That’s irrelevant. What matters is if those who are screwed care.
They’re all humans. The OP question wasn’t “do an-cap people care about what socialists do?” it was “why aren’t people for liberty?” Socialists are people too.
Yes, they’re humans. So what. Their opinion as to whether or not I’m harmed–or anyone else is harmed–is immaterial. What matters is each person’s estimation as to his or her harm.
They’re humans, so their position requires explaining. Why don’t these people care? What justifies the harm they do to some people? How do they justify it?
“The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an overriding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, THAT IT HAS TO FEED HIM INSTEAD OF BEING FED BY HIM. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.” - Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
These words still resonate within the American Left to this day, why is this, how is this possible?
In your position it’s important to ask yourself one question… What would Rothbard do?
Well, I don’t understand what this nature is supposed to be. It’s fixed and constant, and the fact that different societies are different, and people change over time, is explained by pointing out that these are habits, not nature, and habits can be changed. So it seems that this fixed and constant human nature doesn’t have explanatory power. You certainly can’t observe it in some pure form, nor can you observe its impact on behavior, so what causes you to think it exists and can’t change?
They don’t have to care. And the only justification is that they feel good helping others, no matter what.
Seriously, you should be able to come up with this on your own.
As opposed to What Would Stalin Do?–which has but one answer: He’d PURGE!
It’s more of an instinct than anything else. Different societies are different, but how different? People change over time, but how much can they really change? Human nature, if it is at the base of human behavior, must contain explanatory power. I don’t know how to isolate human nature or even necessarily quantify it, but I do know it exists. Humans are selfish. First and foremost. They care about themselves. Not about others. They can be taught to care about others, sure. But at their core, they’re selfish. So, when I say to a socialist “you’re taking my property” they will say “I don’t care, it will be used better by me than it would be by you.” But if someone takes their stuff, they’ll raise bloody hell. Humans are hypocritical. They’ll do the opposite of what they said they’d do if they stand to benefit more from being a hypocrite than from being an honest person. People change their minds all the time. Consistency is not a naturally human trait. Humans are adaptable, malleable and most of all, fickle. Because I understand this, I am able to understand why people don’t universally want ‘liberty’ in the an-cap sense of the word. They don’t all stand to gain from it. Maybe you and I do, but they might not. This is why socialism and communism and commonism hold such appeal. Lots of people stand to benefit from those systems.
Nein, as opposed to what Picard would do @ 4:16:
They do have to care. If they don’t care, they’ll keep stealing.
Even if they do care, they can keep stealing.
I’m sorry, none of this seems accurate to me. Why do people cry at Bambi, get angry when they read about “injustice” in the papers - yes, I know full well that they read about worse injustices but don’t get angry if they are not presented as injustices, but that’s not relevant to this particular point - or give to charity? If that’s all people play-acting or going against their natures, then human nature is not particularly strong. Now, you’ve described what you think human nature to be - but I’m not seeing an argument for why you think it exists, or fits this description. What makes you think these things?
But maybe they’ll stop. Can we give them a good reason to stop? Can we give them a better reason to stop than they have for stealing?
Personal experience. Which, by its very nature, is ofcourse limited. But these observations have served me well, so I trust them.
Maybe your worldview is different because your life experiences have been entirely different.
Is it possible that people do the things you’re talking about because of selfish motives? I tend to think they do.
Isn’t the inherent selfishness of man the reason markets work so well?
Are you searching for some Ultimate Response, and if there isn’t one, you feel that It’s All A Lost Cause?
Sort of, yes. I won’t follow something if I don’t think it meshes with human nature. An-cap, as far as I can tell, is a nice product with a small market. Something that I’m sure frustrates an-cap people since they’re so pro-market. It would seem like it’s annoying for the market to be so anti-an-cap. You know what I mean?
Movies have taught you well my friend.
If we define human nature as those traits which are universal across all cultures and time periods, then the only two traits that seem to make the grade are self deception and denial, which might explain alot, given the topic and discourse of this thread?