Democratic Libertarian Party HQ

[Kirov]

Originally posted by Drogue
I do understand GT's point, but often it seems you rebut every sentance but miss the point of the whole.

That's what I was trying to say...

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Maniac


As Archaic hasn't responded yet to my last large post; I'll just assume he can't deny the truth in what I'm saying. So I'm more then happy to stop debating this issue.

Bah humbug. Wait until after Christmas. Besides all the problems associated with this time of year IRL, I'm in the middle of trying to set up a .com while the costs for servers are rather low due to said time of year. Very very busy.

I'm glad to see the party's been in more than able hands while I've been away though. ^^ Well done GT.

[Drogue]

I think that was tongue in cheek. Since we stopped that arguement, I presume replies are not necessary.

And Merry Christmas if you're not on again before

[Archaic]

Wasn't on to get your post there either, but thanks anyway. ^^;

*Sighs* 4 days, then I have everything sorted. Then it just becomes a matter of keeping up with everything.

[Archaic]

Tass, would you be able to clear your PM Inbox out for me please? Just tried to send you a PM, but it bounced.

[Method]

heh. tass must get a LOT of PMs. i got that before too

[GeneralTacticus]

Or maybe he just doesn't clean them out often enough. I had the same problem a while ago...

[Archaic]

Am I the only one here who's never had the problem? ^^;;;

*Sighs* Convincing people of the benifits of a Free Market is much harder than you'd first think. All these Walls of Ignorance people have built up.....

[Method]

i managed to convince crisler it was good back in august then again, he didn't really have an agenda economics wise, and was more open to other ideas...

[Archaic]

*Sighs* True. I don't see Pan or any of the others ever changing their opinions, do you?

[Pandemoniak]

How would you convince me that "capitalism benefits to all in the society" when your arguments are only "marxism is flawed and you're a dumbass" ?

[Kirov]

Originally posted by Archaic
*Sighs* True. I don't see Pan or any of the others ever changing their opinions, do you?

I fail to see the reason why I should change my opinion even in the slightest manner...

[Drogue]

I have seen some good arguments from Archaic actually. However, though I do feel capitalism was best on old earth (partly through Archaic's arguments) it is not perfect. I think we have better systems on Chiron, and as such do not support FM.

[Kirov]

Originally posted by Drogue
I have seen some good arguments from Archaic actually. However, though I do feel capitalism was best on old earth (partly through Archaic's arguments) it is not perfect. I think we have better systems on Chiron, and as such do not support FM.

I haven't said Archaic hadn't use any good argument, just all of them are already known to me. FM has many advantages, indeed, and *wise prince* () would wisely mix both FM and Planned. However, here on Chiron we are restricted to choose *between* pure systems, which are in fact unreasonable, and I consider Archaic's views as too close to pure FM, in other words, too radical.

The thesis that systems would work different for Earth and Chiron is IMHO unsupportable. Tho there are many obvious differences between these planets, none of the difference makes Planned or Green better for Chiron than for Earth. At least at the first glance.

[Drogue]

I agree. Mix FM and Planned: Go Green

[Kirov]

I see you have received my hidden message...

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
How would you convince me that "capitalism benefits to all in the society" when your arguments are only "marxism is flawed and you're a dumbass" ?

My arguements are hardly limited to only that, though it's refreshing for you to admit that you're a dumbass for once.

Seriously Pan, when the basic tenants of marxism are flawed, you should be able to see that *ANY* system based upon them will be flawed also.
Your arguement can be summed up as simply "We can deny our base natures." Even you should be now be able to see that's screwed.

Kirov, Drouge, give me a break. You both know that I don't support a pure FM (20% Psych people!), and that the only reason you really debate me about it is that you're overly squeamish about Eco-damage. Oh boo hoo.

[Drogue]

That is not the only reason, and eco-damage is not the only environmental concern. I believe in equality, which is inherantly lacking in FM. Yes Marxism is flawed, as it capitalism. We have to choose which, in this day and age, will give us the best quality of life, both now and for the future. Capitalism may give us more now, but is non-sustainable. The negative Planet effect particularly highlights need for exploiting Planet for profit, rather than looking for sustainable sources of power. I know you do not want pure FM, but you want to go much further towards FM than we are prepared to go.

