How can libertarians NOT support Noam Chomsky?

[freshjiva]

The fact that he's a bastion of leftist ideas and localized democracy, as opposed to a constitutional republic, is duly noted. I understand this.

But watch this incredibly blunt critique of American foreign policy and his plainly articulated deception of the US government to perpetuate classic international terrorism:

YouTube - A MUST SEE Interview by Noam Chomsky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CKpCGjD8wg&feature=related)


This is incredible. I don't care if libertarianism vehemently disagrees with his brand of anarcho-socialism, but we should commend him for speaking the truth about atrocities committed by the US government under the banner of security and freedom. The man speaks blunt truth about these perpetual wars of aggression to a degree that can only be matched by Ron Paul himself.

[Agorism]

I saw an interview where he was telling "student" how to "convert" Ron Paul supporters to the Dems.

He's annoying.

[Sola_Fide]

He's not consistent....AT ALL.


How can you oppose State force in foreign affairs but love State force in domestic affairs? That is the insanity and inconsistency of someone like Noam Chomsky.

[Cowlesy]

I don't have any problem with him, just think he's a leftist collectivist utopian who is against the idea of empire.

Cool name, though.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/161/417028612_841b9c2c5a.jpg?v=0

[Flash]

No, not at all. He thinks taxation isn't theft because we are able to vote, and obviously the voter has the ability to influence policy. Completely ignoring the fact that [b]despite[/n] men fought and died for the ability to vote for representatives, taxation is still theft.

And from what I know he is an Anarcho-Syndicast not an Anarcho-Socialist. From my understanding of the ideology every worker owns a part of the company that he/she is working for. I could be mistaken.

[RedStripe]

I don't agree with Chomsky 100% but I think the typical attacks leveled against him are pretty pathetic.

People who view things in terms of moral absolutes won't find many allies at all, especially those like Chomsky who are more concerned with context.

[freshjiva]

No, not at all. He thinks taxation isn't theft because we are able to vote, and obviously the voter has the ability to influence policy. Completely ignoring the fact that [b]despite[/n] men fought and died for the ability to vote for representatives, taxation is still theft.

And from what I know he is an Anarcho-Syndicast not an Anarcho-Socialist. From my understanding of the ideology every worker is forced to own a part of the company that he/she is working for.

I understand what you're saying here, but even with a thing like taxation, at least if my tax dollars were going to build things that I, my family, and my friends were going to directly benefit from, I can rest at night knowing that it was used for some greater good. I know this is a progressive-liberal idea, but at the end of the day, it serves the American citizen.

In our system, my tax dollars are funding perpetual wars, corporate welfare, and a system of privileges for banking institutions and foreign governments.

You pick which of the above two scenarios you'd like to see. Taxation is only theft if it is taken without the consent of the governed. Even the Constitution permits taxation because it is (ideally) determined by a democratic process, though sadly we've seen that fly out the window as well.

[Sola_Fide]

I don't agree with Chomsky 100% but I think the typical attacks leveled against him are pretty pathetic.

People who view things in terms of moral absolutes won't find many allies at all, especially those like Chomsky who are more concerned with context.



In what context is state coercion and theft acceptable?

[Kotin]

lol nope.

[Bman]

In what context is state coercion and theft acceptable?

If you're one of the people who agrees with what they are doing, fuck everyone else!:eek:

[Agorism]

Where's the clip of him "teaching" Ron Paul supporters?

[Sola_Fide]

I understand what you're saying here, but even with a thing like taxation, at least if my tax dollars were going to build things that I, my family, and my friends were going to directly benefit from, I can rest at night knowing that it was used for some greater good. I know this is a progressive-liberal idea, but at the end of the day, it serves the American citizen.

In our system, my tax dollars are funding perpetual wars, corporate welfare, and a system of privileges for banking institutions and foreign governments.

You pick which of the above two scenarios you'd like to see. Taxation is only theft if it is taken without the consent of the governed. Even the Constitution permits taxation because it is (ideally) determined by a democratic process, though sadly we've seen that fly out the window as well.


