A Case Against Human Nature

For the concept of a fully stateless society, the propaganda lines go something like this, chaos, plunder, violence, lawlessness, etc. The reason statists offer behind this view is human nature, a pseudo-psychological theory which states that emotions like anger, jealousy and greed are genetically embedded in human beings. But just like the field of psychiatry, these are nothing more than bogus Darwinist fairy tales. Let us keep this theory aside for a while and examine the credibility of the pseudo-science of psychiatry. There are more than three hundred mental diseases registered in the American Psychiatry Society, but absolutely no kind of laboratory tests had been run for those diseases, not even a blood test. One can claim this because the APS themselves does not provide any evidence which can prove the conduct of scientific experiments for mental diseases which they always claim to exist by the ‘licensed psychiatrists’ they recognise and represent.

Now lets demystify the human nature theory which independent scientists like Jacque Fresco and individualist economists like Ludwig von Mises had been debunking for a long time, one should read their books to further understand humanity. But the aborigine tribes around the world are the living proof of the nonexistence of human nature. Take aggression for example, the San tribes of Southern Africa had been scientifically proved to be the oldest human beings on Earth and the researchers who had spent a lot of time among the Bushmen had said that the San people never get angry or even scold their children. Such tribes exist all around the world.

Now that the fantasy of human nature and the pseudo-science behind it (psychiatry) had been exposed, it will be surf like to still assume that a human being cannot rule himself but a tiny group of human beings employing a bigger group of armed human beings can rule billions of unarmed human beings and extort their hard earned income to fund their existence just because they say so.

On the other hand, it’s true that there are going to be conflicts in a stateless society but we don’t need the all perfect state to intervene in the personal issues of individuals because the state funds its arbitrary interventions by looting other people, nothing is perfect. Mahatma Gandhi used to say that, “the essence of conflict is the imposition of one’s ideology on another”. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a person doing anything he/she wants unless his/her actions does not pose a threat to someone’s private property and won’t have a negative physical impact on another person.

People will voluntarily contribute to form uncohesive governing bodies through direct democracy or based on how social clubs are governed because it’s in their interests, Country Club for example. These governing bodies will compete with each other to attract more members by providing better services and benefits because if they won’t, people will revoke their contributions and just join another such body which fits their needs. These bodies can also pay other companies for their services, like security companies. It is also true that such companies can buy governments to pursue their own interests. But that’s just another reason for us to get rid of government because expanding it will just make it even more vulnerable to abuse which will thus result in the abuse of citizens who voted their expansion and didn’t objected to their portions of income being ceased by the elected government strangers to fund the expansion.