A question concerning human nature

[StripMineandClearCuttheWorld]

Hi, all-

I'm a new member, but have spent a considerable amount of time lurking here. I apologize if this topic has been beaten to the ground in the past, but I'd appreciate it if some of you might indulge me for a discussion on the nature of man.

I see a number of posts denegrating the libertarian/capitalist concept of human nature as essentially fallible. While I accept that it might not paint the rosiest picture of man, human nature so defined holds a great deal of explanatory value in terms of presenting a comprehensive view of human history. Two questions for the leftists, then :

1. If you don't agree with this characterization of human nature, what is a more appropriate definition?

2. If, as I suspect, you posit that it is within man's reach to perfect his essential character (which would , as I understand it, be a requirement for progression to the communist worldsystem) how do you suggest we begin to move man from formally cupiditous to compassionate.

[Lamanov]

http://www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/faq/human_nature.asp

[NovelGentry]

1. If you don't agree with this characterization of human nature, what is a more appropriate definition?

I would call it Human Nutrure. There is a development of man that exists alone as a material being that sustains him as an individual as well as with society. That is to say, man can stand alone. This alone should show that there is nothing intrinsic about the idea of greed and other such spite within us, as it's pretty difficult to be greedy with yourself.

Exactly what element of society and social progression causes these things? I can't say difinitively, but I've got a few theories.


2. If, as I suspect, you posit that it is within man's reach to perfect his essential character (which would , as I understand it, be a requirement for progression to the communist worldsystem) how do you suggest we begin to move man from formally cupiditous to compassionate.

We don't. It's not in our hands to do so. Although we might help, or push proper thinking and consciousness along, in the end there has to be a significant change in the material reality, that creates new material conditions and essentially form that reshapes society itself to created new social conditons.

Greed, regardless of what anyone says, is a social condition, it requires another being to even manifest itself. So I propose to you that it is more likely that such social conditions that make us greedy, competitive, lustful, etc... or anything else that requires another end of the stick so to speak, are actually born out of society itself. And society itself and it's structure is born out of the material conditions that presuppose it's existence.

How WOULD greed develop in man if he was all alone?

[New Tolerance]

1. If you don't agree with this characterization of human nature, what is a more appropriate definition?

A note about this.

The idea that humans are evil and therefore use must turn to capitalism is an inconstitent one. If human beings are indeed evil, it implies that we the ones (we) who describe them as such, knows what is good, or else we would not have been able to label them as evil in the first place. If this is the case, then, does it not follow that we the people who knows what is good, should correct the 'evil' deeds of human beings with regulations and control? (with a state control economy etc etc)

In fact, constitent capitalists realize this, and condemn the idea that human beings are evil. The idea that human beings are evil is more or less, social conservative argument, not a constitent "capitalist" argument.

As for what actually constitute as human nature, I fail to see how you could attribute such a thing to "humans", since our race as a whole is constantly evolving and changing, therefore a constant definition is impossible.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 08:45 PM

1. If you don't agree with this characterization of human nature, what is a more appropriate definition?

I would call it Human Nutrure. There is a development of man that exists alone as a material being that sustains him as an individual as well as with society. That is to say, man can stand alone. This alone should show that there is nothing intrinsic about the idea of greed and other such spite within us, as it's pretty difficult to be greedy with yourself.


By "man standing alone" do you mean living in complete isolation from other people? If so, has this ever been the case in human history?

[NovelGentry]

By "man standing alone" do you mean living in complete isolation from other people? If so, has this ever been the case in human history?

Of course, there are examples of recluses, lone survivors for extended periods of time, etc. Whether it was done as an evolutionary step, I doubt it. We more than likely had some sort of Pack or Tribal consciousness from whatever it was that even our earlier ancestors develloped from.

The point is very simply that man CAN stand alone, and as an argument for what people consider human nature, you're going to have a pretty difficult time telling me that something is psychologically ingrown to us when it is not required in the least for sole survival.