This sounds very Statist^^^

Lysander Spooner is right when he says that if a person does not "consent" to the Constitution, then he is forced anyway.

Consent of the governed is good, but not everyone does consent to being governed by this evil regime. Therefore we are not free.

[Justinjj1]

I was a left-libertarian like Chomsky before I was converted to the Ron Paul movement. Even though I disagree with many of his views today, I still hold him in high regard because I think he is one of the best in regards to foreign policy.

And I still feel more of an affinity towards Chomsky and his ilk than I do to the Tea Party.

[ClayTrainor]

I was a left-libertarian like Chomsky before I was converted to the Ron Paul movement. Even though I disagree with many of his views today, I still hold him in high regard because I think he is one of the best in regards to foreign policy.

And I still feel more of an affinity towards Chomsky and his ilk than I do to the Tea Party.

+1

It's like you read my mind.

[Vessol]

Chomsky used to be a good voice against our foreign policy. Now he is a complete sell out armchair leftist.

The fact that he supports the social contract shows that he still agrees with violence, yet only against citizens instead of foreigners.

I'd like to see one good article by Chomsky in the past 10 years about foreign policy.

[ClayTrainor]

Chomsky used to be a good voice against our foreign policy. Now he is a complete sell out armchair leftist.

Yea, I think he's definitely becoming more rigid and less open-minded in his old age. Some of his more recent clips and interviews on youtube have annoyed me a great deal.



I'd like to see one good article by Chomsky in the past 10 years about foreign policy.

I read 3/4 of his book "Hegemony or Survival" a couple years ago, and thought it was pretty dam good. He slams US foreign policy from WW2 to modern day, and even makes some great arguments for free trade. There's a bit of Utopian "democratic" nonsense, but overall it's a pretty good read. I really like the way he picks apart the motives for state war propaganda.

http://a7.vox.com/6a00f48cf01dff0002011017b607cf860e-500pi

[ghengis86]

I understand what you're saying here, but even with a thing like taxation, at least if my tax dollars were going to build things that I, my family, and my friends were going to directly benefit from, I can rest at night knowing that it was used for some greater good. I know this is a progressive-liberal idea, but at the end of the day, it serves the American citizen.

In our system, my tax dollars are funding perpetual wars, corporate welfare, and a system of privileges for banking institutions and foreign governments.

You pick which of the above two scenarios you'd like to see. Taxation is only theft if it is taken without the consent of the governed. Even the Constitution permits taxation because it is (ideally) determined by a democratic process, though sadly we've seen that fly out the window as well.

Which democratic process did I use to consent to the Consitution?

I agree with you on his foreign policy critique, but as others have pointed out he sucks when it comes to domestic policy. He's like the antithesis of the Palin Tea Party.

[Flash]

YouTube - Chomsky: We Shouldn't Ridicule Tea Party Protesters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWs6g3L3fkU&feature=related)

[Vessol]

Chomsky constantly trashed Ron Paul as well whenever he is brought up. Even though Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that proposed actually ending the wars completely and withdrawing all our soldiers abroad. Not even Kucinch went that far.

[anaconda]

Is Chomsky a "left gatekeeper.? Webster Tarpley and others make this assertion.

A couple of links:

http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/10-02-05/discussion.cgi.75.html

YouTube - The Shame of Noam Chomsky & left gatekeepers: Zwicker (#3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhrZ57XxYJU)

[haaaylee]

Manufacturing_Consent.wmv (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730#)

"This film showcases Noam Chomsky, one of America's leading linguists and political dissidents. It also illustrates his message of how government and big media businesses cooperate to produce an effective propaganda machine in order to manipulate the opinions of the United States populous. The key example for this analysis is the simultaneous events of the massive coverage of the communist atrocities of Khmer Rouge regime of Cambodia and the suppression of news of the US supported Indonesian invasion and subjugation of East Timor."

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Chomsky's only redeeming quality is his critique of our foreign policy. Everything else of Chomsky's is typical egalitarian demagoguery. He dislikes private property, and markets. How can libertarians support Chomsky? The answer is they can't.