Far more importantly however, I thought we had finished the Marxism vs Capitalism arguments. And especially with insults between Archaic and Pande. We all know each others positions, so will not convice each other, and we can debate FM vs Green vs Planned when the next poll comes up. However, if you still feel the need to argue, please argue about the issue and not about each other.

[Archaic]

If you want more equality, than that's already another arguement for FM. As much as you might cry about the wealth divide, there's no nobility or inheritance in our community, so there's nowhere for there to be a rich/poor divide to start with yet. What may make that divide from now on under FM would be peoples own skills and talents.

Under Planned however.....watch all the power and wealth go to those who control the economy. Equality my ass.

[Drogue]

No, it won't. That may be your Planned, but I've never advocated pure planned. I want a mix, but a mix that is more towards public services, and a basic quality of life for everyone. Ie. a much more leftist mixed economy than your mostly FM. FM does not have equality, just because wealth is assigned by merit does not make it equal. There is a rich/poor divide to start with, since you can inherit wealth.

[Archaic]

And what is the problem with inheriting wealth? At the moment, there is no wealth to inherit. Instead of having rich nobilities of idiots descended from warriors like on old earth, here any people who became rich by inheritance are there because their family worked hard to provide for a better life for their descendants.

And here's a newsflash......people aren't created equal to begin with. True equality is only desirable when the people themselves are equal to begin with, and when that happens......you've got Borg.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Archaic


My arguements are hardly limited to only that, though it's refreshing for you to admit that you're a dumbass for once.

You're obvious lack of logic heremust be a clue for some sort of humor, I guess.

Seriously Pan, when the basic tenants of marxism are flawed, you should be able to see that *ANY* system based upon them will be flawed also.

Not necessarly, because it can be corrected, if it is strongly controlled. But what I want is not the system to be controlled but the theory to be enhanced. Marx's economical theories cant be denied without denying three hundred years of history, and it is simply stupid IMO to say he was simply wrong. He was incorrect on many things, but has been enhanced a lot more since he wrote the manifesto. Our vision of globalization broughty by Planetary Networks arent flawed at all, and the planned economy that results from it arent flawed either.
And by the way, guess on what basic tenants the capitalism has been build on ?

Spoiler:

Yeah ! Karl Marx's das Kapital

Your arguement can be summed up as simply "We can deny our base natures." Even you should be now be able to see that's screwed.

You missed my point : it is we can change our base nature -- empath can prove it -- and it is better to change it than to let us go with the worst things of human nature -- greed, selfism, etc...

And here's a newsflash......people aren't created equal to begin with. True equality is only desirable when the people themselves are equal to begin with, and when that happens......you've got Borg.

Stop confusing Justice and Equality.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Not necessarly, because it can be corrected, if it is strongly controlled.

The only way you can correct flawed principles is to dump the principles altogther and start afresh with different ones. No form of Marxism has been willing to do that.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
But what I want is not the system to be controlled but the theory to be enhanced.

But you're not willing to dump the incorrect assumptions about human nature, amongst other things.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Marx's economical theories cant be denied without denying three hundred years of history, and it is simply stupid IMO to say he was simply wrong.

Why is it stupid? If someone screwed something up completly, and you can prove it, then you're well within your rights to say it was wrong.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
He was incorrect on many things, but has been enhanced a lot more since he wrote the manifesto.

All without changing the basic principles upon which it was founded, meaning it's still fundamentally flawed.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Our vision of globalization broughty by Planetary Networks arent flawed at all, and the planned economy that results from it arent flawed either.

Which is why it's so inefficient, as shown both IRL, in RP (Turn Chat anyone?) and in the Game Mechanics?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
And by the way, guess on what basic tenants the capitalism has been build on ?

Spoiler:

Yeah ! Karl Marx's das Kapital

Yes Pan. That's right. Marx invented capitalism in his Das Kapital, a book which he wrote in 1867, a full 19 years after he attacked capitalism in his Communist Manifesto. And well after Adam Smith wrote his "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" in 1776.

Guess what Pan? Pretty much every economic system on earth was either a Free Market or a Planned economy from the time of the first human beings! Your specific version of the Planned Economy, a marxist economy, is perhaps the most foolish. Communism isn't totally insane; we all have a little bit of experience with it. After all, a healthy family's economy is basically communist: mother and father put their earnings into a common pool, draw from that common pool to finance purchases, and share a common standard of living with their children. But that model, as good as it is for a family, cannot be expanded into an entire country.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
You missed my point : it is we can change our base nature -- empath can prove it -- and it is better to change it than to let us go with the worst things of human nature -- greed, selfism, etc...