Like I said, we are social creatures, but that would only lead me to believe this "nature" as you call it, is not actually nature, but a condition that we remain social creatures -- as they are all social characteristics. This means that they are not so much ingrown as MKS and the likes would like to have us believe, and can obviously be overcome with reason alone, let alone abandonment of said social structure and thus the possibility of simply changing social structure.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Out of curiosity, if man were simply violent and self-interested, what bonds would hold even a capitalist society together? The ability of humans to act both autonomously and collectively is evident in every workplace and factory! Assuming of course, that you mean by "nature" that which is inherent and inescapable, the only conclusion we can draw, looking across all historical social systems is that, in some instances for better, and in some instances for worse, humans are inherently capable of both co-operation and autonomous action toward any number of highly variable goals.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

Gah!! I had a nice reply.. but the server crash.. I'll make this short.

Anyways, VMC - What I think holds society together is fear of death and desire for living in peace and security. I will never deny that people cooperate but that does not mean that they are not self-interested or that they do not cooperate for selfish reasons.

Gent - I would arguery much that self-interest is inherent in our survival instinct. I know that if my life is threatened, I'll do whatever I have to to live. The fact that people can't be selfish when they are alone (even though the argument could be made that one acts in his own interest at expense of say, wildlife or the environment) does not mean that the propensity to be selfish is not within them. That particular instinct is exacerbated by human contact and society.

BTW happy easter to everyone... religious and atheist alike

[NovelGentry]

I would arguery much that self-interest is inherent in our survival instinct. I know that if my life is threatened, I'll do whatever I have to to live.

Yes, but were not talking about self-interest IN survival. We're not really talking about self-interest. We're talking about greed, lust, envy, things of this nature, all built around desire, but what is difficult to consider just self interest.

You can want to survive. But if there are 10 crackers, and 10 people who are all relatively at the same level of hunger, and you take 8, that is greed. If you take 8, and force them to do something for them, that is also greed. Self-interest is saying "I want a cracker caue I'm hungry and I need to eat to survive" not "I want 4 times as many crackers as you!"

Overall point, survival is indeed human nature, it is animal nature, it is INSTINCT. I think Marx would gladly agree with this type of nature. However, survival in nature does not maintain that you have to be greedy, merely that you maintin interest in your own necessity. Greed can ONLY occur when indeed you have someone to take something from -- and when it is not a question of life or death, one can hardly consider it plain survival interest.


The fact that people can't be selfish when they are alone (even though the argument could be made that one acts in his own interest at expense of say, wildlife or the environment) does not mean that the propensity to be selfish is not within them.

I think you're missing what I'm saying. You of course cannot be selfish when you're alone, there's no one to be selfish with. But you can survive alone, and thus you can survive without being selfish. Even if you were surrounded by 200 people, you can survive 100% on your own. Thus it is impossible to say that such a thing is in grown. It is not part of us as individuals because it doesn't make sense for us as individuals -- it REQUIRES society to survive. Unless you believe in shared consciousness or collective nature, it cannot be considered to be in grown to the individual.

It may be very heavily embedded, but it is not something we cannot overcome.

[Wolnosc-Solidarnosc]

In light of all this, I don't think it's possible to tell whether or not greed, envy, etc. are inherently within us. However, man cannot be separated from society. He cannot be isolated through his whole life if not for the simple reason that he needs someone to raise him. When people come into contact, that is when you get greed, envy, etc. You call this human nurture... but because contact with other humans is what we do, is what we have always done, I consider it nature.

Now, to go back to your cracker example. 10 people, I have ten crackers, we are all hungry. Why on earth would I want to give anyone anything? Sure I can give them each a cracker and feel good about myself.. but I can also eat all ten crackers and feel more filled than if I had just one. This sort of thing has always taken place not only between individuals but between societies as well.

You put a lot of faith into human reason, a lot more than I'm willing to. You expect people to be 100% reasonable all the time... but how true is that? is it even possible? Human emotions often get the better of us and we act irrationally or unreasonably. I doubt that under communism people will simply stop feeling emotions. I can be envious of my neighbour not just in terms of wealth but in terms of things that you cannot make equal (looks, intelligence, etc.). May neighbour may do something to piss me off, in which case I'd want revenge, and so all those properties of greed etc. creep back in. This is why I asked you before if the goal of communism entails changing one's own nature. I didn't ask it to be a dick, it was s erious question because it seems to me like it requires people to suppress their inner feeling and passions.

