Yeesh almighty. Like I said, you didn’t read what I responded to. My post shouldn’t be read as the ultimate statement on my view of innate human character or somesuch bullshit. I was just pointing out that the OP is wrong in characterizing society as an us v. them thing where we are all sweetness and light but they make us fight each other for their own ends.
I read it, but I will take your word as to how it should have been read (ie what you actually meant) and stop opposing you. I agree that that characterization by the OP was screwy.
Once my brain stopped
vibrating
from the
unnecessary
post fragm
entation,
anyway.
Well, they still stink on ice…
No response to post #57? Can I take it your request was not in good faith?
Fool me
once
shame
on you
lurking guest, I agree with you for what it’s worth.
That post was nonresponsive. A bunch of examples ofpeople being nice to each other doesn’t change the fact that the bulk of daily interactions are competitive at their core.
Not to reopen this, but I think your definition of “competetive” is different from mine.
Yeah probably. I classify buying or selling anything as an interaction that is competitive at its core.
But really this discussion is worthless–I’m just trying to counter our esteemed OP, who will soon have me on ignore once he or she reads my “Fuck Jesus” post.
You asked, I provided. I see your hand waving skills are hurricane-level strong. Keep moving those goalposts.
frenzied lurking guest
chooses to post in verse
without new insight
That’s just it, the world isn’t nearly as black and white as you paint it. There are over 6 billion people on this planet with varying degrees and mixtures of every human trait. Competition is one of them, but so is empathy.
There is no default. It’s the socioeconomic conditions that bring forth or regress certain traits to varying degrees. For now, in the modern world, it is capitalism that brings out our competitiveness. But just because most humans like to compete in the general sense, doesn’t mean supply and demand is always the answer. In a competition, there’s always going to be winners and losers. It’s one thing if you can’t afford an HD TV, it’s another thing if you can’t afford a liver transplant.
The only thing I can agree with the OP on, is that the two parties in our government have become so polarized, the gap between reconciling almost any urgent national crisis has become so wide as to be practically uncrossable. Yet, the gap ever widens, as “We the people” keep plummeting down it as we hope in vein that someone builds a fucking bridge.
I can get on board with the last part of your post. The government generally doesn’t do things well, so let’s limit its activities to only those things a government is necessary for (ie, defense, police, etc.). Then, “we the people” can all take care of ourselves free from the threat of undue government interference.
Typically empathy is most displayed by those who have won the competition. Surely you would acknowledge that poor people in Bangladesh aren’t too anxious to sacrifice what little they have for earthquake victims in Haiti. Unless by empathy you mean that they feel bad, in which case there’s a whole lot of empathy to go around, none of which means anything to people who are suffering. All the empathy in the world isn’t going to feed famine victims. Money does that. And who has money?
I see it as cooperative at its core - an attempt to supercede conflicting inherent priorities to achieve an acceptable middle ground.
Unless the transaction is done at gunpoint or something, anyway.
I have this niggling suspicion that, with my replies to that post, if you’re ignored then I am too. 
My point being, further on down my post was that the traits that drive our behavior are manipulated in fundamental ways by the socioeconomic pressures we find ourselves in. Competitiveness will win out in a supply and demand world. No room for more of the sharing/giving traits that can be equally as strong under the right system or circumstances.
And in societies that abolished supply and demand capitalism, how’d that work out?
And I concur with begbert that when people buy and sell goods and services it is a fundamentally cooperative exchange. Both people come out ahead, or they wouldn’t agree to the exchange.
Well, not very well at all. Nor am I all gung-ho about communism, socialism or what have you. I’m just arguing the single point that competitiveness is not humanity’s single default trait. Just one of many, but one that currently drives our economy.
Frankly, I’m a fan of capitalism, to a degree. It’s obvious it works for the most part, so far it’s the best thing we got. It’s certainly worked in my favor so far… to a degree. I do feel, however, that certain things that’s healthy for a nation might not be best expressed through capitalism. Most things yes, but other fundamental things might be better suited for in a not-for-profit model, such as health care. Things that every individual in a society should be equally entitled to because of the idea of equality and the health of our nation on the whole, so to speak.
This is fine for goods and services. Money is liquid and standardized. But value is not. Let’s beg and barter and sell and con all we want when it comes to everything from Buicks to toilet paper. But, do you think the value insurance companies place on our health and human lives is working out all that great? What happens if you can’t afford insurance?
Must capitalism be the answer for everything? Certainly not.
People will not do something unless it benefits them.
Mind you, people derive benefits in a lot of different ways. But the fact remains that people will not willingly contribute what they cannot afford to give while simultaneously maintaining their lifestyle. Take Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, for instance. Sure, they’re donating a stupendous amount of money. That is, for you and me. The amount of money they donate is so vast it’s incomprehensible for the average guy. But it affects them not a whit.
Ultimately, capitalism is the answer for everything. People will not disadvantage themselves for anybody if they can avoid it. That is an absolute fact of life. You can compel them by law to give a larger percentage of their income, but people will not willingly do it themselves.
Simply not true on multiple levels. People can and do all sorts of things for reasons that have nothing to do with profit. People have been known to “disadvantage” themselves - sometimes to the point of death - for reasons having nothing to do with money or self interest. People are not the simple, one dimensional creatures that this ideology claims them to be; they have more than one motivation.
Nor is capitalism the “answer for everything”. There are a great many problems that capitalism can’t solve, because it isn’t profitable to do so. Nothing is the answer for everything; however it disturbs some people, there’s no single magic solution to all problems. Expecting capitalism to be the solution for everything is just as foolish and just in much in denial of reality as saying the government should run everything totalitarian style.