Do you believe in the innate benevolence of mankind?

[Bono]

I'm particulary interested in these two sides of the spectrum.

[John Dibble]

No, but I don't believe we're innately evil or cruel either - in general it's a blank slate at the beginning. Certain individuals might be genetically inclined one way or the other though.

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes/Populist

Dave

[Ebowed]

No.

[Richard]

Absolutely NOT!!!

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Yes.

[Gabu]

Yes; I personally don't see how the human race could survive and prosper without it.  Of course, benevolence usually comes through self-interest, given that one's own life tends to be better if those around oneself are doing well, or that one can better oneself through positive exposure through doing good deeds, but this does not mean that the benevolence doesn't exist.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes; on the whole anyway.

[MODU]

Yes. 

[The Constitarian]

I believe most amimals are naturally nice if it doesn't cost them anything.

[Erc]

I believe most amimals are naturally nice if it doesn't cost them anything.

Actually, just read an article on a bit of interesting research done recently that suggested the exact opposite.

Two monkeys were put in cages within very clear sight of each other.  One of the monkeys had two levers it could pull--one which would give it food, the other which would give both monkeys food (the first monkey would get the same amount of food the other way).  The monkeys, on the whole, eventually pushed the first lever (only giving them the food).

Whether this applies for animals in the wild, let alone humans...

[A18]

**** no / libertarian

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

**** no / libertarian

Do you just hate the human race or something?

[Ebowed]

**** no / libertarian

Do you just hate the human race or something?

No, he's just reasonable.

[phk]

No, this sh**t is for Marxists.

[opebo]

Why are there only options for 'libertarian' and 'populist'?  What about we liberal elitists?

[Bono]

damn.  now that I've seen it I must admit I'm a tad surprised too.

I asume you'd have expected the rightists/small govt types to be overwhelmingly YES and the leftists/large govt types to be mostly NO.  Shows how little we know.  Anyway, don't get discouraged, Vorlon can tell you a lot of this has to do with your wording (And the odd choices.)  Let folks forget about it, wait a few months, then ask something like, "I believe in the innate benevolence of mankind"

ok, I'm waiting for you to admit you were wrong and that libertarians aren't the naive dolts you make us to be.

[MasterJedi]

No, people are innately evil. If there's a chance people will do whatever it takes to get themselves ahead and screw other people over.

[Emsworth]

Absolutely not.

[Ebowed]

No, people are innately evil. If there's a chance people will do whatever it takes to get themselves ahead and screw other people over.

This is very true.

[Bono]

No, people are innately evil. If there's a chance people will do whatever it takes to get themselves ahead and screw other people over.

This is very true.

^^^^^^

[Gabu]

No, people are innately evil. If there's a chance people will do whatever it takes to get themselves ahead and screw other people over.

If this was true, then why don't we get more stories of, say, spouses being murdered because the other spouse thought that he or she could get away with the resulting life insurance money?  Why do we hear articles telling us that the average American gives away $1,097 per year (or around 3.2% of his or her annual income) to charity, knowing very well that they will get nothing in return other than the satisfaction that they have helped someone?  Why has the world gotten continuously more tolerant and more liveable over time?  Compare life today to life where people were burned at the stake for being heretics.

It was John Nash who even proved scientifically and won a Nobel Prize for his work that the best outcome arises from balancing the pursuit of your own interests with the pursuit of those of the group at large: that those who only work completely in their short-sighted self-interest will inevitably worsen the group.  Given how our society is not falling apart and is, in fact, prospering, it must be the case that people are not simply blindly working for their own self-interest and screwing everyone else over, and are instead following, whether by choice or, more likely, at least somewhat by nature, the guidelines that got Nash his Nobel Prize.

I simply don't understand why libertarians seem to be the ones to look down so harshly on human nature; I don't see how you can think so poorly of human nature and yet want big businesses to have total freedom to do whatever they wish with their money and employees.  It would seem to me that it would be more consistent to believe that big businesses will benefit everyone if left to their own devices in order to have that stance on the issue.

This topic is depressing, to say the least.

[Inverted Things]

No, people are innately evil. If there's a chance people will do whatever it takes to get themselves ahead and screw other people over.

We have a system in which wealth can be hoarded. As soon as wealth can be hoarded, it will be hoarded by any means necessary. As such, people screw other people over because they get rewarded for it.

The above statement probably appears anti-capitalist, and it certainly is. It is also anti-communist and anti-socialist, since wealth can be hoarded in any of these systems. It is therefore a blanket anti-money statement.

[Cubby]

No/Libertarian

Unfortunately, human history shows that we are cruel to each other far more than we are kind. I wish it weren't true but it is. Its survival of the fittest I suppose, and there is no room in that scenario for helping others along.

And I voted Libertarian b/c I consider myself a libertarian on social issues.

[Gabu]

We have a system in which wealth can be hoarded.

Yes.

As soon as wealth can be hoarded, it will be hoarded by any means necessary.

...I don't see how this follows...

As such, people screw other people over because they get rewarded for it.

And I certainly don't see how this follows.

The above statement probably appears anti-capitalist, and it certainly is. It is also anti-communist and anti-socialist, since wealth can be hoarded in any of these systems. It is therefore a blanket anti-money statement.

Wouldn't the very first statement be true in any given system in which anyone is capable of owning anything at all?