A world without money? Everything is free?

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by king_biscuit

I mean what Hobbes wrote about in the Leviathan: humans living in a proper state of nature with no rules, no societal mores, no laws, and no morals; what would be the nature of those people? As a good scientist, fdeck would tell you there is no empirical evidence to study, so we can do no more than guess at the answer. I suppose that human nature is whatever you want it to be to support whatever argument you are making.

well, i'll grant you that we can never find such a society living or in the past, where humans have lived like this...but we can observe chimp behavior, and it is pretty much that the strong take whatever they want and the weak make do with the leftovers...if there are any.

[king_biscuit]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

well, i'll grant you that we can never find such a society living or in the past, where humans have lived like this...but we can observe chimp behavior, and it is pretty much that the strong take whatever they want and the weak make do with the leftovers...if there are any.

So we are going to extrapolate that to humans? Chimps are not capable of abstract thought, so money and power would mean nothing to them; neither would love, hate, good, or bad. I'm not sure studying chimps helps us get to the essence of humanity. The idea of human nature is a philosophic straw man that has been used to set up all kinds of good, bad, and indifferent institutions for man. There were some pretty smart people like Einstein and Bertrand Russell that did not have such a cynical view of humans, btw.

[onosson]

Originally Posted by king_biscuit

humans living in a proper state of nature with no rules, no societal mores, no laws, and no morals

What leads anyone to believe that humans would ever live like that?

When we see a bear out in the woods doing whatever bears do, do we question whether it is in a proper state of nature? Likewise for a fish, or an ant, or a crocodile.

Human beings live in societies; they make rules and laws and moral codes. Why would we say that is not a proper state of nature, for humans?

[king_biscuit]

Originally Posted by onosson

What leads anyone to believe that humans would ever live like that?

When we see a bear out in the woods doing whatever bears do, do we question whether it is in a proper state of nature? Likewise for a fish, or an ant, or a crocodile.

Human beings live in societies; they make rules and laws and moral codes. Why would we say that is not a proper state of nature, for humans?

That's fine, but then don't (not you necessarily but all of us) make determinations and pronouncements about the essence of humanity and call it human nature as so many do. The truth is we really don't know what human nature is.

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by king_biscuit

So we are going to extrapolate that to humans? Chimps are not capable of abstract thought, so money and power would mean nothing to them; neither would love, hate, good, or bad. I'm not sure studying chimps helps us get to the essence of humanity. The idea of human nature is a philosophic straw man that has been used to set up all kinds of good, bad, and indifferent institutions for man. There were some pretty smart people like Einstein and Bertrand Russell that did not have such a cynical view of humans, btw.

well, in the absence of anything better i think such extrapolation is not without merit.

and yet...we can observe man in all his myriad niches on this earth, and some things are ALWAYS present....he does in fact live by rules. each individual tries to do what he perceives as best for him, while living within those rules. mothers try to raise their children and care for them....etc

there are some exceptions, of course...the soldier who sacrifices himself for his comrades and so forth.

but all these things are predictable...they are, in fact, part of human nature. and to say that there is no such thing is just silly...you might as well deny a dog's nature because it's ancestors were domesticated by man eons ago.

it seems to me that since wherever humans landed, they formed societies and made rules and engaged in trade and married and had children...that IS human nature.

as was just said (or implied), it is a bear's nature to s**t in the woods, and it is human nature to form societies, and set rules and do all the other things that humans have done since before recorded history.

[UncleFluffy]

Originally Posted by king_biscuit

Ok, give us a reasoned argument and tell me where I'm wrong. Show us the communistic countries that followed Marxism.

My point was: Unicorns don't exist, and after you've examined enough claimed "unicorns" and found that they weren't, you conclude that the probability of a unicorn ever existing is very, very low. They just don't get on with reality too well so have to remain in the realm of fantasy.

[onosson]

Originally Posted by king_biscuit

That's fine, but then don't (not you necessarily but all of us) make determinations and pronouncements about the essence of humanity and call it human nature as so many do. The truth is we really don't know what human nature is.

I would suggest that it's as simple as "whatever you can observe human beings doing".

(I tend to approach questions like this from a descriptivist viewpoint - pronouncements and determinations, if they are to be made at all, should be made at the end of a long process of observation and analysis.)

