Replying to Avatar Rune Østgård

The idea that human beings by nature are wicked is the mother of all evil.

The first offspring you get from this concept is the idea that we need a state, because we are rabid beasts bound to kill each other if nobody gets a monopoly on the use of violence.

The next offspring is deception in the form of a monopoly on money production, in past times argued to be "necessary to promote trade," nowadays argued to be necessary because "we need some inflation to grease the wheels of the economy."

Once the monopoly in money production has been put into place, the state can create money out of nothing and thus be in a position where it always can win the competition for all sorts of scarce resources, including bread, brains and bullets.

People who disagree with me on this should read Hobbe's Leviathan and the writings of most of today's academics within the social sciences - then ask themselves who these court scribblers have inspired.

When the three aforementioned evil ideas

1. man is by nature wicked

2. someone must have a monopoly on use of violence

3. this someone must have a monopoly on production of money

are allowed to dictate the evolution of the social order, everything that happens to be positive for the citizenry is in view of the de facto rulers either just a necessity for staying in or increasing power or an unintended and unfortunate consequence.

Therefore, it's utterly foolish NOT to expect that it's a decently high probability that all politics, including elections, imply some level of "rigging," or should we say, neverending "stacking" of cards in favor of the political class and against the citizenry.

Everything else within the domain of political science, economics and sociology is in my opinion details of minimal importance.

In conclusion:

It's the idea that humankind by nature is wicked that we must cleans out of people's hearts and minds..

To achieve this we must come up with a superior idea.

And the only superior idea is that human beings are by nature kind, and that it's bad incentive structures put in place by someone posing as 'protectors' that make people act badly.

now define "kind".

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Does not harm

Acts positively

Cooperates

There's much that can be defined as kind

ok now define harm, positivity, and "cooperation"(i guess)... little elvin machine Stalins appearing at edges of vision but when i look directly at them they disappear...?

Find a dictionary

find history.

find meaning

so you think human nature is good?

you are more insightful than everything from buddhism to christianity to Nietzsche to the evil in the human heart manifest all through history..... ?

simply declaring that its the "incentives" lets me know that your balls have receded sufficiently that they are now affecting your larynx?

i would love for you to go practice this inpenetrable reasoning with the venezeulan gangs taking over Aurora...

where do you get this idea that people are by nature "kind" from?

find your circus

🤡

yeah you dont have answers... you are grifting.

not here to entertain you...

its not about entertainment...

its about you pushing "all people are kind" kindergarten level bullshit... at a time when the evil is in men is so fucking obvious you would have to be peaking on ayahuasca to deny it...

Is misrepresenting what I wrote a strategy you implement to make me entertain you? Get lost

its a simple question about human nature dude...

YOU are going against pretty much all philosophy religion and history with your assertion that human beings are "kind" by nature...

onus is on you nigger.

Incentives rule.

Steinbeck wrote in East of Eden:

"I believe there are monsters born in the world to human parents. Some you can see, misshapen and horrible, with huge heads or tiny bodies; some are born with no arms, no legs, some with three arms, some with tails or mouths in odd places. They are accidents and no one's fault, as used to be thought. Once they were considered the visible punishment for concealed sins

And just as there are physical monsters, can there not be mental or psychic monsters born? The face and body may be perfect, but if a twisted gene or a malformed egg can produce physical monsters, may not the same process produce a malformed soul?"

I concur.

But the overwhelming majority of human beings are born kind and with an instinct for cooperation.

My experience confirms this, and I think it's logical.

But when evil men are allowed to design institutions that dictate incentives, mosg people also have the capability of acting in malevolent ways.

That's also logical and in line with my experience.

Now, I'm not going to discuss this with you.

You might find something useful in Bregdan's book.

At least it won't hurt you.

And it's well written

steinbeck huh?

absolute bullshit that completely ignores the existence and purpose of the Will.

this is passive starry-eyed nonsense that gets your daughters raped by invaders.

open eyes. grow up.

I don't think most criminals are born evil. Schmuck.

😁

who cares what you think?

you make grand assertions about human nature that goes against 5000 years of human thought, history and experience and then your pussy hurts when someone asks you to define your shit...

"but this is MY experience"

narcissism is a real bitch.

I think we can safely say that you beat narcissism by a hundred miles here.

there is no "we".

Might be, but you're still the bigger bitch here.

so kind!

You're welcome, you have encountered my kind self tonight. Let's catch up later, see if we agree on something too.

No hard feelings. Didn't want to say stupid thing to you, but you craved it so much, so I thought I would just have to give it to you.

stuff like this:

Which book?

title at top right, second image. 👍

*top-LEFT

*top-LEFT

Thx, bookmarked

have a good one...

Same to you :-)

your idea is feminine... like your rulers there in emasculated Norway.

unsurprising that the "men" there are aping this kindergarten stuff.