Jump to content

Late News - Human nature discussion


Soback
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, I was in my car, driving along and listening to news. A couple of stories poped up which made me remember some discussions here on the forums about human nature and how socialism is very good and capitalism is very bad.

So here it goes.

Story #1. Argument - Good human nature, greed/selfishness. A city near Berkley wants to reduce it's traffic congestion and reduce pollution (ok, not a bad idea). So they go about it in pure socialistic way, counting on good human nature. They buy 1,500 bicycles and install parking stalls for them all throughout the city. The idea is, if your destination is in the city, you can come up to the stall, pay 50c. and take the bike out of the stall, then you ride it to your destination and park it in the stall nearby. Then someone else can use that bike after you. Well, here's the outcome --> 700 bikes stolen by the end of the week, all bikes gone by the end of the second week.

Conclusion. Did socialistic way work? NO. Is human nature good. NO. A good way to go about reducing polution and traffic congestion would have been... Get the list of people who live in that city. Mail them a cupon with witch they can buy a city selected type bicycle for $50, and the limit is no more bicycles than people in the household per 3 years. Reasoning is, if you pay at least some money for that bicycle you will take care of it, and you will only buy it if you will actually use it (not like you see a bicycle which you can take for 50c and sell somewhere else or just plain out wreck it for fun). Also as you can see from this, human nature is selfish, those people who took the bikes didn't care that other people might want to use it.

Story #2. Argument - Good human nature. Wife kills husband. Why? She found out that he was cheating on her with a neighborhood tramp. She cut him up in 10 pieces, put him in a box and set the box on the doorstep of the woman that her husband was cheating with.

Conclusion. Let me see, was there an outside AUTHORITY telling her to hurt her husband, to cut him up. Did she get physically sick when she was cutting him? I think she was actually rather enjoying the whole process. So what we have here is good ol human nature at work. (emphasis on good)

Story #3. Argument - greed. A woman was collecting social security for her relative. What no one knew was that that relative was dead and stuck in her freezer for 5 years. Yeah, that's right, she stuck his body in her fridge so that there would be no funeral and therefore she could still collect his social security and keep it. (or maybe she was just saving up for his REAL funeral). Yeah, fat chance.

Conclusion - People are not greedy. No, not at all, THEY JUST ALWAYS WANT MORE, while screwing others (that was your taxes paying that social security incase someone doesn't know)

So anyone here want to discuss how socialism will still work because human nature is basically good and everyone of us wants good things to happen to our neighbours and share equally all our good earned stuff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true. Reminds me of a story I saw on the news a while ago. This guy has an accident and suffers some sort of brain damage and is little more then a vegetable. He stays in the hospital for a wile, but since he was doing well they allowed his sister (I think it was his sister, not that itÔÇÖs really important) to take care of him at home, a difficult job because he needed to be cared for entirely and so the government was paying her a considerable sum for taking care of him. As it happens, she did nothing of the sort. She simply collected the money and left him in the basement to rot in his own feces and develop some rather nasty sores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

So anyone here want to discuss how socialism will still work because human nature is basically good and everyone of us wants good things to happen to our neighbours and share equally all our good earned stuff?

Why do you think government have to "force" people to do some stuff?

I'm not for full socialism, that cannot work in the current state. I'm in for capitalism with a strong socialistic hold.

[extreme sarcasm]

FREEDOM MAN! FREEDOM! if there's no freedom, there's no life!

[/extreme sarcasm]

[ 05-22-2002, 01:15: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Why do you think government have to "force" people to do some stuff?

The last time I checked the government existed to serve the people, not force them to adhere to some backwards morality where those who produce are punished and those who do not (or produce little) are rewarded. The next thing were going to have is judges ruling based on who can afford to loose more, or jails freeing prisoners because they are fundamentally good people. The government exists to serve the people. Impartially. Anything else is legalized insanity.

