily (if not more) toward the betterment of the nation."
If you want to assume everything out of the context, then that's your concern (you added the word "only" before "10%", which is not what I originally wrote). The bold-faced words above imply that NOT all people will be able (or willing) to give more than 10% — but a few, who are more devoted than the rest, can certainly contribute more. If someone is not willing to contribute more than 10% through the medium of money, he SHOULD definitely contribute through his time.
I fear you are not willing to accept new thoughts (that challenge your long-held belief in Classical liberalism), and therefore try to dismiss further arguments, or take things out of context. Yes, India will change through right policies, and Baba Ramdev does not dismiss this fact. But he also focuses on developing inner growth of an individual, one that will create Ram-rajya. If you do not believe in inner growth of the masses, you are entitled to your opinion. No problem!
You said, "And lastly, I have not forsaken my 'motherland'. My motherland has forsaken my principles of honesty."
If you consider your motherland ONLY as "a bunch of corrupt people," then yes, they have certainly forsaken you long back. But remember, there are tons of good people in India. India–its essence–is STILL 'goodness.' The land, its rich culture, heritage, good people, etc. form a much larger part than all the corrupt people combined. They haven't forsaken you. Given this fact, YOU seem to have forsaken your motherland.
You said, "No one wants to read them, leave alone follow them."
This is not true Sanjeev — Had this been so, I wouldn't have requested a physical-copy of BFN from you. I am truly interested in learning your thoughts. I am open to ALL views. And I trust you will dig deeper into Vedic socialism. Some day, we may find the middle path.
I will cease further arguments — since you already seem frustrated/irritated.
Thanks,
Dear Harsh
I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think you understand what I’m clearly saying. BE HONEST to yourself. That means say clearly that the nation is not what you exist for, but the nation exists for you. That is the foundation of all progress. The moment we elevate the nation above us, we become slaves.
The debate is NOT about 10% or not. I clearly showed the illogicality of your argument that just because you give 10% or 4 hours of your time to the nation you somehow make the nation “come first”. How can that be? ONLY when you give 100% and 24 hours can the nation come first. And no fee for your services, no food till others eat first. That is called LOGIC. All else is confusion.
The HONEST man will always say that he must come FIRST, then the family, and so on. And the honest man knows that the nation is PART of his responsibility. I just want this kind of simple honesty and clarity. The more we elevate the nation “above” us we become hypocrites. Our positions become untenable. In DOF I have explained at length what enlightened self-interest means. You might want to read that section now.
NOTE ALSO THAT I DID NOT SAY THAT INDIA IS A BUNCH OF CORRUPT PEOPLE. YOU HAVE SAID THAT.
I simply said that my motherland has forsaken the principles of honesty. The nation is represented by its politicians. Note that they have been ELECTED by the people. So they ARE the people. Indians have CHOSEN the corrupt. They are not corrupt. They have chosen because honest people (and honesty is only a basic qualification for a public representative) have not contested elections.
Hence FTI. Let the honest people step forward. There are millions of them, but they are HIDING. What can be done when the honest hide and the dishonest lead?
And yes, please do read BFN (at least) before we discuss these basic issues further. I think you are very confused at the moment. That doesn’t augur well for India’s future. It is time for you to learn all sides of the argument and not just Baba Ramdev’s (whose arguments so far I have found very unimpressive and highly confused – hence guaranteed to destroy India further should the people elect him or his followers.)
By all means achieve self-realisation, but achieve knowledge about good philosophy and policy first. As Swami Suddhananda – the great Advaita teacher says, let us meet our material needs FIRST before we talk of spiritual matters. And let me tell you this: he does not claim to know the science of creating wealth for the nation. Baba Ramdev should specialise in what he knows FAR more than me, and listen to me in areas in which I know FAR more than him.
Regards
Sanjeev
The question is not of existence. It is NOT whether who exists for whom. The question is of indebtedness. For example, your mother gave birth to you. This does not mean that you exist only for her, even though you will be forever indebted to her. Similarly, your body is made up of the soil of your motherland. This does not mean you EXIST for her.
As far as the purpose of our existence is concerned, Srimad Bhagavatam (Bhagavat Purana) 1.2.10 has an answer: "Human life is meant for inquiry into the Absolute Truth."
However, in terms of indebtedness, she (India) comes first. It is only after your physical-body is nourished and formed from the earth of your motherland that you enter this world — through the medium of your parents. In that sense, your nation comes first in terms of devotion. Then, your parents and guru. And then the rest. THUS, IT IS OUR FIRST DUTY to ensure that our nation remains clean and spotless so far as corruption is concerned. If the nation is not cared for, neither you, nor your family will be able to live a happy life. This explains why it is our first duty to take care of our motherland. In order to carry out this cardinal duty (and other subordinate duties), we HAVE to take care of ourselves, through yoga (or through any other rightful means)!
Examples of such freedom fighters galore — almost all, ranging from Gandhi to Bhagat Singh; from Abraham Lincoln to Nelson Mandela; all, even though in an unintentional way, sacrificed a large part of their family (or personal) pleasures in the fire of their nation's freedom! Nothing can be achieved without sacrifice, and certainly not until India is corrupt!
