Originally Posted by White Fox

That better harness human nature? It is human nature to look out for one's self and family members. People make decisions that further their own self interest. The system that I think best harnesses that is a capitalist system where everybody agrees (under the contract of government) to respect one another's rights as human beings. Progressives want to overcome this aspect of human nature through the application of reason through such arguments like "why can't we all share the wealth" and "let's all agree to abandon our self -interest and contribute to the whole." One can, using logic, predict that, if everybody agreed to work for the collective, everybody would have an equal share of wealth and everything would be great. However, you cannot use this argument because it is in people's nature to look out for themselves, and in this case, take advantage of the collective for their own interests (i.e. being lazy and still getting your share).

If you are going to argue that human nature only has bad sides in the situation, then I would argue that the situation is economic scarcity, and that is what is ingrained in our DNA/nature. Even if we were to end scarcity once and for all with some futuristic device that would give us whatever we wanted, people would still want what other people had and would want to secure our future; it's for our future protection.

This argument can lead to the proposition of eugenics and changing human nature to work better in a system where scarcity no longer exists. If anyone can honestly support this then what would they propose the non-improved humans do? It's fundamentally problematic.



I am not arguing that faith is better than reason. Reason is always preferable. Rationalization is not truly reason, and is usually pro tanto invalid, meaning it does not account for every part of the argument. Reason leads people to the development of natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property. It is a complex line of logic, but is linear and logically sound. If you want to see the reason behind it, you should read Locke's Two Treatises on Civil Government.



I agree, to an extent it can.



You are attempting to associate my beliefs with Christianity. I believe solely in a moral interpretation of the Bible, I go to Church on Christmas and sometimes on Easter, I do not believe in any of the dooms day theories in the Bible. I am consistent in my belief that natural right belong to everyone who has not violated someone else's rights. Pragmatism is evil, does not believe in anything, and is Fascist/Communist/Nazi/totalitarian. Natural rights come from humanity's own self interest and the compact of civil government.




I agree with your interpretation of Marx, he did a fine job with noting the problems of capitalism, which it does have. He did make a religion out of it. It is the Sorelian apocalyptic text, everyone has to believe in it for it to come true. However, I don't see how religion is the conservative norm. We don't "worship" natural rights, we think they are logical, and that the results of not having them end in "doom's day" scenarios.



See the first part of this post for my take on the situations that lead to conflict when combined with human nature.

(Marx didn't really know how he came to that conclusion either, if you read Das Kapital.)

Philisophical conservatives such as Burke are overconfident in tradition. Mostly, Burke believed that any system of government was good if it already was being practiced by the people living their. Fanatical Christians worship their Christian traditions (surprise). Mostly, I think that pure, Lockeian conservatives believe in natural rights and the importance of those. I think that pure liberal/socialists believe in the opposite. I also think that some to the left, the supporters of mixed-economies, don't emphasize faith over reason, but that the socialist kind do.

If you ever meet a radical conservative that sounds like a hard-liner Marxist, he's secretly a leftist in disguise.

Edit: 100th post!