[ 05-22-2002, 03:11: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soback, if your interpretation of human nature was true (i.e. that humans are inherently dishonest, greedy, and violent), then that would mean that both capitalism and socialism are against human nature, because in both societies, every single one of those offenders in your stories would have been prosecuted. Why? Because in both societies, their actions are criminal. Your initial argument has not only failed to add anything meaningful to the issue of human nature, it has also backfired as a pro-capitalist position!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Menchise:

Soback, if your interpretation of human nature was true (i.e. that humans are inherently dishonest, greedy, and violent), then that would mean that both capitalism and socialism are against human nature, because in both societies, every single one of those offenders in your stories would have been prosecuted. Why? Because in both societies, their actions are criminal. Your initial argument has not only failed to add anything meaningful to the issue of human nature, it has also backfired as a pro-capitalist position!

Actually it proved that capitalism would work quite nicely and socialism would destroy itself. As you will read my conclusion in story #1, if they would CHARGE people for the bicycles while giving them the discount (capitalism) then only those people who would use the bicycles would get it, AND actually USE them. While EVERYONE who could get their hand on a bicycle for .50c went ahead and took it, and didn't care about using it, they probably either resold the bike for their profit (ahem, attempted CAPITALISM in a socialistic idea) or wrecked it for fun. So that proves that is socialism where common property exists people wouldn't give a @#$%@# about that property as long as they got some fun/use/profit out of it, so destroying, stealing that property would be OK, and would be done just because people are fundamentally greedy wanting to have more and better things for themselves then their neighbors have. So read my post and gain some insight on those points I made in each conclusion. Also, note the sarcasm dripping from the last paragraph of "good" human nature.

Next point. Remember the discussion where you were saying that people can't hurt each other because that makes them physically sick. Well, story #2 suggests otherwise. Story #2 actually proves that there are times when a perfectly sane person can get so upset that they can actually derive PLEASURE from hurting someone, and not just someone, but their own husband nonetheless. I myself have been so po'ed sometimes, just driving in my car, that if me and the person who pissed me off would somehow get beamed onto the side of the road, face to face, I would literally, without thinking would have fulfilled my anger in unspeakable ways. So human nature is therefore not complacent and kind, but ever-changing and can very well be drastically violent. One more reason socialism would not work, because in order for it to work your neighbor should want the same good for you as he does for himself and his family. However, in capitalism, you that anger can be turned to productive ways, like hating your business opposition would actually force you to make some adjustments to your products to get more $$$. While in socialism the only outlet would be either hurting others or some kind of medical treatments (shock therapy anyone?)

Aaaah, and at last, story #3. Well, you can argue that capitalism forced that lady to store her relatives body in a freezer so that she could get money and survive. I however will argue that she could live on her own paycheck, (which was obviously enough to buy a house and a fridge to store the body of the relative in) and if socialism existed the same thing would happen because there still would be people who are greedy and always want more, and therefore one of the ways to get more would be to turn to crime (since you can't up your income much more from your neighbors by just being more educated, or by inventing something, or having more property, since there is no property, *remember everyone shares everything), unlike in capitalism, where you have the option of making more money by actually bettering yourself, creating your own business, or getting a better education, a system where not everyone is equal.

[ 05-22-2002, 19:39: Message edited by: Soback ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest $iLk

Human nature is individualistic. Capitalism focuses on the individual achievers, Communism and Socialism focus on the herd. Communism is anti-individual and Capitalism is pro-individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism-take the smart, honest, and/or hardworking people's achievements and give them to the lasiest genetically inferior sh*theads in the world, and say it's for the "good of society". Smart people get sick of it, work less, society is destroyed.

Capitalism-take the smart, honest, and/or hardworking people's achievements, and give them to the smart, honest, and hardworking people. Let the lasy, genetically inferior shi*heads in the world starve and die. Society benefits because of increased work ethic so you DONT DIE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Dredd:

Socialism-take the smart, honest, and/or hardworking people's achievements and give them to the lasiest genetically inferior sh*theads in the world, and say it's for the "good of society". Smart people get sick of it, work less, society is destroyed.

Capitalism-take the smart, honest, and/or hardworking people's achievements, and give them to the smart, honest, and hardworking people. Let the lasy, genetically inferior shi*heads in the world starve and die. Society benefits because of increased work ethic so you DONT DIE.

