Are those really the only universal traits? What about self preservation?
I do love movies but I can’t remember a movie where someone says what I said, which movie are you thinking of?
I don’t think we’re talking about human nature here. It seems more like we’re talking about what happens when a state is added to humans in nature.
The real question would be why don’t some human beings desire liberty when there is a gun in the room?
Your positions on human nature are not based in reality. The vast majority of social interactions are peaceful and mutually beneficial. We focus on coercion because, well, it’s coercive and pisses us off. I don’t see why human nature is as evil as you claim.
Nirvana Fallacy.
Nice way to rationalize a desire for thugs to rule you.
Nope. Not a clue.
I never said human nature was evil. It’s neutral. People respond to incentives. Marxism is more appealing to a majority of people in the US. Why? Because they think they stand to gain more. Keynesian economics is more appealing. Why? Because it means we all get bailed out when we make mistakes and that we get stuff for free.
An-cap offers almost nothing. No benefits, no perks, no subsidies, no protection. It offers ‘liberty.’ What about the people who don’t care about your form of liberty? What do you tell them?
Knight, I’m not trying to be a dick or anything but I’m pretty right wing. I even understand the philosophy behind an-cap. But it sounds awful. I have no intention of supporting it.
I’m your market, sell me. Tell me why I want your form of liberty.
Because most people are theives.
Na I don’t think so.
That’s out of pure ignorance and indoctrination.
It offers wealth and prosperity. Liberty is just one of the benefits, and a big one at that.
Why?
Sucks to be you.
No, you have to sell me on why I should desire a monopolist which violates my rights while saying it protects them. You believe that initiatory force is ok. Sell me on that.
Not universal, some people kill themselves or act in a self destructive manner.
indeed.[Y] And somebody is holding that gun pointed at everybody else while they sing la-la bye’s to them.
Here is a recap of some of the replies that, I believe, address my question in the most direct manner:
The Normal State of Man: Misery and Tyranny
“Only a few prefer liberty, the majority seek nothing more than fair masters”, Sallust, Histories.
"A people not habituated to a Statist conception of authority (emphasis added) are incapable of considering a defeat in war as anything more than a temporary limitations upon their liberty" (in reference to Ireland).
“I don’t think it is that humans aren’t equipped to desire liberty; they simply don’t know how to achieve or obtain it.”
“However, people do not ask for socialism because they know that socialism will improve their conditions, and they do not reject capitalism because they know that it is a system prejudicial to their interests. They are socialists because they believe that socialism will improve their conditions, and they hate capitalism because they believe that it harms them. They are socialists because they are blinded by envy and ignorance. They stubbornly refuse to study economics and spurn the economists’ devastating critique of the socialist plans because, in their eyes, economics, being an abstract theory, is simply nonsense. They pretend to trust only in experience. But they no less stubbornly refuse to take cognizance of the undeniable facts of experience, viz., that the common man’s standard of living is incomparably higher in capitalistic America than in the socialist paradise of the Soviets.” - Mises.
“The conflict is not between those who want to be free and those who do not want to be free. Everyone wants to be free. The conflict is between those who want their neighbors to be free, and those who want their neighbors to be controlled.”
“Every person is equipped to communicate (unless there is a physical disorder of course). Could it be that communication is the key to unlocking mankind’s innate desire for liberty? And, that this communication was only recently developed (the internet)? Could it be that Liberty and communication are linked?”
Lt Col Frank Slade-Scent of a Woman:
Now I have come to the crossroads in my life. I always knew what the right path was. Without exception, I knew, but I never took it. You know why ? It was too damn hard.– “That’s part of your answer. Liberty requires going beyond the infantalizing notion of a perpetual parent. We can certainly be free and have liberty in our own minds. But the effort required for actual liberty, i.e. to actually eliminate the state, is too great for many. The state creates a lot of roadblocks.”
“The real question would be why don’t some human beings desire liberty when there is a gun in the room.”
“I’m your market, sell me. Tell me why I want your form of liberty.”
“No, you have to sell me on why I should desire a monopolist which violates my rights while saying it protects them. You believe that initiatory force is ok. Sell me on that.”
You know what the obvious answer to this one is right?
Might Makes Right?
No, that might makes possible. WIthout might, nothing is doable.
I have some quotes for you guys that I found in my book, Origins of Totalitarianism.
“The Rights of Man, supposedly inalenable, proved to be unenforceable- even in countries who constitutions were based upon them- whenever people appeared who were no longer citizens of any sovereign state.”
“The Rights of Man, after all, had been defined as “inalienable” because they were supposed to be independent of all governments; but it turned out that the moment human beings lacked their own government and had to fall back upon their minimum rights, no authority was left to protect them and no institution was willing to guarantee them.”
This is mostly talking about what happened to the Jews during WW2 in Nazi Germany. Remember, we were stateless and homeless until after WW2.
“Man, it turns out, can lose all so called Rights of Man without losing his essential quality as man, human dignity. Only the loss of a polity itself expels him from humanity.”
This is why I support a monopolist institution based on force. It protects my rights as much as it can violate them. It’s a delicate balance though, no doubt about it.
Bloom, you’re not serious, are you?
EDIT: I see from a subsequent reply that you are serious…this ought to get interesting…
Holy cow.
Ofcourse I’m serious, why couldn’t the Jews defend themselves against the Nazis? They had no might. No state. We have a state now.
If I tackle you, and you have no way of defending yourself, the righteousness of my act isn’t relevant at that point if there’s no one to defend you. The question becomes: can you defend yourself?