4 ms·

> Second of all, there has never been a paradise where resources are communally owned without clear limitations on the use and distribution of those resources,

> Second of all, there has never been a paradise where resources are communally owned without clear limitations on the use and distribution of those resources, usually at the behest of corrupt, tyrannical or murderous leaders. The article wasn't arguing that a paradise of communal resource sharing with out limitations has ever existed. It was arguing that property wasn't the limitation and that people had access to the basics they needed to survive. And there are many, many examples of societies that existed where resources were communally shared and every one had access to the things they needed. Many of which involved various methods of communal decision making as well. This idea that humanity's state of nature is barbarous, brutal competition is an a historical myth that has been used to justify some of the worst abuses of the powerful.

EricE 4y ago
>and every one had access to the things they needed right up until their neighbors waltzed over and took it from them. Talk about rose colored glasses!
- dbingham 4y ago
  Sure, there was conflict between societies. But again, this is an exaggerated view of just how much there was. I haven't seen many studies quantifying it. But given the sheer scale of damage conflicts today are capable of generating, I'm not sure that the total danger of conflict to any individual would have been that much greater to any individual then than now. I think we've definitely made gains in peace and security, but I also think those gains are frequently drastically exaggerated. My point isn't that the past was some rose colored time. Only that false assumptions about human nature are frequently used justify deeply harmful policies and institutions. And that many people speak about how humans behaved in "that past" with very little actual anthropological or historical knowledge.
  - bmmayer1 4y ago
    > I'm not sure that the total danger of conflict to any individual would have been that much greater to any individual then than now It is, in fact, much safer to be alive today than any other point in history. And a much lower chance of dying from violence due to other humans. In fact there's a whole book about this if you're interested: https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010 https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/...

EricE 4y ago

>and every one had access to the things they needed right up until their neighbors waltzed over and took it from them. Talk about rose colored glasses!

dbingham 4y ago
Sure, there was conflict between societies. But again, this is an exaggerated view of just how much there was. I haven't seen many studies quantifying it. But given the sheer scale of damage conflicts today are capable of generating, I'm not sure that the total danger of conflict to any individual would have been that much greater to any individual then than now. I think we've definitely made gains in peace and security, but I also think those gains are frequently drastically exaggerated. My point isn't that the past was some rose colored time. Only that false assumptions about human nature are frequently used justify deeply harmful policies and institutions. And that many people speak about how humans behaved in "that past" with very little actual anthropological or historical knowledge.
- bmmayer1 4y ago
  > I'm not sure that the total danger of conflict to any individual would have been that much greater to any individual then than now It is, in fact, much safer to be alive today than any other point in history. And a much lower chance of dying from violence due to other humans. In fact there's a whole book about this if you're interested: https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010 https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/...