"I believe there are accounts of people eating their own children in a starvation situation. So is it within human nature to do such things and not all humans will stave off base impulses therefore requiring a system by which those base impulses are kept in check?"
Menger's words are couched as a fact as if charity does not exist.
I don't. Charity does exist in every case where someone is charitable, so Menger's factual statements, if English means anything, are false.
By the same token I don't couch my words to suggest a false fact that greed, envy, and criminal thoughts do not exist; immoral thoughts exist.
Greed, not criminal thoughts, are not immoral thoughts, in my opinion, far from it, but how far, in any case whatsoever?
The point is that individuals with individual accurate measures of choices that span a range between absolute charity and absolute greed make up the total FORCE called a free market.
Again, to reinforce the understanding, the free market is not a THING, it is a total sum of all the names of all the people making all their own choices when they are not deceived, when they are not deceiving, when they are not threatened by criminals (immoral decisions made by individual people), and when they are not threatening other people, and when they are not being tortured or otherwise subjected to violence, and when they are not choosing to be violent.
The free market is also on a scale, where it exist more, a person is almost totally free from any deception, threat, or violence by anyone, the person trading one thing, nor the person trading the other thing, and where it exist less, there is a measurable amount of deception, threat, violence, one upon another, in fact, along the scale, from a child selling lemonade to another child, on to an innocent gathering of church goers piled into a pile and run over by a tank while they are set in fire.
Each person, in each situation, each time, OUTSIDE OF CRIME, and most certainly outside of LEGAL CRIME, makes an individual choice that, in their opinion, is better, not worse, for them, for charitable reason, from an absolutely charitable reason, giving up your own life for someone else, for example, or for absolutely greedy reasons, which may be something both of us can imagine may be as close to absolutely greed WITHOUT stepping over the line into crime, NOT where an innocent victims is deceived, threatened, or somehow, accurately measurably injured, but none-the-less a greedy, self-centered, self profiting, self empowering, self gaining, not self loosing, thought, and act. Not giving something up for someone, but a greedy thought, and greedy act, of gaining in some way, but NOT at the cost of someone else who is in no way deceived, threatened, or made to give up the cost violently.
If I steal all the oxygen on earth, or all the land, or all the water, or all the Legal Money, and keep it for myself, all the other people on the planet die in a matter of minutes, hours, days, eventually, unless some of those other people invent a new way to get oxygen, land, water, or Legal Money - in that context.
So...the person selling money to a person who trades labor, 12 hours in the hot sun, is voluntarily trading whatever it cost that person to get that money, for whatever it costs the other person, and the other person voluntarily agrees, in Liberty, and equitably, because both of them, at the time, make that trade, knowing full well, at that time, that it is equitable, based upon their own individual power of will.
Now, what happens if only 6 hours go by and there is 6 more hours to go, and side by side with the one person is another person working for 10 minutes, and the same amount of coins are traded by the same coin trader, where one trader of labor works 10 minutes, and doing a poor job, or worse, if that worker just makes more work for the other worker, and then that destructive worker, adding to the other workers work load, leaves, with the same amount of coin, and the original worker has agreed to work anther 6 hours, or worse, what if the original worker had agreed to do a specific job that would have taken 12 hours, except for the fact that the new worker, who worked 10 minutes, made more work, totaling 13 yours, and that new worker is traded the same amount of coin as the original worker?
A. Complete the job for a penny, no matter how long it takes.
B. Spend 10 minutes to make more work out of less work, in trade for a penny.
The first deal looks worse, now, after the second deal becomes obvious.
Another worker is hired, same deal, the new worker works 10 minutes, adds another hour to the work load, and is traded the same amount of coin?
The original work trader now has 14 hours of work to "honor" the original deal.
Anther worker is hired, same deal, the new worker works 10 minutes, adds another hour to the work load, and is traded the same amount of coin as the original worker, and again another hour is added to the work load to accomplish the task that the original work "contracted" to work to completion for that same trade of that same coin, so now the original worker has to work 15 hours, then 16, then 17, then 1,000 hours, then 1 million hours, then 1 trillion hours.
Look at the column that says Total Debt Per Family
It does not say Total Debt Per Chinese Family.
It does not say Total Debt Per Muslim Family in Iraq.
Having your children's heads blown off is a bit more than $705,459.00 Federal Reserve Notes OWED to someone, and who do you think provides the guns, ammo, boots, vehicles, plane tickets, fuel, food, beer, knifes, forks, tents, bankers, executive salaries, bonuses, bail-outs, etc., to keep those heads being blown off, so as to keep that Legal Money Monopoly Fraud perpetuating?