[king_biscuit]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

well, in the absence of anything better i think such extrapolation is not without merit.

and yet...we can observe man in all his myriad niches on this earth, and some things are ALWAYS present....he does in fact live by rules. each individual tries to do what he perceives as best for him, while living within those rules. mothers try to raise their children and care for them....etc

there are some exceptions, of course...the soldier who sacrifices himself for his comrades and so forth.

but all these things are predictable...they are, in fact, part of human nature. and to say that there is no such thing is just silly...you might as well deny a dog's nature because it's ancestors were domesticated by man eons ago.

it seems to me that since wherever humans landed, they formed societies and made rules and engaged in trade and married and had children...that IS human nature.

as was just said (or implied), it is a bear's nature to s**t in the woods, and it is human nature to form societies, and set rules and do all the other things that humans have done since before recorded history.

I'm not saying there is no essential nature of humans, I am saying there is no way to study it in any meaningful way. I am also saying that the concept of human nature can be dangerous as it lets people generalize about humanity and prescribe remedys and solutions based thereon, often for ulterior purposes. Read Hobbes and then decide if you want decisions made for you based on the perception of your nature.

[king_biscuit]

Originally Posted by onosson

I would suggest that it's as simple as "whatever you can observe human beings doing".

(I tend to approach questions like this from a descriptivist viewpoint - pronouncements and determinations, if they are to be made at all, should be made at the end of a long process of observation and analysis.)

Only there is no way to ethically do that, so we are left guessing; and the various self-styled experts on this have historically been in disagreement.

[king_biscuit]

Originally Posted by UncleFluffy

My point was: Unicorns don't exist, and after you've examined enough claimed "unicorns" and found that they weren't, you conclude that the probability of a unicorn ever existing is very, very low. They just don't get on with reality too well so have to remain in the realm of fantasy.

Look, since no one has read the progression of my posts, let me sum this up:

1) I don't support the idea communism;

2) There are and have never been any communistic countries as defined by Marx, and I am not suggesting there ever will be;

3) Marx's idea of utopian communism is not by definition totalitarianism;

4) No one can do more than guess at the real nature of humans;

5) There is no room to argue about any of this, none of it is controversial.

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by king_biscuit

I'm not saying there is no essential nature of humans, I am saying there is no way to study it in any meaningful way. I am also saying that the concept of human nature can be dangerous as it lets people generalize about humanity and prescribe remedys and solutions bed thereon, often for ulterior purposes. Read Hobbes and then decide if you want decisions made for you based on the perception of your nature.

i look at it the opposite way...you ignore the facts before you at your peril...and (to get back to the root of this part of the discussion) is exactly what the communists did...or at least that part of them that sincerely wanted to bring their utopian society about.

they ignored some obvious facts about human behavior (dare i say "human nature")...they ignored things like humans need an incentive to produce or they won't.

and, of course, they ignored the fact that some humans don't want to live in utopia, but want naked power over others and will climb over a mountain of corpses to achieve it...hello, Mr. Stalin.

and when you combine those various ignorances with ignoring the fact that other humans, living in other societies may not take all that kindly to you trying to export your utopia to their little patch...well, to say the least, you have a formula for failure.

[king_biscuit]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

i look at it the opposite way...you ignore the facts before you at your peril...and (to get back to the root of this part of the discussion) is exactly what the communists did...or at least that part of them that sincerely wanted to bring their utopian society about.

they ignored some obvious facts about human behavior (dare i say "human nature")...they ignored things like humans need an incentive to produce or they won't.

and, of course, they ignored the fact that some humans don't want to live in utopia, but want naked power over others and will climb over a mountain of corpses to achieve it...hello, Mr. Stalin.

and when you combine those various ignorances with ignoring the fact that other humans, living in other societies may not take all that kindly to you trying to export your utopia to their little patch...well, to say the least, you have a formula for failure.

You are extrapolating a few self serving specific examples to the general public. I might as well say that human nature is loving, selfless, compassionate and use Gandhi, Mandela, and Mother Theresa as my examples!

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by king_biscuit

Are you very familiar with Marx? btw, I am not saying communism as Marx wrote about it will ever happen, I'm saying that the utopian idea expressed in that video in the first post to this thread, and Marx's final utopian communism are not totalitarian. btw, I'm a big fan of Karl Popper (the father of falsifiability), who hated Marx and Plato... , though I'm not sure that concept helps explain or understand Marx.