*AHEM*
THOUGHT POLICE!!!!!

Stop putting your head in the sand and denying that human nature is human nature. To have us be anything but ourselves is to make us less than human. Despite what you might think, everything is not golden as far as humans go. We have base desires. I am not saying we base an economic system on "bad parts of human nature" (I've yet to see any justification for how wanting more for yourself and for those you care about is somehow making you a bad person.), what I'm saying is that we should NOT make an economic system which will crumble because it tries to deny that those elements exist, or to supress them by force!

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Stop confusing Justice and Equality.

How am I confusing justice and equality? Do you want everyone to be exactly the same, to be exactly equal? Then that's Borg. Otherwise, accept that some people are just "more equal" than others.


The problem with Marx's grandiose vision of social engineering is that it assumes humans will play by rules which are against their nature, and that a large industrialized economy is simple enough to be centrally managed. Any engineer knows that when faced with an enormously complex piece of machinery, it is much easier to tweak it than it is to replace it. Complex systems such as societies and economies tend to obey the laws of chaos theory; the short and long-term effects of changes are unpredictable by even the most brilliant economists and sociologists, so any attempts at "social engineering" should be performed very carefully, and very slowly. It is a laudable goal to improve society, but it should be done through gradual change, not "revolution".

The funny thing is that communism does follow a twisted sort of logic. If you accept its underlying premises, some of its conclusions actually do make sense. However, you can't accept its underlying premises. Humans won't work as hard without self-interest to motivate them, as anyone familiar with the behaviour of our evolutionary ancestors will quickly realize. The collective self-interest of a nation of millions is much too remote and abstract to have the emotional immediacy necessary to strongly motivate most individuals. An economy of millions or hundreds of millions of people is not simple enough to predict and control from a central bureaucracy. People won't give up the traditional family structure, which has existed (either as monogamy or polygamy) in one form or another since the dawn of recorded history. And absolute power does corrupt absolutely, even in the hands of the benevolent Communist Party.

[Pandemoniak]

Do your own answer instead of quoting someone. Simple politeness.

Answer to the rest of your post will come in the next few hours, I gotta have dinner, phone Deirdre and do my DoSE work .

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Do your own answer instead of quoting someone. Simple politeness.

Frankly, I'm amazed you recognised the sections copied from Mike Wong's essay, seeing as you never seemed to read it. Of course, you just whinged then "Do your own arguement, don't quote others.", and used that to dismiss my whole arguement. Newsflash. It doesn't matter who wrote it. If you can't fault it, you can't dismiss it. But guess what? We CAN dismiss Marxism, because we CAN fault his arguements. His fundamentals are FLAWED! BADLY!

As for doing my own answer........I see no reason why it's somehow more "polite" to not quote someone else, or for that matter why I should be polite to you after I've already shattered your Marxist wimpering time and time again. If you're not prepared to accept the beatdown, that's not my problem, but I'll be damned if I type new rebuttals to the same things over and over.

[Pandemoniak]

........I see no reason why it's somehow more "polite" to not quote someone else

This is totally impolite to quote without saying you're quoting, and without saying who you're quoting. This is simply decent behaviour to the person you quote and the person you talk to.

--------------

The only way you can correct flawed principles is to dump the principles altogther and start afresh with different ones. No form of Marxism has been willing to do that.
But you're not willing to dump the incorrect assumptions about human nature, amongst other things.
Why is it stupid? If someone screwed something up completly, and you can prove it, then you're well within your rights to say it was wrong.

Once again, you take ideas point per point and then counter it, ignoring for some reason the point of the whole thing. Very much like Wong actually.
Anyway, when you say that "the only way you can correct flawed principles is to dump the principles altogther and start afresh with different ones", I have to confess that this is what I call obscurantism. Its always far more intelligent to see what is wrong in a theory, and to try to enhance it. Thats what Chomsky did to Bakunine, Bakunin to Marx, Einstein to Newton, Newton to Aristotle. The history of scientific theories -- I guess you wont deny that there is a science of ecnomics, else that would make the debate quite... -- is an history where new theories includes older theories.

Marxism never was wrong, it was incomplete -- and it still is.

