>>14
>You are in error. The human reproductive cycle and early development require an enormous social investment to succeed.
Social investment? Which one do you mean, charity or trade? It makes a world of difference which one you meant.
>That a man, and I may add only a highly trained man, can walk into the wilderness and survive, does not change man's social nature.
There is a big difference between it cannot be done and it is difficult to be done. A human can survive alone, and that is enough to show that he is physically an independent being. The fact he receives an incalculable benefit trading within a society doesn't make him physically dependent on other human begins, like ants or bees.
>The rest of your statements are equally erroneous, though it is fair for you to disagree with my placing the values of charity and altruism above all others. This simply lets me know that you have a value system that is incompatible with mine, and therefore deem you an unsuitable member of my preferred society. Guess we can't trade in values. When you speak of trade you really mean commerce
Charity and altruism cannot be the highest values. Before one can even start to think about charity or altruism, one have to produce the goods to give away. The ability of production is a higher value/virtue, since without that, charity or altruism cannot even exist.
You say you and I can't trade because we differ in moral values. That will be true if you practice altruism consistently. Because by then you will have no goods to trade with me, you have gave them all away. You won't be able to trade with anybody.
And as for trade, yes, commerce is one of them.
>Poverty is not ubiquitous. Where?
I assume you mean by "ubiquitous" as in it will always be there. I am saying that is not true since poverty is not something necessitated by human nature. If what you were trying to instead state the fact that poverty is in a lot of places at the present time, then that is a true statement.
>Poverty would disappear if... Yeah... poverty's just about how hard you work. Fortune, random chance, intelligence, and even the weather play no part eh? Nonsense.
I disagree. Accidents plays a very small roll in the production of wealth. If good luck and random chance is the root of majority of fortunes of whatever kind or size, then there wouldn't be any demand for schools/trainings.
From the facts I observed, the major cause of today's poverty is the government, with policies such as welfare among others.
>BTW, your inability to understand my statement about what we are "forced" to do may be due, in part, to a lack of context. The contemporary global nationalist framework forces us to pick a nation to belong to. Your individual human has no place left to go and be antisocial. All of the land has been gobbled up, and armies built to hold it. So like it or not we're stuck in this together until society collapses, or you're ready to fight for what you believe in.
Fair enough clarification. The only thing I have to object is the use of the word "antisocial". If a person is willing to trade with others, but not willing to carry their baggage, then I wouldn't say he is antisocial.
>So though we may be "forced" to belong to one of these societies, as I explained before social welfare is administered from willing (or willing enough) contributions to a general pool and administered by our elected representatives.
How do you know they are willing, or willing enough? Like I said, welfare is administered BY LAW, it's not something voluntary. That is the central and essential difference between welfare and charity. One is forced, the other is voluntary.
>This is the real world. Your "values" are intellectual experiments.
Society is a man made entity like a building or plane or medicine. And like all man made entities, it can be changed for the better, or for the worse. That's what the science of politics is all about.
If you say the present state of matter is "real" and unchangeable and my values are just "intellectual experiments", then I guess the thought of inventing a new drug such as penicillin to cure diseases or the thought of founding a new nation such as the US to pursue liberty are all just "intellectual experiments" and not sticking to what's "real" no?