And by saying all this, I am being totally HONEST with myself. I've evaluated myself thoroughly. There may seem inconsistencies in my writing, since I am not an experienced writer as you are. Please don't mistake it as being my personal confusion!
Dear Harsh
You are of course entitled to your views.
Just one comment re: “Nothing can be achieved without sacrifice, and certainly not until India is corrupt!”.
Remember that Nehru spoke of sacrifice. All our leaders still speak of sacrifice. And in the meanwhile, most of them pocketed tons of money, stashed in Swiss accounts. Sacrifice sounds good on the surface, but like they say, “Munh mein Ram, bagal mein jhuri”. The one who speaks the sweetest is not always your best well-wisher. Beware of such big words.
I think “sacrifice” is a dangerous word! It is the easiest way to mislead others. It is also a meaningless word. Please read DOF where I have explained this at length.
Caring for others is NOT sacrifice. If you care for someone and you say you are sacrificing, then you don’t really care. Ayn Rand said this beautifully: “Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice Concern for the welfare of those one loves is a rational part of ones selfish interests. If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a ‘sacrifice’ for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies.”
When you care, you act out of love and that is NOT sacrifice: you gain something (happiness) in return. Gaining happiness is not sacrifice! The greatest contribution a mother makes is through her SELFISH love for her child. She gains **happiness** as the child blossoms. Feeding the child is not sacrifice! Carrying the child in the lap is not effort!
I don’t expect ANYONE in India to sacrifice for anyone. Please don’t do that! Please live for yourself.
The day you will start living for yourself and your own success, you will surely help make India a little bit greater as a nation. The day you become TRULY rich through your hard work and efforts, India will become a little bit greater as a nation. The only way you can become rich is by HELPING others, by providing them with a service or good. That is the best way to achieve greatness for India: by trying to become rich!
All socialist and collectivist ideas are a recipe for disaster. So the solution is to lead India AWAY from socialism and confused ideas.
When you have understood policy, and have understood HOW to make India a MORAL AND RICH society – then you could join FTI. But before that it is clear that you need to do a lot of thinking and learning. I suggest you read A LOT. Please read Ayn Rand’s “Virtue of Selfishness” at a bare minimum. And make sure you read Hayeks’ The Fatal Conceit. And a hundred other good books. And please learn about public administration principles. Only then can you do something useful for India.
Until then just take care of yourself and your health, and become rich! That will be the best you can do for India until you have learnt how to enable an ENTIRE SOCIETY to create wealth – a task that Adam Smith set out to explain and wrote a massive tome on (The Wealth of Nations – I trust you have at least heard about it).
To ensure that an ENTIRE nation is enabled to create wealth is a complex and non-trivial exercise, and does not come naturally or just because you assert repeatedly that the nation should come first, just like you won’t become the world’s most competent doctor or physicist by proclaiming your love of India.
Love your nation, but display it through genuine COMPETENCE and expertise. Learn some serious economics and then let us talk.
Regards
Sanjeev
Well, if you categorize Swami Ramdev in the company of other leaders who only speak/promise but do nothing, then I have nothing to say anymore — since this means you have already made a conclusion. Swami Ramdev speaks of sacrifice, and so do all other saints of India — to compare them with people like Rahul Gandhi, Mayawati or other leaders who were soft-speakers is not proper. Let's judge on the basis of results. On the basis of the work they do. And on the basis of their success. I understand your approach and it does seem very promising — it has immense potential to lead India to success.
The ONLY thing I fear is that by following Classical Liberalism, we (Indians) may have to compromise, knowingly or unknowingly, on our heritage and culture — the humanistic Vedic principles we have been bestowed with by our ancestors. Without spirituality, India will lose its luster and uniqueness. In order to ensure that spirituality, and its better by-products, are sustained, we have to make the necessary protection laws, without hurting ANYONE's sentiments.
Now on the sacrifice: Whether you "sacrifice" FOR the one you love, or for the one you DO NOT love, the word "sacrifice" means you give something out of yourself (or something you value a lot).
The definition of sacrifice that Ayn Rand gives reflects HER view (or of similar thinkers). Oxford dictionary defines sacrifice thus: "A voluntary relinquishing of something valued." Whether you receive something (such as happiness) in return or not is not of question to me. Even though, it is possible that when you "sacrifice" for the one you love, the happiness derived from it is lesser than the loss incurred. Yet, somehow, the lovers prefer to lose rather than gain. Of course, this is not a generalization!
Anyway, let me cut this matter short: I am interested in learning where your thoughts on Classical Liberalism come from. Apart from the two books you suggested, could you kindly suggest me more books that shaped your thinking? I would be grateful!
Oh, let me add a few lines in the second paragraph of my above-comment — By mentioning Vedic humanistic principles, by no means do I refer to Hindutva. The word "Hindu," as you might know, is a big misnomer. Hindu terrorism, superstitions, false beliefs, and everything accompanying these things are something we all should abhor and condemn.