[LibertyEagle]

Are some of you kidding me? Chomsky is nothing but a Marxist. He's against empire-building, but that is the only thing he has in common with Ron Paul's ideals.

[hugolp]

YouTube - Chomsky: We Shouldn't Ridicule Tea Party Protesters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWs6g3L3fkU&feature=related)

This is one of the things I hate more about Chomsky. He is intellectually arrogant to the bones. He has admited no understanding about economics yet he still gives lessons everywhere.

Admitedly if I would have arrived to libertarianism earlier I would have a good opinion of him. His opinions about the USA empire are spot on. But I find his economic positions not clear and very populist, even dishonest.

[Icymudpuppy]

Another Forum I frequent had a young activist who was very proud of the bus he had converted into a veggie burning self sustaining motorhome. A completely carbon-neutral mobile living unit. Heat and electricity provided by vegetable oil and solar power, and even the septic system used as a methane processing facility for the stove burners and gas appliances. It really is an awesome machine. Anyway, he went on a cross country trip to catalogue his adventures in picking up waste cooking oil and meeting restaurant owners and getting free meals for removing their garbage for free. This was back before the subsidized biodiesel industry when rendering companies were still charging restaurants to pick up their used oil.

Anyway, the journey started in California and ended up in the Northeast where Chomsky lives and the activist secured an interview with Noam about renewable energy. It seems Chomsky is not consistent even in this. At the time, there was a proposal for a wind turbine farm in the hills around there, and Chomsky was opposed. Why? Not for the environmental aspect of bird fatalities, not because of the land use by a big energy corporation, but because he didn't like what the turbines look like and said they should be out in the desert where nobody has to see them.

The young man was pretty disillusioned. I'll dig up the thread sometime if I can remember.

[ChaosControl]

He supports a centralized government. He may have X or Y as ideals, but in the mean time he supports a massive centralized government for his welfare state. If he was truly localist, that'd be fine, but I oppose any centralist, I don't really care if they are sane on foreign policy or not if they're an authoritarian on domestic.

[Jeremy]

He's worse than Glenn Beck.

[Stary Hickory]

Chomsky's only redeeming quality is his critique of our foreign policy. Everything else of Chomsky's is typical egalitarian demagoguery. He dislikes private property, and markets. How can libertarians support Chomsky? The answer is they can't.

I agree, he dislikes war but will shoot me in the face if I don't eat a food he deems right, or if I don't fork over half of what I earn.

[fletcher]

How can any libertarian support this turd?


Man: What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," exactly?

Chomsky: There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing. But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority.

If capital is privately controlled, then people are going to have to rent themselves in order to survive. Now, you can say, "they rent themselves freely, it's a free contract"—but that's a joke. If your choice is, "do what I tell you or starve," that's not a choice—it's in fact what was commonly referred to as wage slavery in more civilized times, like the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example.

The American version of "libertarianism" is an aberration, though—nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds. The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: "No, I'm a libertarian, I'm against that tax"—but of course, I'm still in favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff.

Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard—and if you just read the world that they describe, it's a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it. This is a world where you don't have roads because you don't see any reason why you should cooperate in building a road that you're not going to use: if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. If you don't like the pollution from somebody's automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want to live in a world like that? It's a world built on hatred.19

The whole thing's not even worth talking about, though. First of all, it couldn't function for a second—and if it could, all you'd want to do is get out, or commit suicide or something. But this is a special American aberration, it's not really serious.

[Sola_Fide]

What an idiot^^^

This guy sounds worse than an undergrad in his first course in free markets...bringing up the simplest of errors. That has to be the most ridiculous thing I ever read from a "serious" scholar..

[Stary Hickory]

What an idiot^^^

This guy sounds worse than an undergrad in his first course in free markets...bringing up the simplest of errors. That has to be the most ridiculous thing I ever read from a "serious" scholar..