It isn't Joe Blow Trader working to get more for less from Bill Smith Trader, so it may be a good idea to separate the voluntary stuff from the "providing the means by which we suffer" stuff, so as not to confuse the two, and if you are going to throw in cannibalism, then my immediate thought is to get another copy of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag book and find the relevant words that come to my mind on that subject of absolute power-less-ness that people find themselves forced into, from time to time.
I don't think that it is wrong to point out that the pricing of things according to "that which the market will bear" is, as Warren says, Civilized Cannibalism, not because people each eat other, but because people are thereby inspired to make power scarce for other people, instead of making power abundant for everyone.
Does that make sense?
"So is it within human nature to do such things and not all humans will stave off base impulses therefore requiring a system by which those base impulses are kept in check?"
Consider reading Men Against the Sea:
There are similar stories of good things done by people in very tough situations, because they invent, or know, competitive ways to deal with serious problems, instead of bad things being done by people who fail to know better.
Individuals do things, even if you don't like it, and Market Forces are not entities unto themselves that can be held accountable for the individual actions of people seeking to get more for less, which is not the same thing as someone seeking, and then gaining, "something for nothing", which is not possible, what that means, without the lie, without the false front, is someone resorting to crime, so as to pass on costs to a victim, so as to gain power at the victims expense.
"i.e. in an equitable situation how are those who cannot override base impulses to exist without harming those that are able to find charity and equity?"
To me, what you are saying, or asking, is "What can potential victims do to avoid becoming victims, and, at the same time, what can potential criminals do to avoid becoming criminals?"
To that question or to your question, which I think is the same question, because the same answer works, and the answer is to invent a way to reach the goal, and then improve it.
You know of no way to reach the goal?
If not, then why not?
I think Trial by Jury, based upon sortiton, along with Common Law, which is based upon Natural Law, and even Christian Scripture, in the cases where Common law was in use by individual people, here and there, now and then, and in particular that time period between 1776 and 1788, when towns, cities, counties, States, and even a Democratic Federated Republic under the limits of The Articles of Confederation, and all those limits placed upon all those people who agreed to be limited by those Constitutions in all those States worked, helps, as an example answer to the question, and that had an improvement mechanism working in it, as we have discussed, and the improvement mechanism was to avoid "consolidation" or "monopoly" whereby competition is against the law. A federation, or confederation, is designed to allow competition among the Separate or Sovereign State governments, as people vote with their feet, and employ other systematic methods of holding the candle of liberty to the feet of the employees who are employed to defend liberty, you know, the government workers.
So if you don't know how that did work, exactly, or at all, then your question may be a question you have, while you have no way to answer it, I suppose.
If it costs more to commit crime than any gain that could be gained in the perpetrating of a crime, then what do you think a potential criminal is going to do?
A. Suffer from his own error, severely, having to pay a huge fine for a crime that would only gain a very small gain even if the criminal was not caught.
B. Avoid being a criminal.
Why is that not easy to see?
If you did not read the Essay by Spooner called Trial by Jury, then you may not know that the Jurors ended up passing sentences that amounted to fines, since crimes became less frequent, and less severe, since crime didn't pay well.
That is a stark contrast to this:
That is an attempt to communicate the accurate measure of a crime in progress, and if you don't see that, that way, then it can be said, accurately, that you are a victim of fraud, because you fail to even see how the criminals are telling you exactly how much you are a victim of fraud, laughing all the way to THEIR fraud banks.
Ha, ha, ha, look, another dupe, another one who hasn't the vaguest clue.
Perhaps not you, bear, not now, but I do tend to get on my soap box, as you should know by now - asking if the shoe fits.
"Is it even possible?"
There are places and times in human existence where crime is much less frequent compared to the shinning examples of where crime is more frequent, and in each case of the worse cases, it is Legal Crime, and it is has been financed by The Dollar Hegemony PEOPLE lately.
Who financed Pol Pot - for example.
Who financed Hitler, Stalin, and Roosevelt?
Who financed Mittens and ObamaNation?
Where are the shining examples of the other end of the scale as far away from Pol Pot, and The Dollar Hegemony, with their version of Nirvana in Cambodia, as far away as possible from abject evil?
Nothing? Never? Not ever, anywhere?
How about your own family, you know, the family that owes roughly ZEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES to some nebulous cabal of Legal Criminals?
If only our families could stop lending moral and material support to The Dollar Hegemony, then crime would pay less.
How much less?
Who would be left to finance Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, if we, as far back as our family histories go, yours, mine, other people's, as far back as at least a few generations, NO LONGER "provide the means by which we suffer", through The Dollar Hegemony?
What dollar hegemony, nut case?
OH, that was my imagination, spewing out a question, while I prop my sorry butt on this rickety soap box.
You don't know anything about The Dollar Hegemony?