Therefore, when you say "you're not willing to dump the incorrect assumptions about human nature", I am indeed not willing that for two reasons : first because it has already been explained by Engels (see the construction of the modern man, etc...), second because I dont think marxism is wrong about human nature. Unlike many persons, I think that human nature is naturally to be generous. Moreover, I think that persons who are not born generous are naturally tending to become generous.

How am I confusing justice and equality? Do you want everyone to be exactly the same, to be exactly equal? Then that's Borg. Otherwise, accept that some people are just "more equal" than others.

One quick thing before all : watch your words, for the person who first said people are more equal than others was definetly not a decent person to talk with. And I'll never accept these things, thus I revolt, therefore, we are .

So, no I dont want everyone to be exactly the same nor anything like that, I just want things to be fair. What is the use of owning two hundred chicken when you can only eat one ? That is unfair. But some people can eat three chickens, because people are not all equal. Okay, then whats the use to have two hundred chicken if you can only eat three ?

People are not equal, but none of them deserve to be randomly deprived. Neither randomly, neither unfairly ; the question remains : who will decide what is fair or unfair ?

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak

This is totally impolite to quote without saying you're quoting, and without saying who you're quoting. This is simply decent behaviour to the person you quote and the person you talk to.

The person I'm quoting would hardly be displeased that his words were being used to give the beat down to someone as deprived of logic and intelligence as yourself. As for saying I was quoting those passages....this is hardly some big academic debate. Does it really make a difference, or are you nitpicking and arguing semantics?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Once again, you take ideas point per point and then counter it, ignoring for some reason the point of the whole thing. Very much like Wong actually.

Yay. Look at the Ad Hominem here. (And Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, by implying that I have some sort of motive to "ignore" this "point" of yours.)
Also, why you're at it.....identify why picking it apart into its component parts is a problem? If you have a complex system made out of 100 parts, and 20 of the parts don't work, how do you identify which parts are broken? You take it apart.
Your point is the construction of a better economic system. Guess what? It fails!

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Anyway, when you say that "the only way you can correct flawed principles is to dump the principles altogther and start afresh with different ones", I have to confess that this is what I call obscurantism.

obscurantism

n 1: a policy of opposition to enlightenment or the spread of knowledge 2: a deliberate act intended to make something obscure


Quite an accusation there. Care to back it up?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Its always far more intelligent to see what is wrong in a theory, and to try to enhance it.

You've missed the point of what I was saying entirely. Or you've made a Strawman distortion of what I was saying. I'd assume the second with your track record.

We have a flawed principle. We identify what is wrong. Then we fix it. What do we have now. A different principle.

But when the flaws are fundamental (ie. You have a situation where there is little point in trying to alter the principle so it's acceptable since it's so flawed to begin with), then you dump the points. That's what is the situation here. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. If anyone's trying to nitpick here while ignoring the point, it isn't me.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Thats what Chomsky did to Bakunine, Bakunin to Marx, Einstein to Newton, Newton to Aristotle. The history of scientific theories -- I guess you wont deny that there is a science of ecnomics, else that would make the debate quite... -- is an history where new theories includes older theories.

Economics is a social science, not a true science yet. But semantics aside.....

New Economic Theories include old theories only if the old theories are actually still valid. More likely, it'd only include parts from those old theories, the rest of which would've been proven false.
Guess what Pan? Marxist theories are not valid at the scales to which you propose.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak

Marxism never was wrong, it was incomplete -- and it still is.

Bullshit.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html

You're saying he wasn't wrong about taking away the right of inheritance, of splitting up families, about ALLOWING ****ING STATE SUPPORTED CHILD LABOUR? WHAT LITTLE WORLD HAVE YOU CREATED IN YOUR MIND TO LIVE IN PAN?!?!?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak

Therefore, when you say "you're not willing to dump the incorrect assumptions about human nature", I am indeed not willing that for two reasons : first because it has already been explained by Engels (see the construction of the modern man, etc...), second because I dont think marxism is wrong about human nature. Unlike many persons, I think that human nature is naturally to be generous. Moreover, I think that persons who are not born generous are naturally tending to become generous.

1) Appeal to Authority to Engels. Why should I accept his authority? His words are bunk.
2) Appeal to your "authority". " I dont think marxism is wrong about human nature" is not an arguement. PROVE IT.
3) Again, an appeal to your own "authority". Get your head out of the sand and actually prove your position instead of stating idealistic "I think"s.