[NovelGentry]

However, man cannot be separated from society. He cannot be isolated through his whole life if not for the simple reason that he needs someone to raise him.

I'm not saying this is or should be the case. Simply pointing out that it should not be inherently built into man, as it has nothing to with survivalist necessity on the ground that he CAN survive alone.


When people come into contact, that is when you get greed, envy, etc.

I don't seem to have this problem when I come into contact with people. Actually myself, most of my friends, and my family are all quite generous where and when we can be.


You call this human nurture... but because contact with other humans is what we do, is what we have always done, I consider it nature.

I don't... no. I simply call it greed, and I recognize there are a vast number of people who don't have it.


Now, to go back to your cracker example. 10 people, I have ten crackers, we are all hungry. Why on earth would I want to give anyone anything?

Empathy towards fellow man?


Human emotions often get the better of us and we act irrationally or unreasonably.

So if human emotions often get the better of us and we act irrational, then there's nothing rational about greed? Good. And if we're not all emotional rollercoasters we should be stable and perfectly NOT greedy.


Sure I can give them each a cracker and feel good about myself.. but I can also eat all ten crackers and feel more filled than if I had just one.

You could also crush them all and stomp them into the ground!


You put a lot of faith into human reason, a lot more than I'm willing to.

No, I just don't put that much stock into hate and selfishness. I've rarely seen it amongst people who are not that well off. I saw a homeless man give another homeless man money once -- and I've seen stock broker types walk by both and do nothing.

All the riches in the world won't buy you a friend if you're a big enough asshole.


You expect people to be 100% reasonable all the time... but how true is that? Human emotions often get the better of us and we act irrationally or unreasonably.

Certainly in extreme circumstances. But the arguments of capitalists on this message board are along the lines of "What if someone goes to the distribution center and takes all the orange juice!!!!!!"


I can be envious of my neighbour not just in terms of wealth but in terms of things that you cannot make equal (looks, intelligence, etc.).

No one is claiming aesthetics equality or anything of that nature. I'm not sure where you get this idea from, but it's prominent. I've also heard "If someone is better at basketball than someone else, classes will be recreated." -- inequalities of this nature do not amount to socio-economic inequalities that determine the ability of a person to survive. It is not our goal to make everyone look the same or make everyone spit in the same direction, that's all something you guys got from fairy tales about everyone wearing the same clothes and sneakers in communist society.


May neighbour may do something to piss me off, in which case I'd want revenge, and so all those properties of greed etc. creep back in.

We've never argued crimes of emotion would not come up. In fact, we've said quite clearly this type of crime would exist. Note, NO form of society can make you look better and not ant to kill your neighbor in these cirumstances.


This is why I asked you before if the goal of communism entails changing one's own nature.

Again, I don't believe, and I've never seen a case where this was shown to be nature. I know plenty of people who do not think about killing people who look better than them and happen to piss them off -- in fact, if this is something you find common, I would seek psychiatric help for those displaying the behavior as it seems like a rather extreme and unnatural agressiveness.

On the issue of greed, whether that be taking all the orange juice or whatever strange example you want to give. I don't see how it can cause an issue when private property is done away with. You can have all the greed in the world, but without the so-called right to private property, there's not much you can do about it. -- Sure you can take all the orange juice -- but you can't stop other people from taking it from you. So unless it is some childish exercise in futility, there is no point.


it was s erious question because it seems to me like it requires people to suppress their inner feeling and passions.

I'm not sure how it can be. Again, I don't have any "inner feeling" to be greedy. Nor do I have any "inner feeling" to kill people cause they tick me off, regardless of if they look better. I don't have any "inner feeling" to take all the orange juice. I don't have any "inner feeling" to do anyone any harm except those who do harm to me. I don't have any "inner feeling" not to be productive, in fact, I cannot stand being unproductive which is usually why I have 10 projects going at once. I don't have any "inner feeling" not to help those who help me. I do not have any "inner feeling" that says I need pieces of paper to show me why I work. I don't have any "inner feeling" that tells me anyone else has any of these "inner feelings."