No, to be honest, my familiarity with Marx is limited. It was my understanding that Marx was a historicist, i.e., a person who believed in history as an inexorable process towards a conclusion -- specifically the one outlined in his theory. This would actually seem to be falsifiable by lack of visible progress towards such a conclusion.

[king_biscuit]

Originally Posted by fdeck

No, to be honest, my familiarity with Marx is limited. It was my understanding that Marx was a historicist, i.e., a person who believed in history as an inexorable process towards a conclusion -- specifically the one outlined in his theory. This would actually seem to be falsifiable by lack of visible progress towards such a conclusion.

Marx was indeed a historicist (that's why Popper hated him). I never stated that Marxism would succeed, only that it hasn't failed because we have never had a viable movement (to say that Marxism failed and as evidence point to the Soviet Union, China, N. Korea, etc., is clearly wrong) -- I suppose, not withstanding the whole Mayan thing, there is still time... I restated my posts above because my points are getting lost in all of this, and I think some people think I am championing communism.

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by king_biscuit

You are extrapolating a few self serving specific examples to the general public. I might as well say that human nature is loving, selfless, compassionate and use Gandhi, Mandela, and Mother Theresa as my examples!

oh, no...i am NOT saying that each and every person will behave a certain way.

mother theresa exhibited one aspect of human nature just as surely as josph stalin or the people of russia who produced little because they had no incentive to do so....they were all examples of a manifestation of human nature.

but the facts are that for every one mother theresa, there appear to be about a jillion people who won't produce unless they have proper incentive.

how many joseph stalins are there...i don't know, somewhere between the masses and the one mother theresa...but definitely enough so that no communist society ever worked or will work.

and the theoreticians ignored these facts to their cost. they thought the whole world could be mother theresas if only they "educated" everybody.

nope.

[king_biscuit]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

oh, no...i am NOT saying that each and every person will behave a certain way.

mother theresa exhibited one aspect of human nature just as surely as josph stalin or the people of russia who produced little because they had no incentive to do so....they were all examples of a manifestation of human nature.

So if human nature is Hitler, Stalin, John Wayne Gacy, and Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King, then there is no universal human nature! Therefore, how can you make predictions based on this? I could easily argue (as Locke did) that the physical surroundings (material circumstances) a person is exposed to creates that persons nature. In reality, the concept of human nature has been used by the philosophers as an antecedent to support further arguments, and by the commoner to end arguments.

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by king_biscuit

So if human nature is Hitler, Stalin, John Wayne Gacy, and Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King, then there is no universal human nature! Therefore, how can you make predictions based on this?

by probability for one thing.

to be cynical, and i paraphrase the quote -- p.t. barnum "no one ever went broke by underestimating the taste of the public"...paraphrase because i certainly don't have the exact quote in front of me.

if you want to form a capitalistic society, you rely on a sufficient number of people who will want to produce if they have the incentive to do so...this has proven successful for those societies that have tried it.

if you want to form a communistic society, i don't know what you do, because the probability is, you will not have enough mother theresa types who will produce vastly even without incentive to do so.

[king_biscuit]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

by probability for one thing.

to be cynical, and i paraphrase the quote -- p.t. barnum "no one ever went broke by underestimating the taste of the public"...paraphrase because i certainly don't have the exact quote in front of me.

if you want to form a capitalistic society, you rely on a sufficient number of people who will want to produce if they have the incentive to do so...this has proven successful for those societies that have tried it.

if you want to form a communistic society, i don't know what you do, because the probability is, you will not have enough mother theresa types who will produce vastly even without incentive to do so.

But what causes people to be a Mother Theresa or a Hitler? Is it something innate (a true human nature) or is it the material circumstances? This is an age old and unanswerable question.

[oniman7]

Yay Godwin's Law...

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by king_biscuit

But what causes people to be a Mother Theresa or a Hitler? Is it something innate (a true human nature) or is it the material circumstances? This is an age old and unanswerable question.

well, that's the old nature or nurture question, isn't it. and i for one don't expect to ever answer it...i suspect that some people are born with certain tendencies which their environment then modifies to it's it's liking.

but i really don't care....it would be enough for me to be able to protect myself from the hitlers of the world, provide enough incentives for the masses to keep on helping me survive, and bless the mother theresas when they crop up.

what i have, however is people (mainly politicians) who don't have a clue, seemingly bent at every turn on ignoring what probability says will work and doing what probability says won't work.

i despair sometimes, but figure i am old enough that i likely will be gone before the real dodo hits the rotor.