You can't be a "Serious Scholar" and hold such ignorant views. I don't consider such people scholars.

[LibertyVox]

Is Chomsky a "left gatekeeper.? Webster Tarpley and others make this assertion.

A couple of links:

http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/10-02-05/discussion.cgi.75.html



That link has a few good points but is mostly shyte :(

[LibertyVox]

Here's the thing guys, the reason I never liked Chomsky is a few fold primarily being that he always came across as a more refined intellectual Harvard version of Michael Moore and also because I have not directly read much of Chomsky's books focusing on politics et al.

The reason, how ever I do respect him is because I have read his books dealing with linguistics--and he IS a master at that-- and because many of his views do coincide with Ron Paul's especially in matters of foreign policy or as the interview posted in the OP shows his disgust at the hypocrisy and national hysteria (aka manufacturing consent). I doubt any one here would disagree with that.

Where I I and I believe RP and the rest of us would depart from him is his proposed solutions where he starts talking about "supporting the democratic processes in other countries instead of dictators." So what dos hat mean? Support? How? Through bribery? sanctions? US sponsored NGOs? That unfortunately is nothing but a call for interventionism. Pretty much what ever happened in Iraq and Afghanistan!
Now if he means though private individual actions...hen he shouldn't say we shoud support democratic processes, rather say it clearly through the agency of individuals a la edumacation. But I doubt this is what he meant.

That and his reverence for international bodies-- which he refers to as proto global ministries-- as the panacea for Global unilateral Hegemons is logically and empirically flawed.

[LibertyVox]

How can any libertarian support this turd?

Man: What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," exactly?

Chomsky: There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing. But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority.

If capital is privately controlled, then people are going to have to rent themselves in order to survive. Now, you can say, "they rent themselves freely, it's a free contract"—but that's a joke. If your choice is, "do what I tell you or starve," that's not a choice—it's in fact what was commonly referred to as wage slavery in more civilized times, like the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example.

The American version of "libertarianism" is an aberration, though—nobody really takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds. The only reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: "No, I'm a libertarian, I'm against that tax"—but of course, I'm still in favor of the government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and all that sort of stuff.

Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard—and if you just read the world that they describe, it's a world so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it. This is a world where you don't have roads because you don't see any reason why you should cooperate in building a road that you're not going to use: if you want a road, you get together with a bunch of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you charge people to ride on it. If you don't like the pollution from somebody's automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want to live in a world like that? It's a world built on hatred.19

The whole thing's not even worth talking about, though. First of all, it couldn't function for a second—and if it could, all you'd want to do is get out, or commit suicide or something. But this is a special American aberration, it's not really serious.



Well what he described as Libertarianism in the US, is actually conservatism. And it comes in several closely related forms including Reaganite conservatism. But he is quite right about Euro Libertarianism. On the other hand Euro Libertarian more accurately describe someone like Red Stripe (someone who is for socialist ends through libertarian means) here at RPF, not Chomsky.

But when he started to talk about Rothbard and the contemptuous way he talked about how a libertarian society (as espoused by the classical liberals) would collapse in a few second creating a hostile world, I think it is out of both myopia and succumbing to the Professor's Disease (http://lansingonlinenews.com/news/professors-disease-worse-than-swine-flu-and-far-more-common/).


The disease is caused by an ideavirus that can be traced all the way back to Lord Acton’s axiom (all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely). It appears that anyone who teaches and is therefore regularly surrounded by sycophantic students first risks developing a blind spot. Left untreated, that tiny spot can grow into an enveloping blindness that allows the sufferer to believe that it is personal brilliance and charisma — and not the power of the grade – that engenders apparent adoration from others.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

There has only ever been one question.

How can human beings get along on the planet earth sharing the same land?

As soon as the left comes up with a solution to allocate scarce resources such as land that one ups the voluntary, decentralized, free market libertarians support I am all ears.

[LibertyVox]

There has only ever been one question.

How can human beings get along on the planet earth sharing the same land?

As soon as the left comes up with a solution to allocate scarce resources such as land that one ups the voluntary, decentralized, free market libertarians support I am all ears.