I'm gonna type up a simple questionaire for all the people here, and I'll post it. I'd like for you to reply when I do.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:27 PM
I see a number of posts denegrating the libertarian/capitalist concept of human nature as essentially fallible.
DJ-TC's link is good: "human nature" has changed through history.

But I wanna comment, also on "the libertarian/capitalist concept of human nature as essentially fallible. "

I don't know anybody who says human nature isn't fallible.

Certainly Marxists have never claimed that people are perfect, or that people will ever become perfect. Nor would perfect people be required for communist society to exist.

Different prevailing values than today, yes; people who aren't "fallible", no.

[StripMineandClearCuttheWorld]

Good discussion...thanks for all the responses. Briefly, here are my thoughts:

NovelGentry said:
Greed, regardless of what anyone says, is a social condition, it requires another being to even manifest itself. So I propose to you that it is more likely that such social conditions that make us greedy....

Here and in a couple of other places you've confused greed with envy, but either way I disagree that such sentiments are social manifestations. Greed is simply the feeling associated with wanting to have an overabundance of something. Unsocialized man has the capacity to be greedy. He might gorge himself to sickness on fruit or or wish that he had meat when he was subsisting entirely on nuts. Envy is the desire to have something owned by another. The case that this is a behavior predicated on social interaction is stronger, though I would argue that man in the state of nature suffering the effects of inclement weather was capable of coveting the shelter of a cave occupied by a bear. As such, greed and envy are inherent in natural man.

New Tolerance said:
The idea that humans are evil and therefore use must turn to capitalism is an inconstitent one. If human beings are indeed evil, it implies that we the ones (we) who describe them as such, knows what is good, or else we would not have been able to label them as evil in the first place. If this is the case, then, does it not follow that we the people who knows what is good, should correct the 'evil' deeds of human beings with regulations and control? (with a state control economy etc etc)

This is a common misinterpretation of liberal philosophy. The position isn't inconsistent at all. ALL people are fallible and subject to the influences of their base emotions (greed, lust, etc.). While we may recognize this and wish it weren't so, everyone, even the most enlightened, would be incapable of transcending the human state. To whom then should we turn to enact greater regulations or control (or a state-controlled economy)? By granting power to a person or group of people to enforce that which is "good", who will have authority over them to ensure they do not succumb to their own fallibility? This is the implicit problem with the Platonic, Aristotellian, and Rousseauean political systems: they are dependent upon the paradigm that man is ultimately good. See Frederic Bastiat's 'The Law' for a better understanding of the relationship between the liberal democratic ideal and the fallibility of man.

Virgin Molotov Cocktail said:
Out of curiosity, if man were simply violent and self-interested, what bonds would hold even a capitalist society together? The ability of humans to act both autonomously and collectively is evident in every workplace and factory!

Of course it is. You've conflated capitalism with the most radical form of individualism, which is erroneous. Neither hedonism nor rational egoism preclude the possibility of people working together if it is their individual self interests to do so. Criminy, even Ayn Rand and the wacky Objectivists said it was OK for people to stop killing one another and cooperate for the sake of productivity.

And finally (because it's late, not because I'm done rambling ;) ) NovelGentry said this in response to a statement from Wolnosc:

Now, to go back to your cracker example. 10 people, I have ten crackers, we are all hungry. Why on earth would I want to give anyone anything?

Empathy towards fellow man?

Wolsoc's question was an interesting one and, while NovelGentry's altruistic response is admirable, there's nothing in capitalist ideology that suggests I have to keep all the crackers for myself. While I might be greedy for all the crackers and deem that is in my self interests to eat them all, I may also desire companionship . Thus, it would be in my interests to distribute some of the crackers to my comrades. Furthermore, a group of people is ultimately more productive than a man alone, so keeping others fit and ready to produce for me is also in my interests. I wouldn't expect NovelGentry to argue on behalf of capitalism, but I thought it important to point out there is a non-altruistic response to Wolnosc's question.

A better question, though, is if there are ten people of equal hunger and eight crackers. What is the appropriate distribution of crackers if there is no clearly-defined element of need (and assuming breaking the crackers would eliminate some of the much needed nutritional value)? Moreover, is it greedy of me to want one of the crackers for myself?