Let me repeat.

I don't give a damn what you "THINK", if it doesn't stand up to EVIDENCE, it's BUNK!

One quick thing before all : watch your words, for the person who first said people are more equal than others was definetly not a decent person to talk with.

Guilt by association fallacy. I suppose I could say under your logic that all Christians are Evil because Hitler was a Christian, or all Communists are Athiests because Stalin was an Athiest.

Here's an example that should make it clear to you.
Archaic is an Athiest. Stalin was an Athiest. Stalin was an evil person. Therefore Archaic is an evil person. Stalin was also a communist. Therefore Archaic is an evil communist.

See the fault in logic now Pan?

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
And I'll never accept these things, thus I revolt, therefore, we are .

Therefore you are. Because you don't want to accept them or not doesn't make it any less right.

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
So, no I dont want everyone to be exactly the same nor anything like that, I just want things to be fair. What is the use of owning two hundred chicken when you can only eat one ? That is unfair. But some people can eat three chickens, because people are not all equal. Okay, then whats the use to have two hundred chicken if you can only eat three ?

People are not equal, but none of them deserve to be randomly deprived. Neither randomly, neither unfairly ; the question remains : who will decide what is fair or unfair ?

Your definiton of fair. I'm not suprised it doesn't measure up.

What is the use of the having 200 chickens when you can only eat one, or three, or whatever? Why, to lay eggs, which you can sell to others to make profits, which you can spend to buy yourself goods you desire.

The Free Market doesn't "randomly deprive" people. If it deprives anyone, it deprives those people who don't put in any effort, who don't work for their share. To each his due under a Free Market. Yes, you have inheritance, but what is the problem with making a better life for your decendants? You got your due, you're just sharing it with your children instead of using it all up yourself.

Who will decide what is fair and not fair? Hopefully not you. Indeed, why is it even necessary for ANYONE to decide it? Does this sound anything like BIG BROTHER to anyone? It certainly does to me.

Oh, and BTW Pan, you still haven't answered the Thought Police statement. Guess you must like to dodge painful points like that.

[Pandemoniak]

/me reads quickly all the bullshits stated above and is definetly convinced that, once again, Archaic has proven his uncapacity to have a decent language and general construction of argument.

I'm not gonna take all your points once again because it will only lead to repetition, but if you're hegelian enough to sum this up, I'd be glad to make myself more understandable.

Just a few points though, that are quite off the debate :
Obscurantism : a policy of opposition to the spread of knowledge. Breaking a whole system of ideology instead of trying to enhance it because it is partly wrong is an opposition to the spread of knowledge, because it is an opposition to research itself. No new knowledge, no spread of knowledge. Happily scientists and thinkers never did anything like that.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Archaic
obscurantism

n 1: a policy of opposition to enlightenment or the spread of knowledge 2: a deliberate act intended to make something obscure

Quite an accusation there. Care to back it up?

Well, in breaking up posts, both you and GT seem to argue against every single point, but miss the point of the whole. I have before said that something is wrong, but means fo example, only to be told that that thing is wrong. Because the person answering took what I said as my belief, and argued it was wrong, rather than look at the whole post in which I had already said it was wrong, and used it to make a point.

Originally posted by Archaic
Economics is a social science, not a true science yet. But semantics aside.....

New Economic Theories include old theories only if the old theories are actually still valid. More likely, it'd only include parts from those old theories, the rest of which would've been proven false.
Guess what Pan? Marxist theories are not valid at the scales to which you propose.

I have never seen Marxism 'proven' false. The nature of being a social science makes it almost impossible to 'prove' anything. Your continuing requests for proof are not necessary, since the whole of economic theory is based upon often contradictory evidence and virtual thinking. It is impossible to do an experment in real world economics, therefore one has to think about the effects of something. It is not possible to prove that those are the effects.

Originally posted by Archaic
1) Appeal to Authority to Engels. Why should I accept his authority? His words are bunk.
2) Appeal to your "authority". " I dont think marxism is wrong about human nature" is not an arguement. PROVE IT.
3) Again, an appeal to your own "authority". Get your head out of the sand and actually prove your position instead of stating idealistic "I think"s.

Let me repeat.

I don't give a damn what you "THINK", if it doesn't stand up to EVIDENCE, it's BUNK!