Ah but that in turn involves another question: which came first? The concept of private land property or large populations which made the resources seem scarce?
Hence did large population necessitate agriculture and permanent settlement or did that innovation ---agriculture-- (very risky and low quality in terms of nutrition indeed btw) comes first thereby letting people multiply?

Otherwise in th land of plentiful we have the example of Native Americans tribes who used the land and made temporary claims to it and its resources bu that didn't mean permanent ownership nor did it imply hard understanding of :
http://www.arizonaranch.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/priv_prop-500x295.jpg

But I guess short of the discovery of a couple of other resource rich hospitable and livable planets, we might not find the answer.

Actually, if one is a perenial optimist an anti-Hobbesian one might argue that through cultural bearings and education and a mindset, this may yet be achievable even on this solitary pretty blue ball.

I remember Picard saying something to that effect<" ....this is the xxx? century, Humans don't have the need for material things and property anymore." and when asked by a "primitive earthling" what the aim of life was then, he said "....the aim is to improve one self and be the best that one can be." (although I believe the latter is possible especially in this country).

Shangri-La!

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Ah but that in turn involves another question: which came first? The concept of private land property or large populations which made the resources seem scarce?

I dunno let me ask you. When you were 3 sucking on your thumb did you let any other kids suck on your thumb?

[lucius]

left-wing gatekeeper...manufacturing consent rocks!

[LibertyVox]

I dunno let me ask you. When you were 3 sucking on your thumb did you let any other kids suck on your thumb?

I don't even remember, but then I do have a random flashback of givin a clod to someone for trying to
...may be you who knows. LOLZ;)

Any ways, I don't think one's body an integral part of one's being is quite the same as land.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I don't even remember, but then I do have a random flashback of givin a clod to someone for trying to
...may be you who knows. LOLZ;)

Any ways, I don't think one's body an integral part of one's being is quite the same as land.

Now my memory is a little spotty here, well actually a lot spotty, but when I was a little ass muncher running around yelling MINE! MINE! MINE! I don't ever recall referring to mommy and daddy's house.

Later when I was a teenager asking people to PLEASE STAY OUT OF MY ROOM!!!, I don't recall referring to the home or land either.

Yeah it's funny how we forget to observe the little things like thumb sucking sharing to see how this idea of property forms at a young age.

Alex, I think I'll go with:

Natural crackpots and some concept of property forming in your head before you ever even consider extending MINE! to land making the population argument irrelevant.

For $1000 Please...

Oh my... Daily Double :)

[LibertyVox]

Right.

This then also applies to to the bands of Hunter and Gatherers as well as native Americans.

They may be transhumance cultures, or horticulturalists but they did have a concept of private property, though it differed in degree and meaning.

But then why was there conflict between the settlers and the Natives? The natives especially in New England never understood why the new settlers would want them to stay out completely, even in cases where they had signed "official treaties" ( though I think in many cases they probably didn't fully understand what they were doing.)

Why didn't the native Americans develop that sense of property pertaining to land? Was it a matter of time? If density of population had increased and settlers had arrived after that, would the natives have had that sense of "No- trespassing- permanent- property- including -all -the -resources- in it- and -above it?"

Something tells me yes....After all right down south in Mexico, there were great empires.

[LibertyVox]

would the natives have had that sense of "No- trespassing- permanent- property- including -all -the -resources- in it- and -above it?"


Actually I think most o us even today just have titles to the land not the deed. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[LibertyMage]

We can't support him because our world view is totally incompatible. Agreeing with certain coalitions in order to advance or stop a particular issue is productive. Agreeing with intellectuals to spread world views that are patently false is not only not productive, it is counter productive.

[erowe1]

This is incredible. I don't care if libertarianism vehemently disagrees with his brand of anarcho-socialism, but we should commend him for speaking the truth about atrocities committed by the US government under the banner of security and freedom. The man speaks blunt truth about these perpetual wars of aggression to a degree that can only be matched by Ron Paul himself.