Lazy, uneducated, stupid people see the smart, educated successful people live good fulfilling lives. They want that for themselves too. 2 choices are given. Those lazy people can go the hard way and better themselves or they can nag and sue and get the rich people to pay the money to the poor people just because the rich people are more successful than the poor ones. Hmmm.... *sarcasm* sound fair enough.

As for genetically inferior I would steer clear of that. Who is genetically inferior? Just because someone is poor or uneducated doesn't mean they are genetically inferior, all it means is they are either not that smart, or just haven't yet learned. Also I am not sure who exactly you categorize as genetically inferior, because a person who has some decease which prevents them from walking or speaking clearly might have some genetic pre disposition to that decease, HOWEVER, it doesn't mean that it will stop them from becoming successful, it just means that they might have more obstacles to overcome.

[ 05-22-2002, 19:37: Message edited by: Soback ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest $iLk

quote:

As for genetically inferior I would steer clear of that. Who is genetically inferior? Just because someone is poor or uneducated doesn't mean they are genetically inferior, all it means is they are either not that smart, or just haven't yet learned. Also I am not sure who exactly you categorize as genetically inferior, because a person who has some decease which prevents them from walking or speaking clearly might have some genetic pre disposition to that decease, HOWEVER, it doesn't mean that it will stop them from becoming successful, it just means that they might have more obstacles to overcome.

Then again some people seem to pee in their own Gene pools....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grayfox

stephen hawking is a prime example.

he would fit into the "genetically inferior" category due to his disease that took his voice (he uses a computer voice to talk) and is confined to a wheelchair, yet he is one of the most brilliant, successful people there is.

so genetics really doesnt have much to do with success... but it MAY have something to do with the fact that they are sh^&heads

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Actually it proved that capitalism would work quite nicely and socialism would destroy itself. As you will read my conclusion in story #1, if they would CHARGE people for the bicycles while giving them the discount (capitalism) then only those people who would use the bicycles would get it, AND actually USE them. While EVERYONE who could get their hand on a bicycle for .50c went ahead and took it, and didn't care about using it, they probably either resold the bike for their profit (ahem, attempted CAPITALISM in a socialistic idea) or wrecked it for fun. So that proves that is socialism where common property exists people wouldn't give a @#$%@# about that property as long as they got some fun/use/profit out of it, so destroying, stealing that property would be OK, and would be done just because people are fundamentally greedy wanting to have more and better things for themselves then their neighbors have. So read my post and gain some insight on those points I made in each conclusion. Also, note the sarcasm dripping from the last paragraph of "good" human nature.

Charging 50 cents for a one way bicycle rental is not socialist; it's just another profit-making scheme (1500 bicycles rented for one daily return trip = $1500 of daily revenue). Story #1 is an example of capitalism gone awry.

quote:

Next point. Remember the discussion where you were saying that people can't hurt each other because that makes them physically sick. Well, story #2 suggests otherwise. Story #2 actually proves that there are times when a perfectly sane person can get so upset that they can actually derive PLEASURE from hurting someone, and not just someone, but their own husband nonetheless. I myself have been so po'ed sometimes, just driving in my car, that if me and the person who pissed me off would somehow get beamed onto the side of the road, face to face, I would literally, without thinking would have fulfilled my anger in unspeakable ways. So human nature is therefore not complacent and kind, but ever-changing and can very well be drastically violent.

Even if that were true, such acts of drastic violence are also punished in capitalism, so your point still backfires.

quote:

One more reason socialism would not work, because in order for it to work your neighbor should want the same good for you as he does for himself and his family. However, in capitalism, you that anger can be turned to productive ways, like hating your business opposition would actually force you to make some adjustments to your products to get more $$$.

Solidarity does not require people to like each other; all it takes is a common interest or responsibility. Both neighbours can hate each other's guts for all I care, but they have both adopted a common responsibility (supporting their families). It's common sense that working together to support both families is more productive and efficient than competing with each other to destroy both families, which is irresponsible to say the least. So, unless you intend to argue that it's also human nature to lack common sense and responsibility, I'm going to move to the next point.

quote:

Aaaah, and at last, story #3. Well, you can argue that capitalism forced that lady to store her relatives body in a freezer so that she could get money and survive. I however will argue that she could live on her own paycheck, (which was obviously enough to buy a house and a fridge to store the body of the relative in) and if socialism existed the same thing would happen because there still would be people who are greedy and always want more, and therefore one of the ways to get more would be to turn to crime

The fact that this happens in capitalism does not help your argument that it supports human nature, not to mention the fact that such criminal behaviour is punished in both societies.

