Renewed Occupy movement?

I must say D3VIL, I completely agree.

Once again, I completely agree.

The second one goes into more detail.

Oh well, I really don't care about this argument
I just liked that the first article was spitting on conservatives, it was pretty funny.

The second article does that more.

Oh course you'll be completely ignoring the motivational power of self-fulfillment and actualization in favor of the cohesive power of collective ties and obligations. Ultimately creating a society that praises mediocrity while alienating ingenuity and the unorthodox.
Practically speaking self-interest and the pursuit of personal desires ultimately serves humanity on a far greater level than any system that offers a man only ostracism for looking beyond the group.

But you can both pursue your own self interest AND the greater goal of humanity. A perfect society would be one where everyone is doing their own thing, looking for their own gains, but they all work together and the world is united and better because of it.

Interesting points although I disagree with your conclusion. I don't deny that self-interest has its place. I was objecting to self-interest to the expense of others i.e. capitalism. Self-interest is an important motivator, but who says it has to be to the detriment of society? An example, scientists often say they become scientists because they want to discover and to learn. This has the benefit of enriching society but it ultimately serves the scientist's self interest. Now, imagine said scientist is employed, and the scientist makes discoveries. In this instance it would be used to benefit the business, not society.

I probably could have explained myself better but it's 2am damn it.

Ultimately what you're talking about is a society that values the individual, and recognizes that by pursuing his own personal desires to his own person ends he is both engaging in productive activity and contributing towards the general welfare by functioning.
D3VIL on the other specifically said "...a society where people worked together to the betterment of humanity, not themselves.", implying a society in which the individual is expected to act as a subordinate to the collective and sacrifice his personal wants and ambitions in favor on the group will.

Generally when someone experiences material gains while other experience material loss as a result, the issue lies with a scarcity factor.

I believe in voluntary association and in some instances I believe this would be correct. For example, doing jobs no one wants to do. Group will would dictate a rota. Valuing individualism over the collective would mean that it wouldn't get done. Of course the individuals in question could stop being associated with the community. In general though the individual would be free to follow his/her wants and ambitions. I believe my poor choice of words got our wires crossed, I hope this clarifies my position.

Iv'e never really liked this example. Generally when man comes across a task he finds undesirable his reaction is to either lessen his exposure to it as much as he possibly can or find a way to completely remove the human being as a component of said task altogether.

"The betterment of humanity" should not and will not ever take precedence over the personal wants and needs of individual men. Humanity is useful to me as a means to my personal ends. Trying to make it work the other way around is truly dystopian. If you enjoy altruism, then do it. Don't force other people to participate in your collectivist nightmare.

I know. I was kind of agreeing with both of you.

One person does not take precedence over the needs of an entire species.

What do you mean by "needs of an entire species"?

The human species needs our environment and food. If one person wants to exploit and damage the environment that other human beings need to survive, then they shouldn't be allowed to. Needs > Wants.

When is that ever the case?

This example is inherently flawed, why would anyone simply let another person indirectly or directly cause them harm if they're truly concerned with their own welfare? I also question the use of the word "exploit" as a negative in the context of human interaction with the environment.

The people who want to force altruism on humanity are low-minded brutes, incapable of utilizing any tool other than force to get their way. If the success of one man don't suit their vision of an "egalitarian" community, then they'll smash that man into the dirt and grind his property into fertilizer to be distributed equally among the dirt-farming masses. You can kiss innovation, prosperity, and a decent standard of living goodbye in their world.

“Never stand begging for what you have the power to earn.”

For instance, when a palm oil company destroys Indonesian rain forest (which happens all the time), they are also destroying the land that the indigenous population needs for farming. Because of this, the indigenous native population is forced to go to the cities and attempt to survive in an environment entirely unfamiliar with them, or stay in their environment and starve because they no longer have any farmland. When the first world meets native populations, it has been frequently shown that the native population is destroyed.

They wouldn't. But what are a bunch of uneducated natives, who have barely any contact with the outside world, going to do against massive machines and armies of loggers? They can't do anything, and there is no protection for them. I used exploit because it is often referred to as exploitation of the environment or exploitation of natural resources.

Exactly how can you farm dirt?

Not really. If they're truly altruistic than using force would be a contradiction.

Good to know. Now does this have any relevance to the discussion or are you just preaching your anti-left message again?

See, but if you read my response to Demondaze and Melanthropist, or even if you go look these things up yourself, you will find these people do not have the power or education to do anything. They aren't begging for money or anything, they just want to continue living unimpeded in their own little world. Really, what's the problem with that? Are people really so greedy as to deny humans their own homes and farms so they can make a little bit of money off an oil?

ie: Star Trek.