“Humans don’t have morals. Humans are like robots.”
Morals can change over time, but that does not mean they don’t exist. Take murder. It can always be wrong (pacificism), sometimes be wrong (most people), and never be wrong (sociopathy). Reasons can be religious or secular, determined by social consensus or determined by a philosopher working alone in a room, but morality is not absent.
If humans didn’t have morals, then moral dilemmas wouldn’t apply to them. They wouldn’t argue about the morality of abortion or killing one person to save five in the trolley car thought experiment.
“We are programmed to make ourselves as happy(and wealthy, same thing) as possible.”
Happiness and wealth are different. One can be an ascetic monk and feel religious happiness, maybe euphoria while a wealthy person can quickly become bored with newly purchased stuff.
Source: What typically happens is a new car, computer, home, or other product is initially exciting, but that happiness fades showing that one’s newly acquired stuff only elicits temporary happiness. Human happiness is affected by comparison to one’s peers: one’s friends, family, coworkers, and former schoolmates. If one is less wealthy than one’s peers, one is likely to be less happy than one’s peers, but if one is equally wealthy with one’s peers, then happiness levels are about equal. Economist Robert H. Frank said, ‘Studies consistently find, for example, that when the incomes of everyone in a community grow over time, conventional measures of well-being show little change. Many critics of economic growth interpret this finding to imply that continued economic growth should no longer be a policy goal in developed countries. They argue that if money buys happiness, it is relative, not absolute, income that matters. As incomes grow, people quickly adapt to their new circumstances, showing no enduring gains in measured happiness. Growth makes the poor happier in low-income countries, critics concede, but not in developed countries, where those at the bottom continue to experience relative deprivation. All true. But these statements do not imply that economic growth no longer matters in wealthy countries. The reason, in a nutshell, is that happiness and welfare, though related, are very different things. Growth enables us to expand medical research and other activities that clearly enhance human welfare but have little effect on measured happiness levels . . . The fact that people adapt quickly to new circumstances, good or bad, is just a design feature of the brain’s motivational system. The fact that a paraplegic may continue to be happy does not imply that his condition has not reduced his welfare. Indeed, many well-adjusted paraplegics report that they would undergo surgery entailing substantial risk of death if doing so promised to restore their mobility. Similarly, the fact that people may adapt quickly to higher incomes says nothing about whether economic growth makes them better off.’
“Theft can always make you better off, or at least equally satisfied.”
Theft can make you worse off. You could be caught and punished. You could feel guilty. Theft can make one better off, but that possibility does not incentivize everyone to steal.
“Obviously, most people don’t steal, but if they ever were about to starve to death I promise you they will behave in whatever way possible to get food.”
So we all will not act nice to survive in life-and-death situations. So what? Life is not a day-to-day life-and-death struggle.
“My point is that morality does not influence society as much as you would think.”
You do not need society (I think of big cities). Prehistoric hunter and gatherers (about 100-150 a group) influenced the youngsters. Empathy, cooperation, compassion, language, social norms: all are encouraged by people, notably one’s parents.
“Or else democracy would work.”
Define work. I oppose majoritarian tyranny, democracy.
“Everyone should vote to not steal from eachother. But obviously they do want to steal from eachother.”
Most voters do not believe taxation is theft. It is rationalized as paying dues or love-it-or-leave-it or the nonexistent social contract or some other excuse to justify it.
“Why doesn’t competition emerge on it’s own.”
My government definition included its involuntary aspect. It does not allow competition. For example, read my Liberty Dollar Verdict post. An entrepreneur offered a currency and the government accused him of domestic terrorism. It was wiling to use a huge exaggeration in defense of its money monopoly.
“If a single government would stop using coercion, and ask to be voluntarily funded, it should gain huge support.”
A government that did that would end within days. Anyone can say they support education, healthcare, unemployment insurance, and other programs, but not many are willing to spend their own money on it. It is easy to be compassionate with other people’s money. I am not saying there will be no charity. People just wouldn’t be able to remain parasites on their fellow humans.