Have I flushed one out of the woodwork, as it seems?
"Human nature" being the evolved behavioral psychology of the human
animal. Do you dispute?
Communism is only non-despotic in its perfect state. Perfection is an
unstable state, which is a truism of all natural systems. It is
impossible to attain equilibria in a perfect state due to this
instability, thus communism will always be despotic, and given the
nature of power to corrupt and attract the corruptible, communist
societies will always result in tyranny. Ant colonies may be cute, but
they are heinously despotic and irrespective of the individual. Just
because communist despotism (i.e. imperfect) works for ants doesn't mean
it works for humans.
Libertarianism has no perfect state, that is its nature. It is about
attaining an equilibrium between individuals that is flexible based on
the abilities, wants, and needs of each individual.
As a person trained in engineering, I know that engineers and scientists
are taught to work WITH the forces of nature, not against them. You
don't build a submarine out of tinfoil, nor do you build an airplane out
of lead. You don't get a stable functioning society by making everyone
give up their entire days work to the collective, because it IS human
nature for an individual to believe they produced more than they did and
deserve more than they do, and to expect additional reward for
additional or better work. It is human nature for a person to put more
importance in the safety, security, freedom and happiness of themselves
and loved ones versus anybody else. The free market works with this
forces of human nature, communism works against them.
Neal Blaikie wrote:
> Really, Michael, have we been reduced to red-baiting? Did we somehow slip back
> in time to the 1950s? Communism, like every other idealogy (i.e., idealized
> belief system), has been and will continue to be subject to corruption. Just
> like capitalism, or libertarianism, or liberalism. Perhaps if we could work
> toward improvement without name-calling and labeling we might actually get
> somewhere. And what exactly IS this "human nature" I keep hearing so much about?
> I'm a bit confused on this. Does this mean that nothing we do matters because
> "human nature" is going to mess it up anyway? That we ultimately have no free
> will? How is this different than theists laying everything on the doorstep of
> Neal Blaikie
> Michael Lorrey wrote:
> > Based on this, they are most properly described as communists in sheeps
> > clothing. They are a new communism that has merged with the
> > environmental movement, which is rather incongruous to anyone who has
> > ever seen the environmental impact of communism wherever it has taken
> > root. They still do NOT get it about human nature, and they refuse to
> > admit that because their goals conflict with human nature so severely
> > that they must inflict tyranny to achieve them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:37 MDT