Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hershie
I do not agree with you that human nature precludes people to give of themselves as much as they are capable if the end goal is the good of all.
|
I think that's the main point in which we disagree. But I think the reason is a misunderstanding. The goal of "good of all" is flawed, I think.
If you say: People shouldn't just work for themselves, but for the good of all, this just means that you are not rewarded according to your actual productivity and that others (who are less productive) live by the results of your work.
This is completely okay,
if you have agreed to this. And this is completely okay in capitalism. The moral problem appears when you want to keep what you've been working for (which is perfectly justified as far as I can see), you may do so under capitalism, but are punished under socialism. I have nothing against acts of benevolence, but enforcing altruism with a gun is just wrong and that's what is wrong with socialism.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hershie
It just is wonky in the context of a capitalist system where human nature appears differently based on how we are socialised to look at work and each other and what normalcy is...Basically, I think human nature can evolve and it reflects the social/economic system it appears in.
|
So your idea is that man has no fundamental nature and can adapt to pretty much everything? I think that's wrong. And I think that the downfall of every nation that has tried socialism so far has pretty much proven that. People don't work if they can't choose what happens to the product of their labor.