Are humans good or evil by nature?

Our nature is clear and pristine, but we're unable to realise it because we're clouded by delusion.

>Are humans good or evil by nature?
No.

This is an interesting idea. Got a system in mind?

OP

Abdullah Ocalan calls it "Democratic Confederalism", but I'd call it "Strasserism" desu

sounds like nationalism to me

This sounds like tribalism.

How would this stand up to an Autocratic Nation capable of creating a strong army?

Nuclear weapons, preferably, but guerilla warfare would also work, just with a lot more pain. The citizens of such a state would feel much more intense about their cause than the invading army, which can cause wonders even in the face of drastic technological superiority; just look at Vietnam or the "War on Terror".

That's because it basically is, as long as it's isolationist and power is decentralized as opposed to having massive states ruled by single persons.

So this is just Nationalism/Tribalism, then.

How will you get people in Mixed culture areas to dissociate?

I know it champions Multiculturalism, but places like LA/NY are incredibly discrete and un-unified. No one has any real sense of community there.

They'd probably come apart pretty quickly once rural areas stop accepting their worthless marketing and finance products as acceptable trade for their valuable food and natural resources, but it's not like it particularly matters if they disintegrate or not from the perspective of our protagonists, as long as the instruments with which the cities have exerted control over them are gone.

Neither.

Fuck off with this Donnie Darko shit. Suffering is generally either self-imposed or inflicted by people who lack empathy.

>Nationalism/Tribalism

Don't conflate the two. Tribalism has always existed but loyalty to the nation-state is just a modern subcategory of it.

Fucking Divine Command theorists

In my opinion humans are motivated by what makes them happy, and much as we want to deny it, most evil acts are based on denying ourselves happiness in some manner.

We attack people whom we perceive to have denies us happiness, whether through material or emotional means and therefore we are made more unhappy by the act of harming another person.

good and evil don't exist in nature

Stirner thought the state of nature was that we were social animals with a predisposition towards making relationships and interacting.

Is he, dare I say it, /ourguy/?

Humans are humans, what ever causes them to take the actions they take, whether subjectively good or evil, is inherent to them because they are human. There is nothing outside of a human that is responsible for the actions of the human. Whatever good or evil is, however you want to define that subjectivy, it is inside the person. Your dichotomy is false. Humans that do good things are humans. Humans that do evil things are human. Humans are humans. There are not two separate kinds of humans Good Humans, and Evil Humans. Therefore there are humans, and they are human.

So then globalism culture and global governance would be the ultimate cure to evil. Everyone exposed to everyone, everyone under one representative government with equal risk and responsibility. That way there is no stranger, and no incentive to do bad acts to the stranger on behalf of your more commonly known companions. And the maximum incentive to do the greatest amount of good for all people, because you are part of the group all people.

Mfw Hobbsian Globalism is the solution to petty tribal nationalism.

Considering that humans basically spend their time rationalizing why they should brutalize other humans or living things we are definitely evil naturally.

nature don't care

Yeah, but he also thought we were naturally egoistic (and held egoism to be a rational belief). I personally suspect he's most spot on, because our fundamental natures are beyond moral judgment; it would be like passing moral judgment on wolves or cattle.

Do you have to teach your child to lie, cheat, steal, or hurt other people?

No?

Then how is this even a question?

Rousseau is such a fucking idiot, his entire philosophy falls apart when confronted with the simplest logic.

The chicken or the egg?

How can man in nature, outside of society, be fundamentally good...when society is first developed by said man from his initial state? It just doesn't make any damn sense.

In terms of moving political philosophy towards realpolitik and away from enlightenment and romantic idealist/utopian points of view concerning political power and human nature, yes.

Kek

Nicely done completely ignoring every word after the word "while" in my post. Such a world is probably the endgame, but imposing it now will lead to mass resentment and unrest. It's better to go with a national standpoint; more successful nations will create cultural works and inspire the assimilation of nations around them, with that assimilation, carried out voluntarily rather than by a global government, being the force that eventually creates said global government.

Essentially Cultural Victory will then create political union. Simply trying to use economic union to create political union and cultural union will lead to a population in disarray. It might be successful if you manage to put in a surveilance state, but do you really want to be living in a world where most people hate it but keep on going just because the rulers are so powerful they can't be removed?

Yours.

So then there is objective evil, it's just that it's objectively evil for a given subject. So the question stands. Do humans intrinsically have overall evil tendencies or not?

It would be like passing moral judgement on trees or rocks even

"Good" and "Evil" are all a matter of perspective. There is no true good or evil because for there to be one there would need to be objective morals.

Personally I find humans to be selfish not good or evil. Many of our actions could be interpreted either way, but at the root of almost every decision we make is our own self intrest.

Do globalists even reflect over the kind of governance would be necessary to rule the entire world?

Since the world is so large, in order to keep order some eventual world government would have to be by definition a totalitarian state.

But we do teach children to do those things.

Chaotic.

Good & Evl are constructs.

It's really long last time we outgrew both.

Tribalism, and by extension nationalism, are just extensions of the relationship most people have with their families. Seeking to demolish them will mean also mean demolishing the family, which will mean you'll have to start treating mankind as wholly selfish "islands" who only think in terms of their own good, and must be corralled by threat of force. I don't think I want to live in that world, and I don't think you want to either.

I think you should revise your statement.

Are humans altruistic or selfish?

evil

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay evil.

Let's be real here.

Neither, or maybe somewhat evil

"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house."

>AY YO REAL TALK HERE BRUH
k

>it's objective but subjectively

what?

Thats cute, wheres it from?