I look forward to your responses and hope that we can maintain the level of civility we've had up to this point.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:09 PM
But if there are 10 crackers, and 10 people who are all relatively at the same level of hunger, and you take 8, that is greed. If you take 8, and force them to do something for them, that is also greed. Self-interest is saying "I want a cracker caue I'm hungry and I need to eat to survive" not "I want 4 times as many crackers as you!"
It's interesting how the issue of "who owns the crackers" and "who made them" is never bought up. I take it that you consider them irrelevent.

[NovelGentry]

Here and in a couple of other places you've confused greed with envy, but either way I disagree that such sentiments are social manifestations. Greed is simply the feeling associated with wanting to have an overabundance of something. Unsocialized man has the capacity to be greedy. He might gorge himself to sickness on fruit or or wish that he had meat when he was subsisting entirely on nuts. Envy is the desire to have something owned by another. The case that this is a behavior predicated on social interaction is stronger, though I would argue that man in the state of nature suffering the effects of inclement weather was capable of coveting the shelter of a cave occupied by a bear. As such, greed and envy are inherent in natural man.

I've not confused anything. Greed is relative to two very distinct things that capitalists try to use as the argument of why capitalism won't work. Supply and Demand. If you have 10 cars, and 5 workers -- can you consider it greedy to want 2? If you have 10 cars and 10 workers -- can you consider it greedy to want 2? If you have 10 cars and 20 workers -- can you consider it greedy to want 2?

What you are referring to is not Greed, but Gluttony (which despite common misconception is NOT reserved for only food or drink). Gluttony is a condition where you want more than you need/require. Greed is a condition where you want more than you deserve. What you deserve is extremly relative to what others have done to contribute to the supply.

If you indeed produce all the cars, it would not be greedy to want 10, however, it would not be generous to do so either.

I will agree gluttony can occur regardless of society -- but greed in order to exist requires a whole lot more, namely an antithesis of sorts to your own right to what is available -- another person.

Envy requires you to naturally be envious of something -- as a social condition, which is as it is expressed here, the requirement would be another human. You can be envious of a house for it's quiet life, sturdiness, etc -- but that has no social relevance, be envious of houses all you want, it will not affect the lives of those around you.

Again -- these are social conditions, they HAVE to be manifestations of society as without society we could not even be conscious of their existence, let alone have developed such a thing.

As they are dependent upon society -- one must also see that they are dependent on the form of society. You cannot have greed without scarcity. You cannot have greed without inequality (someone desiring something they don't deserve). As contributing members to societies productive efforts, the working class deserves completely the spoils of their labor, and is not greedy for wanting such. As exploiters of the working class, who contribute no labor, the bourgeoisie is greedy in wanting far more than they deserve.

[NovelGentry]

It's interesting how the issue of "who owns the crackers" and "who made them" is never bought up. I take it that you consider them irrelevent.

Why does it have to be assuming they are all working class? Who is to say who owns them if indeed the labor of each member has at some point sustained the life of the others, and thus helped in their creation, even if they were not directly made by said person.

The idea of ownership -- and the idea that ownership should be in the hands of anyone but who made their production possible is a bourgeois mentality, and if it is not found it my example, it is because it's not something I think in terms of.

Surely if one of them was the "owner" of the cracker factory, and he paid these workers to produce these crackers, but paid them less than the value he charges for these crackers -- you don't care, and he is the owner of the crackers and then has all rights to them.

But as a condition of survival they are forced to work at the cracker factory so that every two days they can afford a portion of the crackers produced to survive up until this point of it's collapse which we'll say for hypothetical sake was caused by all of the worlds existing wheat supply drying up with no agricultural workers to replace it.

[StripMineandClearCuttheWorld]

What you are referring to is not Greed, but Gluttony (which despite common misconception is NOT reserved for only food or drink). Gluttony is a condition where you want more than you need/require. Greed is a condition where you want more than you deserve.

Is it really worthwhile to throw the gauntlet down on etymological concerns?

With all due respect, you're wrong on both accounts. According to dictionary.com (to which you direct survey respondents on another link as the arbiter of confused meanings), which uses the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Lanuage as its primary source, gluttony is "Excess in eating or drinking." And according to Webster's 1970 edition gluttony is "the habit of eating too much (and greedily)". Certainly, colloquial phrases like "He was a glutton for punishment" suggest a broader usage, but formally, such applications of the word are incorrect. Find a lexicon that was not heavily influenced my the Marxist-Leninist tradition and I'll reconsider my position on "gluttony". As regards "greed", dictionary.com defines it as "An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves"; Webster as "desiring more than one needs or deserves".

These definitions are of interest because you concede:
"Gluttony is a condition where you want more than you need/require. Greed is a condition where you want more than you deserve....I will agree gluttony can occur regardless of society."

If, as you incorrectly posit, that 1) gluttony is a condition where you want more than you need/require, 2) the widely-accepted definition of greed is desiring more than one needs OR deserves, and 3) you agree that gluttony occurs in man's natural state, then necessarily 4) greed exists in man's natural state. QED.

[NovelGentry]

Is it really worthwhile to throw the gauntlet down on etymological concerns?

With all due respect, you're wrong on both accounts. According to dictionary.com (to which you direct survey respondents on another link as the arbiter of confused meanings), which uses the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Lanuage as its primary source, gluttony is "Excess in eating or drinking." And according to Webster's 1970 edition gluttony is "the habit of eating too much (and greedily)". Certainly, colloquial phrases like "He was a glutton for punishment" suggest a broader usage, but formally, such applications of the word are incorrect. Find a lexicon that was not heavily influenced my the Marxist-Leninist tradition and I'll reconsider my position on "gluttony". As regards "greed", dictionary.com defines it as "An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves"; Webster as "desiring more than one needs or deserves".

These definitions are of interest because you concede:

I don't really care what dictionary.com has to say -- nor did I look up the definitions of every word in my survey, it was meant simply as a means to clarify. I thought I made it quite obvious in the thread that the thread itself was not designed to pick apart peoples interpretations or to pin anything on anyone -- I just wanted answers to those questions (and do not expect myself to be able to interpret them correctly).

On the issue of whether dictionary.com can be applied to this debate. That's another issue -- and I was not aware it was written in the disclaimer before we started.

Dictionaries such as: the cambridge advanced learner's dictioanry, as well as versions of Webster (not all) contain at the least, secondary definitions in line with what I am saying towards gluttony, which at the least extends the definition to that.


If, as you incorrectly posit, that 1) gluttony is a condition where you want more than you need/require, 2) the widely-accepted definition of greed is desiring more than one needs OR deserves, and 3) you agree that gluttony occurs in man's natural state, then necessarily 4) greed exists in man's natural state. QED.

1) Again, regardless of whether or not my label towards what you propose is accurate, it does not automatically imply what you are saying is greed.

2) As far as the widely accepted definition of greed. I would challenge you to find wide acceptance of people who maintain someone can be greedy all by thesmelves.

Consider this excerpt which takes the historical context of the word and it's usage into play:


Greed vastly predates Smithian economics, of course. It is one of the Bible’s Seven Deadly Sins. Contemporary dictionaries define it as intense acquisitiveness of (usually material) goods or wealth. To dilate: Greed is the acquisition of a desirable good by one person or a group beyond need, resulting in unequal distribution to the point others are deprived. Competitive greed is the same type of acquisition deliberately to create that inequality. Punitive greed is the same type of acquisition deliberately to leave the deprived suffering, powerless or disabled. Sometimes it takes fine grained analysis of circumstance and motive to distinguish these, but all the preceding involve overt behaviors, and the measure is the resulting inequities.

Notice some of the key points "to the point others are deprived" -- "to create inequality" -- "to leave the deprives suffering, powerless, disabled."

In fact, maybe you'd like to read the whole damn essay -- it's quite pertinent to what we're discussing:

http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/GREED.htm

3 & 4) I do not agree that it does occur. I agree it CAN occur. This is to say that one can be gluttonous in an individual, as it does not require another to deprive. Just like one CAN be greedy in a within a social context. The fact that they can does not imply that they inherently are.

My argument is that man cannot be greedy without a social construct beyond their individual existence, that the psychological implication requires first that you have someone to whom your greed affects.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

The communists are confusing "incentive" with "greed".

To obfuscate the profound difference between the 2 throws the whole tirade into the wind.

No one has said that greed was the driving factor of humankind. But incentive is a very great motivator - to assume that all of society will do just enough and that any excess is shared out is ludicrous. Humans are a perceptive lot and can see that when there is no incentive to do any more than minimum they will begin to do less and less. The whole concept of private property, ownership and incentive is what leads to this alleged "excess" to begin with. Without it the excess quickly dries up.

Results would be no excesses and no utopia as envisioned. Surely a cyclical morass if there was one. If people have a reasonable expectation of reward for their risk - then they are no more less greedy than anyone else - it just turns out that those that are very successful are never given any credit for risking more than others or maybe helping others with their "excess". Incentive is a normal and natural thing in the world - to deny its existence and unnaturally depress it or label it as inherently evil - will only work for so long before it gets circumvented.

And the level of incentive is going to be different for each individual - you may not want to risk a lot and therefore would expect the reward to be less - and if you are happy with that, what business is it of the state to tell you that that is not enough or too much?

If someone else chooses to risk a lot and succeeds why is it a problem for you - if you are happy with your incentive? The silly notion of no risk/high reward is only a figment of Marx and Engels imagination. Nothing else in nature works that way.

[NovelGentry]

But incentive is a very great motivator

Agreed.


Humans are a perceptive lot and can see that when there is no incentive to do any more than minimum they will begin to do less and less.

What makes you think there is no incentive?


The whole concept of private property, ownership and incentive is what leads to this alleged "excess" to begin with.

You say this as if they are all the same thing.


And the level of incentive is going to be different for each individual

I agree.


what business is it of the state to tell you that that is not enough or too much?

None, and this is precisely why the state never does under socialism or communism... in fact, under communism the state doesn't even exist.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 06:27 PM
I see a number of posts denegrating the libertarian/capitalist concept of human nature as essentially fallible. While I accept that it might not paint the rosiest picture of man, human nature so defined holds a great deal of explanatory value in terms of presenting a comprehensive view of human history.
Huh? I want a good, clear definition of "human nature" first.


Two questions for the leftists, then :

1. If you don't agree with this characterization of human nature, what is a more appropriate definition?

What do you mean by "human nature"? This is something that I do not seem to understand. Should we consider slavery "human nature" since it once existed? Is rape "human nature"? Or murder? Greed?

I assume "human nature" has to be related to what we consider to be "instinct", but I constantly see capitalism's supporters claiming that it is some kind of "natural tendency to be greedy and support capitalism-styled ideas" but they don't really have any kind of evidence supporting it's "natural" origin or that somehow it's "incompatible" with "leftist ideas".


2. If, as I suspect, you posit that it is within man's reach to perfect his essential character (which would , as I understand it, be a requirement for progression to the communist worldsystem) how do you suggest we begin to move man from formally cupiditous to compassionate.

I don't completely understand the question. I guess human behaviour is partly because of the environment and partly because of their physiological (sp?) characteristics. For what I seem to understand from the question, I guess the answer is that we don't think there is need for a "change" in "mankind", rather that we think we must promote changes in society's organization, and that we must make people understand what we stand for and why.

[New Tolerance]

StripMineandClearCuttheWorld,


This is a common misinterpretation of liberal philosophy. The position isn't inconsistent at all. ALL people are fallible and subject to the influences of their base emotions (greed, lust, etc.). While we may recognize this and wish it weren't so, everyone, even the most enlightened, would be incapable of transcending the human state. To whom then should we turn to enact greater regulations or control (or a state-controlled economy)? By granting power to a person or group of people to enforce that which is "good", who will have authority over them to ensure they do not succumb to their own fallibility? This is the implicit problem with the Platonic, Aristotellian, and Rousseauean political systems: they are dependent upon the paradigm that man is ultimately good. See Frederic Bastiat's 'The Law' for a better understanding of the relationship between the liberal democratic ideal and the fallibility of man.

There's a more fundmental philosophical split I see. The argument you have presented implies that human values/action is under the sway of human emotions, I don't think that this is the case, instead I believe that human emotions are generated by human values.

If it is implied that a person's emotions determine their values, and if is also implied that these "base emotions" are unchangable, then how is it possible for a person to change their values? (which we know that they could change)