They print dollars.
They do so legally.
You have to earn those units.
The Internal Revenue Service, such nice guys and gals, ask only for those Federal Reserve Notes, so get to work!
"Will not all possible human combinations lead to the conclusion that without Christ reigning, the True Prince of Peace, and without humanity being released from a baseness of nature that true peace and prosperity is evasive?"
Sure, but what is on the list of things to do, or not do, concerning those Federal Reserve Notes, while we wait?
Supposing that it may not be right to just wait.
"Perhaps in that parable a penny a day is needed to exist and while the owner had compassion on the laborers that had not been hired the other workers who had been working all day did not, and perhaps a penny a day was what was needed to subsist for another day."
Full disclosure, as to who is truly harmless, to the innocent, and who is willfully working effectively, and diligently, to gain at the expense of the innocent, may be difficult, but that does not make finding full disclosure worthless.
In the case of the few people who own most of the land, for example, it may be a good idea to figure out if those where ill gotten gains.
Following the money, to the source, may be the same end point as following the land patents to the source.
I don't know, land titles or patents, are new pieces to the puzzle for me.
"Anyway, that parable is a comparison of the kingdom of heaven and is used to show that people who trust Christ late in life will have the same reward of heaven as people who have served Christ their whole lives."
Just so that we are on the same page, or close to it, my trusting you, or anyone else, as to what is, or is not, the meaning intended by the ONE authority, according to scripture, is not the same thing as me trusting Christ. I do not have a connection to Christ, other than through you, as you connect through scripture, as far as I know.
Christ does not, as far as I know, hand me notes, offer me clues, send me on errands, or give me advice.
If you say so, and I believe you, then I am trusting you, not Christ.
"but abundance is not necessarily measured in earthly treasures."
In context of me, and my soap box speeches, my axe to grind, the measure of treasures certainly isn't the often cases of piles of tortured, commingled bodies, missing heads, missing other parts, lives ended, terribly, horribly, torturous ends, where the measure of abundance is abundantly clear, and it stinks, and it rots, and maggots grow, and rats find it delightful, so as to place this in context, I don't mean to say that abundance is measured in any other way than life and individuals who then measure life as they can, good or bad, their own way.
"We will live eternally but in a different form and there will be no human life as we know it now."
That does not sound good to me, but I don't know, nor do I believe, something I do not understand.
"(and long with the subject of this OP…what does that do to property rights…? Mark 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? )"
Gaining destructive power, learning how to lie better than anyone, learning how to threaten better than anyone, learning how to injure innocent people better than anyone, is in my opinion the way toward losing, or destroying, a soul, or conscience, or the power to make life producing, life preserving, life sustaining, and life reproducing decisions, as if God gave each of us that power, and it has to be our use of that power that we abuse, we pervert, we compromise, we distort, we change from life producing/sustaining/reproducing/nurturing into destruction, and that outward destruction ends up turning inward, to me, as the power to even know good from bad is thereby rendered powerless, from that abuse of that power, that soul, that will, that moral judgement, that righteousness, if we dare to compromise it, with one lie, for example, there will need to be two to cover it up, and then four to cover up those two, then sixteen, and then, what happens to the capacity to know fact from fiction among, within, that tangled web?
"We will be changed because that is the only way for humankind to exist peacefully."
I am human kind. I am not Pol Pot, or Ben Bernanke. So the scale appears to be obvious to me, and so I'm not going to give up on humankind so quickly. Sure there are bad things done by people, but to me, overall, humankind is peaceful, and to me there are many ways for "humankind" to exist peacefully.
I'm certainly not buying this part of scripture, perhaps because, again, I do not understand it well enough.
Many examples of human beings existing peacefully are not, by executive fiat, rendered irrelevant, meaningless, of no use, just because a few very bad people gain a lot of power and they use that power to steal more, and they use that power to keep their power abundant for them, and they use the stolen power to keep their victims powerless.
This is a good source of information along those lines:
"Why does one wake up in the morning dreading each second of life?"
The context of the sentence was to compared, side by side, a living being that has no power to seek improvement, next to, side by side comparison, with a living being that has power that works to drive the person to seek improvement.
I do not mean to suggest that there is anyone, anywhere, waking up and dreading every second of life. If there was one, it seems to me, it would not live long, in that condition.
"How can one wake up in the morning eager to improve?"
If someone gets out of bed, that defines "improvement", exactly that way. If someone does not get out of bed, that defines "improvement", exactly that way, UNLESS, the person is driven externally, not internally.
If the bed is turned over, by someone else, as someone else dumps the sleeper onto the floor, for example, then the person who goes from bed to floor, is probably not going to consider that move to be an improvement.
"the power that worketh in us"
Each individual in each individual case?