It stands up to some evidence, just as Capitalist theory does. Neithe have been proven, indeed, John Nash went a long way towards disproving Adam Smith and Pure Capitalist behavior. What is so bad about appealing to authority. You yourself have said you trust some people's judgement more than others. You cannot prove if it is against human nature, as you cannot define human nature, since we are all different. Why is Marxism against human nature. Is our human nature to provide only for ourselves, or for our family, or for humanity? No one can answer, since some humans belong to each. You are attacking his logic, and in doing so making the fallacy that "if his logic is wrong, his assumption is too". That is not the case. Indeed, just because he does not believe in your 'locial fallacies', does not mean his logic is false. Your logic, that if he has not proved it, it is not correct is false. He has stated his beliefs, why doe she have to prove them? Why should people not look at them, think and read about it, and come up with their own opinions about them?

Originally posted by Archaic
Guilt by association fallacy. I suppose I could say under your logic that all Christians are Evil because Hitler was a Christian, or all Communists are Athiests because Stalin was an Athiest.

No, but you could say Nazi's were evil, because Hitler was evil. Once agan you attack his logic and not his statement. His statement was intended to highlight the thinking that some people are better than others is not a good thing. Why should he prove it, youn have not shown why some people are better than others. How would you measure a person's worth? If you possess such an ability then you must be akin to a God.

Originally posted by Archaic
Therefore you are. Because you don't want to accept them or not doesn't make it any less right.

You have not shown otherwise, and he is entitled to his belief. I do not believe there is a God, but I cannot prove it. He believes we are all equal, and you have not given a shred of evidence to the contrary, neither have you said how you would define 'better', as in someone is better than someone else. Stop attacking his logic, and actually say why he is wrong. He has given you a hypothesis he believes, that people are equal, and while you can say all you want that it's just his opinion, he never stated it was anything more. Like you have not stated why someone is better than someone else, nor given and example.

Originally posted by Archaic
The Free Market doesn't "randomly deprive" people. If it deprives anyone, it deprives those people who don't put in any effort, who don't work for their share. To each his due under a Free Market.

No, Free Market does not give according to effort. It does not give 'each his due'. Free Market gives whatever the customer is willing to pay, and that bears little relation, in many cases, to either effort or worth. A cure for Aids will reap little benefit for a pharmaceutical (sp?) company, and as such, has not been thought of yet. Whereas Viagra will reap many financial rewards. Is Viagra worth more than an Aids cure? Even being the advocate of free love that I am, I do not believe so.

Originally posted by Archaic
Who will decide what is fair and not fair? Hopefully not you. Indeed, why is it even necessary for ANYONE to decide it? Does this sound anything like BIG BROTHER to anyone? It certainly does to me.

Well yes, under Free Market, the market decides what is fair. I believe a human, or rather, a collection of humans, can do it better. Under FM, the Invisible Hand is Big Brother.

Originally posted by Archaic
Oh, and BTW Pan, you still haven't answered the Thought Police statement. Guess you must like to dodge painful points like that.

SO, he has answered the post as a whole, why should he attack every statement you make? He made no mention of thought police, you brought that up, and he may think it had nothing to do witht he argument, as I do. He was talking about human nature changing, you started talking about enforcing a nature upon humans. Who is to say that human nature will not evolve, and change on it's own accord. There are increasingly many eminent economists who believe that co-operation is better for society than competition. If people believe they do better by sharing, why is it so hard to believe that human nature will change so that people share, of their own free will, and that we have a society not based upon what is good for the individual, but on what is best for all individuals as a whole. Hence we move from Capitalism to Marxism.

And please, we all know each others points. I know it's Archaic's thread, but can we draw this to a close somtime soon. It's not getting anywhere, other then you two insulting each other.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Archaic
Stop putting your head in the sand and denying that human nature is human nature. To have us be anything but ourselves is to make us less than human. Despite what you might think, everything is not golden as far as humans go. We have base desires. I am not saying we base an economic system on "bad parts of human nature" (I've yet to see any justification for how wanting more for yourself and for those you care about is somehow making you a bad person.), what I'm saying is that we should NOT make an economic system which will crumble because it tries to deny that those elements exist, or to supress them by force!

Agreed. IN THE SHORT TERM. In the long term, human nature can be changed, as evidenced by the impact of Christanity on western civilization over the last couple of thousand years.

Two quotes from Archaic.