In conclusion, socialism does not require the people to hold hands in a circle while singing 'kumbaya' underneath a rainbow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Human nature is individualistic. Capitalism focuses on the individual achievers, Communism and Socialism focus on the herd. Communism is anti-individual and Capitalism is pro-individual.

Capitalism is pro-owner and socialism is pro-worker. Both societies support the individualities of the people they support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capitalism is Pro everyone, socialism is anti everyone. In capitalism you are allowed to grow to your FULL potential.

In socialism you are stuck in your little slot and there you will stay. You will be oppressed.

That is the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Capitalism is Pro everyone, socialism is anti everyone. In capitalism you are allowed to grow to your FULL potential.

In capitalism you are allowed to grow to your full potential if you're an owner.

quote:

In socialism you are stuck in your little slot and there you will stay. You will be oppressed.

That's feudalism, not socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Menchise:

quote:

Capitalism is Pro everyone, socialism is anti everyone. In capitalism you are allowed to grow to your FULL potential.

In capitalism you are allowed to grow to your full potential if you're an owner.

quote:

In socialism you are stuck in your little slot and there you will stay. You will be oppressed.

That's feudalism, not socialism.


So all those succesfull people in capitalism own their own businesses?

As for socialism it's exactly what Jaguar said it is. I lived in socialism, and he is absolutly right, you will be stuck in your own little slot and never get beyond it unless you know some people on top. So in a way it sound a lot like feudalism, the only difference is the government is the czaar, and they don't tell you that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Menchise,

I continue to tell you and to tell you, There has never been a society that has tried socialism that has been successful.

They are either perverted from your so-called dream socialism or taken over and turned into a dictatorship, where the government OWNS everything, the people own nothing and you work your butts off for the state and get NOTHING in return, except that you get to live.

Socialism CANNOT work, it never has and never will. California is a good example of how socialistic ideas have come in and DESTROYED the state. They are in debt to thier ears, the successful companies are doing their best to move out, and the tax base is disapearing. In the meantime the social engineers continue on their failed policies and wonder what's wrong. When you tax the producers in order to support the consumers, you get into a world of DIMINISHING returns.

Human nature is such that if you reward hard work, you will get MORE hard work, but when you PUNISH hard work, socialism, equal pay, equal everything, you will get LESS hard work. When you reward hard work you get more hard work, when you punish it you get less. Socialism will FAIL every time, because it does not REWARD hard work. You don't get the nice house, you don't get the high pay, you get the same as everyone else, so the effort is not worth the price.

Human nature being what it is, will always pervert socialism, WE ARE NOT ants, we are not bees, we are human, and have all the human falacies that make capitalism work so well.

You may NOT like capitalism, but the fact is that it rewards hard work and effort, that is why it is successful. It is within the bounds of human nature and in fact uses it to it's full potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grayfox

how can he not like a capitalist society, when A) he lives in a capitalist society and B) hes doing well in it.

by doing well i mean hes able to attend college (no small feat in any country)and he has access to a PC where he can post about things like this. and dont sell me that crap "oh you can do that in a socialist system" because i would like to know where you would find the time after working your butt off all day... you cant, and if you say you can, your only lying to yourself.

it boggles the mind sometimes... im actually GRATEFUL to be living in a system where i can advance from my hard work instead of being stuck in one place no matter how hard i work.

but then again once people have a certain mindset about things their bound and determined to rub it in your face and THINK its the greatest thing since individually wrapped cheese slices.

its nice that it works on paper, but i wont believe until i see REAL WORLD proof that it works.

hell if you like the socialist society so much, then move to a socialist country (if there is anymore). guaranteed youll be back to a capitalist one within a year.

