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
Huh? Human nature is simply referring to the obvious fact that human
beings are creatures of certain defining characteristics (subject to
some change with better tech eventually) and thus certain types of
societal practices work better or worse as they are relatively
consistent or inconsistent with that nature.
It has nothing to do with claiming nothing matters or denying free
will. But free will has nothing to do with claiming humans effectively
have no nature and thus are totally malleable to whatever way societies
and governments wish to treat human beings.
There can be no rational or scientific approximation to the best form of
social organization for the advancement of human beings without studying
the nature of the entities involved and matching the organization to the
requirements implied by that nature.
Does that clear it up?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:37 MDT