On Property

[exploited]

[eynon81]

[exploited]

Okay. So we know that human beings are always turned on (I am just going to let this slide to be nice). Now draw a political conclusion from that.

We also know that all human beings are insecure, and therefore want protection from "others." Now you will have to draw a specific political conclusion from that. "Human beings want protection from 'others,' therefore capitalism" or "human beings want protection from others, therefore we are inherently violent."

The point that is abundantly clear is that even IF you can identify certain universal characteristics, which really you cannot without talking about sex or shitting or eating, how best to provide those things is very much up for debate. Which means that I can use those characteristics to justify absolutely any argument whatsoever.

Thus, for all intents and purposes, human nature does not exist. All motivations and desires are tempered by circumstance. Me being constantly horny, for instance, does not mean I want to bang a fat chick, or that she wants to bang me. All humans requiring food does not mean that I like all food, or even that I should eat particular foods. To talk about human nature in politics is to deliberately engage in the biggest fallacy we know of.

[eynon81]

[The Comrade]

so human nature is to constantly be different and varied.

huh, that seems to be self-defeating.

[eynon81]

[Hyperion]

If there is a 'human tendency,' propertarianism has sure shattered our historical, communal relationships. The philosophy of anarcho-capitalism is pretty much the antithesis of all social norms - which is probably why most adherents come off as sociopaths. (PoS)

[The Comrade]

[exploited]

What is really interesting is that Non's hypothesis relies upon logical self-interest in order to make sense. I am insecure about bigots, therefore I want to legislate against them.

Problem: I am a straight white male. I have absolutely zero fear or insecurity about any of that, nor do bigots affect me personally in any way. I could live in a bigoted world and face zero consequences whatsoever. And yet one of my most impassioned political positions is that people must not be persecuted by private or public institutions on the basis of non-harmful traits they cannot change. A black is born black. A gay person is born gay. A disabled person is born or made disabled. These people ought to be protected... And yet I share ZERO characteristics with them whatsoever. They are in all ways "the other" I am supposed to be insecure about.

Another example: I come from an always upper-middle class, sometimes upper class family. Most of the policies I advocate would decrease my own ability to secure resources, as well as the ability of my most intimate tribal associates. Poor people are the "other" I am supposed to fear. Property, as a farmer, is the lifeblood of my families wealth. And yet here I am.

[The Dharma Bum]