When did a libertarian not commend him for that?

And what do you mean by "support"?
(The same question applies to the constant topic here about "supporting" Glen Beck.)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Why didn't the native Americans develop that sense of property pertaining to land?

Are you sure?

You hunt on this land...

I will hunt on that land...

And this way our tribes do not have to fight.

Is it a concept of property that is different or the concept of claim resolution.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Actually I think most o us even today just have titles to the land not the deed. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think you have title to a contract recognizing a border not dirt.

[gls]

Chomsky has zero redeeming qualities from a libertarian perspective, including foreign policy. If he was actually a non-interventionist he never would have endorsed Obama for President, who is just as big (if not bigger) of a pawn for the military industrial complex than Bush.

[Dr.3D]

I dunno let me ask you. When you were 3 sucking on your thumb did you let any other kids suck on your thumb?

I seem to remember letting the little girl down the street suck my thumb. We also shared our one piece of bubble gum. Didn't think about it much at the time though.

As I recall, she is the one who taught me how to blow bubbles in that bubble gum. She would form the start of the bubble and then give me the gum to finish it.

[LibertyEagle]

....

[anaconda]

That link has a few good points but is mostly shyte :(

Specific disagreements? I am curious because I have not read any Chomsky yet. Thanks.

[heavenlyboy34]

This sounds very Statist^^^

Lysander Spooner is right when he says that if a person does not "consent" to the Constitution, then he is forced anyway.

Consent of the governed is good, but not everyone does consent to being governed by this evil regime. Therefore we are not free.

QFT!!! :D:cool:

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

QFT!!! :D:cool:

Individual secession is the answer. :D

I never understood why secessionists are trying to get in control of the Government. We should be wary of all people who claim secessionist goals, and want to take over the Government to do so. Don't trust those people.

[CCTelander]

individual secession is the answer. :d

i never understood why secessionists are trying to get in control of the government. We should be wary of all people who claim secessionist goals, and want to take over the government to do so. Don't trust those people.


qft!!!

[pcosmar]

Who?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I seem to remember letting the little girl down the street suck my thumb.

I am fascinated with your articulation. To further investigate my fascination I want to meet someone who would characterize those happy little moments of sharing as anything but letting them do it.

[Dr.3D]

I am fascinated with your articulation. To further investigate my fascination I want to meet someone who would characterize those happy little moments of sharing as anything but letting them do it.

Well, she said she would like to do that and who was I to tell her she couldn't? It's not like I was put out in any way by letting her do so. Sure, I did have the satisfaction of knowing I was letting her do something she wanted to do. Besides, I had my other thumb I could suck on should the need arise.

[reardenstone]

Now my memory is a little spotty here, well actually a lot spotty, but when I was a little ass muncher running around yelling MINE! MINE! MINE! I don't ever recall referring to mommy and daddy's house.

Later when I was a teenager asking people to PLEASE STAY OUT OF MY ROOM!!!, I don't recall referring to the home or land either.

Yeah it's funny how we forget to observe the little things like thumb sucking sharing to see how this idea of property forms at a young age.

Alex, I think I'll go with:

Natural crackpots and some concept of property forming in your head before you ever even consider extending MINE! to land making the population argument irrelevant.

For $1000 Please...

Oh my... Daily Double :)



Live Free_.: Much of what you speak, "human nature" is enculturated. We are raised to desire and protect private property.

Some tribal societies, Native Americans included, had both private property and share property. Private was what they could wear or carry or use everyday; land and food resources were shared. Problems didn't arise until Chiefdoms got big and the big men running them even bigger, that food had to change. The small tribe and bands moved from hunting and gathering and some horticulture, to large scale maize agriculture. The Mississippians left their earthen mounds and maize legacy dictate bad labor policies and ultimately poor nutrition based mostly on corn.

Indians were healthier before the rise to power and then post-collapse after DeSoto.


Anyway.... the point is that if we all grew up sharing resources we would have a natural reaction to sharing or at least for mutual aid. Reciprocity.