3 ms·
That is one of the spins that is put on it. But if we take rats/nature as the example. Then what is the counter proposal? That men are best in a state of cons
by FrustratedMonky 2y ago
That is one of the spins that is put on it.
But if we take rats/nature as the example.
Then what is the counter proposal? That men are best in a state of constant warfare and conquering or being conquered. People should fight for their lives or starve. These aren't hyperbole, they are arguments being made. It's just not a great place to live, unless you are rich with your private army.
- SoftTalker 2y agoI don't necessarily think that constant warfare is required (though certainly that has been the state of humans until the last century or so) but I do think that they are best when they are occupied with providing for their own and their families' survival. People (especially men) who have nothing to do are generally not mentally or socially healthy.
- FrustratedMonky 2y agoSure, if we lived on the savanna and we could survive with hunting/gathering. But if there aren't jobs, even if someone wants to work, what do they do? Or the jobs they can get don't pay enough to eat. The number of people, wal-mart employees that have full time jobs, and also on food stamps is pretty incredible. So if we want to not have UBI, but also want people working. Then, need to either raise minim wage, or provide big government work projects or something. So, I'm agreeing, but also saying in modern world, we cant hunt/gather, and since we don't want to have roving gangs fighting for food, or calling for revolution, we do need something to give that meaning. Some task.