Comment: human nature?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Most people are not naturally (see in situ)

human nature?

I don't quite understand why you thought I might have invented a new meaning for the word "malicious." Itchy keyboard fingers? Logorrhoea? Your second definition is correct, the first is just weird.

Next up: "Are people really committed to everyone's well being?" Have I said that most people are committed to making others happy? I have not. I just got through saying the opposite.

Their good will generally extends no further than "live and let live." In their personal lives, they deal with others peaceably by trade and for emotional reasons, without employing (personally) violence or threats thereof. That's how most people behave. You could call that "human nature" if you like, but I'm not comfortable ascribing one "nature" to all humans. People are individuals; "humanity" and "human nature" are just figures of speech.

I've already explained about the discontinuity in most people's thinking when it comes to coercion and government. Including yours, Bill. Coercion does not magically become moral when guys in the "government" gang do it -- but people have been trained not to understand that. You need to take the red pill.

When I speak of good and evil in interpersonal relationships, you should understand that I am not talking about moral codes -- religions or philosophies. I'm speaking of ethics, and defining the initiation of coercion to be evil. I fully understand that many moral codes do not hold it to be so -- statists like yourself foremost among them.

I've got a simple little rationale for this, try it on: coercively proscribing any action which does no harm to another's person or property is an act of aggression against people who hold that action to be a moral good. Restricting other people's moral choices is an abrogation of morality itself, a universal evil.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose