Humans are born anti-social?

[IcarusAngel]

I'm wondering if there is any evidence of this and I'm afraid to ask Libertarians as they just defend these statements while making no sense.

"Nothing, however, is as ill founded as the assertion of the alleged equality of all members of the human race."~Ludwig Von Mises, Liberalism, p 28


"Man is born an asocial and antisocial being. The newborn (http://www.businessinsider.com/ludwig-von-mises-implies-being-a-savage-animal-is-ok-2011-10#)child is a savage. Egoism is his nature. Only the experience of life and the teachings of his parents, his brothers, sisters, playmates, and later of other people FORCE HIM to acknowledge the advantages of social cooperation and accordingly to change his behavior." ~Ludwig Von Mises, Omnipotent Government, p. 241


Most of what I've read says the opposite.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Isn't the human brain still developing at birth? And hasn't science established the plasticity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity) of human brain development? Does that not therefore cut the ground out from under such claims by Lolbertarian types?

This is quite apart from the fact that such claims are contradicted by the considerable evidence from history, archeology and paleontology that shows humans, considered as a whole rather than in the specific case of infancy, to be a fundamentally social species. We wouldn't have developed civilisation if we weren't social animals.

[Sasha]

no mather all the faults of social-biology this book by renowned dutch primate researcher frans de waal is a excellent book that makes an very compelling argument about the intrinsically social behavior of all primates and most other animals:
http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/empathy/
expert of the book:
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/251555/sept

[ВАЛТЕР]

Children are such because they are children. They need to be cared for by their parent so they scream and yell and demand things. Since, that is all they know.

From all accounts I was a little hell raiser/selfish little shit as a child and only thought of myself. Eventually I changed. Empathy is a human trait that develops as we mature.

[hatzel]

It's technically true that humans are born anti-social. Mainly because developmental psychologists are largely in agreement that very young children aren't actually aware enough of the world to realise that other people really exist, so of course can't exactly socialise with them. Kind of like how they don't realise that objects keep existing when you hide then behind a piece of paper or something...

Anybody who has children or looks after them or for any other reason spends time around children will know we do appear to go through a bit of a snatching stage, though, stealing toys from our siblings and stuff, generally starting around age 1-2. Probably part of the fall-out from realising that you're not all there is, and there are other people like you, and letting somebody else have something means you don't have it (whilst before the idea of letting somebody else have something was totally foreign, because the concept of 'somebody else' was foreign). Which explains why, very often, one doesn't even play with the toy, or have any desire to play with the toy before the other person takes it. It's more about depriving the other of the object than having it oneself, and this selfishness cannot be ignored. But in the end you (generally) grow out of it, because realising there are other people like you allows the possibility of empathy, snatching toys makes the victim sad, blah-de-blah, all that stuff. I'd be willing to bet that a child snatching toys doesn't need their parents to tell them off for them to get over that stage, if their brother or sister just cries loud enough. Or they could just be left to their own devices until they realise they don't actually need to have everything. I don't feel that society has to intervene to force people to be nice to people.

So sure, we could say that we should all be egoists and solipsists and all that, deny the existence of any other person, because that's how we're born, and therefore that's our natural state. But as we know that the stuff in the fridge is still there, even when the door is shut, perhaps we have to realise that basing all our ideas on the perspective of babies isn't exactly the best idea. Because they're kind of a little bit stupid sometimes.

[Skooma Addict]

"Nothing, however, is as ill founded as the assertion of the alleged equality of all members of the human race."~Ludwig Von Mises, Liberalism, p 28


If you understand what he means here, you should agree. It should be obvious to anyone.

[Franz Fanonipants]

If you understand what he means here, you should agree. It should be obvious to anyone.





your statements are hilariously paradoxical. what does he mean, if i understand it, that should be obvious to me?

[tfb]

Men are born short and flabby beings. The newborn child is a little lump. Smallness is his nature. Only being fed food by his parents, lunch ladies, grocers, and restaurateurs FORCES HIM to grow.

[hatzel]

If you understand what he means here, you should agree. It should be obvious to anyone.

For the sake of discussion, the context is here (http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec4.asp). The argument appears to be "people aren't equal [by which he seems to mean identical], but unique. Therefore the socialist ideal of giving everybody exactly the same stuff is a bad ideal." Of course it's a massive strawman, particularly in this day and age. Albert and Hahnel spring instantly to mind, but plenty of people have written page after page after page in debunking the idea that socialist equality means everybody being given exactly the same stuff...

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, humans are born anti-social. The thing is, being social is just unnatural. Luckily, as there's no way that we can learn to be social (we don't have role models because we're not socialised, and anyway no-one ever invented being social anyway, because it's such an unnatural idea), we all die soon enough that there's no possibility we can learn to be anything other than greeedy. Luckily for Mises that is, otherwise we might have to theorise ... I dunno, 'socialism' or something.

Man, so-called "Libertarians" make me cross.

[Sasha]

In the book i mentioned the author recounts a famous selfish productivity experiment with chickens;
They where breeding with two groups of chickens, group one they bred with the most productive chickens, group 2 they bred with the most social chickens. Logic would seem to reasons that group 1 would turn out the most productive, which it was... for about two generations, after that the chickens in group one spend all their time pecking each other to death instead of laying eggs. They created a breed of pure psychopaths.
This while group two progressed, slowly but steadily each and every generation.

[CommunityBeliever]

No.

[DeBon]

Out of curiosity, is this Ludwig Von Mises an actual scientist or sociologist who bases these claims on studies and research, or is he saying this to back some political agenda?

[$lim_$weezy]

Not only is Mises not an actual scientist or sociologist, I believe he rejects the need for empirical evidence (or at least "scientism" or whatever). So yeah, there's that.

[Ocean Seal]

Out of curiosity, is this Ludwig Von Mises an actual scientist or sociologist who bases these claims on studies and research, or is he saying this to back some political agenda?
There's a reason we call them lolbertarians. They don't believe in science and instead replace it with praxeology which is the rejection of empiricism.