2 ms·

I very much disagree with the fact that any kind of political and economic system could be "compatible with human nature", which is a popular argument in suppor

I very much disagree with the fact that any kind of political and economic system could be "compatible with human nature", which is a popular argument in supporting the currently dominant liberal democracy. Firstly, politics and economics are extremely complex high-level concepts that can't be directly tied to primal, genetic properties. If they were - why did we go through so much history and different socioeconomic structures before we got here? Wouldn't it make sense that the further back you go, the more "compatible with human nature" the social structures are? Secondly - being in line with human nature is not a good metric. Being violent, sexual and emotional are all natural instincts, but we don't encourage people to follow them. Quite the opposite - we consider it a virtue to be able to control them and instead act rationally.

zozbot234 7y ago
> Wouldn't it make sense that the further back you go, the more "compatible with human nature" the social structures are? Well, if you go back to social structures that have really stood the test of time, it turns out that they didn't scale beyond 150 individuals. That's the limit that human nature places on naïve 'anarchy' working - in order to scale beyond that, you need some sort of structure for dispute resolution and decision-making, at the very least. Liberal democracy generally makes it a point of being as 'free' as possible - that is, as close as possible to that original, tribalistic model.