[ 05-24-2002, 21:27: Message edited by: Grayfox ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 People are continually confusing socialism and communism. They aren't the same thing.

2 There is really no reason why a person can't be rewarded under a communist or socialist system. The idea is simply that the people that actually do the work, get the reward. Instead of all the money going to the CEO or the sharholders, it gets dispersed as the workers see fit. If I am say, a grunt that assembles machinery, in a sucessful company in a capitalist system, I am, by definition, being rewarded less than the income I actually produce for the company I'm working for. What makes that fair exactly? Becaus the guy that owns the company worked harder than I did to get there? What dream world are you living in?

If I own x compay because my daddy died and left it to me, I'm not on top because I worked harder, or better, or am superior (as opposed to genetically inferior as the scary neo-nazi guy mentioned) it is a result of chance. If I, for the sake of argument, pay some guy to run the company for me, and he vastly improves the profitability of the company, he is still getting the same salary, I, who do nothing, am making vastly more money... This can and does happen in capitalism. In what way is that "encourage hard work?" Maybe that's the best job that that chump I'm paying can get, so he can't just leave, and screw me over. So I'd be screwing him over. A socialist system could be set up so that the ammount of income my labour actuall produces is actually given to me. The better workers would then make more... This isn't how the communist manifesto explains things, but no one said it was the bible.

Of course, people can, and do, build their own companies. I have nothing but admiration for these people. They do not however make up the majority of the population. Why should the system be set up to benefit a minority?

And who says production is the primary objective of life? What did John Milton actually produce? He is the perhaps the greatest figure of english literature, but did he make anything you could sit on, or eat? No.

Anyway, communism, or socialism, isn't the ultimate answer to anythig. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have good, positive ideas that could be implemented to the benefit of everyone. Capitalism, also, is not a the end all and be all of economic theory, and social systems. Just because it is the current system, doesn't make it the best system, and even if it were, it doesn't mean it can be improved/limited/ revised.

Lets all sit on our asses, secure in the belief that the world will continure on its happy way because we all believe in capitalism. A system based on the principle of infinite expansion, in a world of finit resource and space. Surly it'll never cause problems. Inflation doesn't exist. Oh, and just as capitalism encourages the best in people, it'll encourage the best in social conscience, and environmental concern. Surly it'll result in the best option for out environment (and our continured existence) even if it isn't the most profitable course of action... Ignorance IS bliss isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grayfox

hmmm perhaps you didnt read this...

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

As for socialism it's exactly what Jaguar said it is. I lived in socialism, and he is absolutly right, you will be stuck in your own little slot and never get beyond it unless you know some people on top. So in a way it sound a lot like feudalism, the only difference is the government is the czaar, and they don't tell you that.


hmmm nothing like having first hand experience to prove a point... or perhaps you didnt want to see it?

youre right ignorance IS bliss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, and in capitalsim, those grunts you are talking about DO get rewarded. Majourly. As opposed to socialism where you don't get anything but maybe a higher priductivity margin for next month because the guy who got the job of looking over you saw that you can do better. While in capitalism if that same guy sees that you can do better will give you a raise to keep you doing better and even possibly a promotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did see the "I lived under socialism" statment... And I don't know the exact circumstances, but I imagine that's where you get your irrational fear of socialism, which is understandable. I don't doubt that capitalism looks pretty damn good when compared to whatever was labeled capitalism or socialism there... However taking the particular and making it the rule, the generality, is innapropriate and silly. Whatever label it had, doesn't make it socialism, and there is no rule saying that all socialist setups must be designed and implemented that way.

You are also partially right in saying that "that guy" in a capitalist system does ged rewarded, big time... In some cases that is true. A good employer will reward his staff... however, as you are all so fond of pointing out, human nature can't be trusted, so there is absolutly no reason to assume that that is generally true. Even if your personal experience was a good one, that doesn't make the system good. If you were a high ranking government officer in russia while it was communist, you'd have thought communism was pretty damn good. Your problem is that you fail to look beyond your immediate environment, and you make the erronious assumption that all other discomfort, disorder, pain, suffering and bad luck is the result of laziness and stupidity. This, in itself, is the height of inhuman, stupidity and narromindedness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...