Dear Harsh
You’ve draw more inferences from what I have said than is warranted. Please avoid leaping to conclusions.
I never even remotely implied that I “categorize Swami Ramdev in the company of other leaders who only speak/promise but do nothing, then I have nothing to say anymore since this means you have already made a conclusion.”
I am perhaps one of his few admirers among the liberals in India. By the way let me state clearly that I admire Mayawati and the most corrupt Indian politician MORE than any desktop liberal. I admire Nehru more than any desktop liberal. I admire ALL our politicians FAR more than any desktop liberal.
In addition, I am a fan of Baba Ramdev’s goals, and the fact that he has motivated thousands of people across India. Brilliant! I always say to those yogis who only seek their own salvation: “Get up from your haunches, you silly dreamers, and start doing something for this world!” What use is yoga if it cuts us off from the world? But Baba Ramdev is not like that. He has RISEN and started doing something.
And indeed, he is doing something VERY POWERFUL. So let’s applaud him. I keenly admire his citizenship. HE IS A TRUE CITIZEN OF INDIA. Let that be clear and widely understood. Anyone in India who says he is going to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for his country is a GEM and I respect him as an equal. He is definitely not a sheep, not a clerk, not a useless slave; not a useless desktop liberal.
I am also convinced about his ideals and his intentions. Good man. I don’t mind being in his company, while I would not let people like Rahul Gandhi and his Congressi gangsters come 100 feet near me.
I only differ with him on policy, and thus I question his ability to achieve his goals for India. That’s where the debate is all about. Let him raise awareness, let him bring up leaders. But please let us TRULY change India, not just make it worse.
Nehru’s lack of policy understanding proved FATAL for millions of our poor citizens who thought that socialism will solve their problems. Let’s not repeat or worsen that problem in any way. Good intentions are only the beginning. Goodness is only the entry ticket to citizenship. Next comes the hard work of understanding how to incentivise an entire nation to produce wealth, how to educate each child so he achieves his or her highest potential. That is NOT a trivial task and is NOT achieved by Vedic socialism or by swadeshi or any other confused thinking, such as by asking people to sacrifice.
===
Re: Classical liberalism, please read BFN. There are tens of books and articles cited in the references. And then read DOF, with at least a hundred books and articles cited (DOF is a draft so it is hard to read). Plus a LOT of material is readily available on the internet. Please browse around. You are sure to find wonderful material. Look for these authors in particular:
Hobbes and Locke, AND Richard Cantillon (1680-1734), Voltaire (1694-1778), David Hume (1711-1776), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), Adam Smith (1723-1790), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Thomas Paine (1737-1809), Baron de Montesquieu (1743-1797), marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794), Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), James Madison (1751-1836), Jean Baptiste Say (1767-1830), Henri-Benjamin Constant (1767-1830), Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835), David Ricardo (1772-1823), Frdric Bastiat (1801-1850), Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882), John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862), Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), Lord Acton (1834-1902), Carl Menger (1840-1921), Eugen Bohm-Bawerk (1851-1914), Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992), Ayn Rand (1905-1982), Isaiah Berlin (1909- 1997), Milton Friedman (1912-2006), Peter Bauer (1915-2002), James Buchanan (1919-), Murray Rothbard (1926-1995), Gary S. Becker (1930-), and Robert Nozick (1938-2002).
But if you read ALL of Hayek’s work, you are done. That’s the best exposition of classical liberalism I know of. I agree with Hayek on about 99% of things (I seem to be able to agree with Baba Ramdev only on about 30% of his policy comments, it would appear, but I need to learn more about Baba Ramdev).
Can we stop this debate till you’ve finished reading up at least a bit more? I must try to spend time completing DOF. Not good use of my time just to debate with one person.
Regards
Sanjeev
Thanks for this list of books — I'll try to read them! Once again, I appreciate your time!
Hi All,
Ohh I didnt knew another topic has started .. hahahha
Harsha Ur email id please …. mine is evijaymohan@gmail.com
I need to talk to you so that these two groups work together for the coutry's sake..
Thanks
When Indian Army fight the enemies at the border, it is self-interest or nation interest ? They can leave the battle for sake of themselves and their families. Why do we need to put the notion of sacrifice in mind of soldiers? Similarly one guard of Central Bank died fighting unsuccessfully with two arm-packed robbers recently. He well could have skipped his duty and not stopped them from looting bank and saved himself. How do you defend your position of self interest first on these sensitive issues?
Manish
In Punjab there was a custom that the eldest son would be sent to join the army. The idea was that Punjab had to be defended from invaders BEFORE any prosperity could be considered.
That, in a nutshell, is the premise of classical liberalism that I’ve explained at length in DOF (http://discovery.sabhlokcity.com/).
Without defending borders, all else is a waste.
So it is definitely part of enlightened self-interest to choose to defend one’s nation, or for parents to encourage at least one child to do so.
Once you CHOOSE a particular vocation, then you must necessarily discharge the function. You can’t be a soldier who flees from battle or a bank guard who doesn’t attack robbers.
S