lkanneg said:
Read my post again...I said, "I think the most correct system of all is a system where equality is simply a natural result of the system itself, rather than the *point* of the system itself." Which lets out communism as it has been practiced in the 20th century and pretty much zeroes in on capitalism as we practice it.
True, but as I said equality isn't natural. The natural state is survival of the fittest, without that you don't have evolution.
The only reason we have 'equality' now is through anti discrimination laws, which is a step away from true capitalism, which is only a few steps away from anarchy, like the middleages. If true equality was natural for us then we would have had it for hundreds of years, rather than the steps towards it in the last 30. Our equality is enforced by laws and is therefore artificial.
I disagree that if *something* was natural to us, we would have had it for hundreds of years...the US's capitalistic democracy is very, very new, in the history of humankind---does that make it "unnatural?" What do you mean by, "unnatural?" Is murder "natural" and having laws against it "unnatural?" Does that make having laws against murder "bad?"
Okay, I'm writing this on my mobile phone, on a train, so bear with me:
I think if something comes 'naturally' to a person then it would mean that they are good at it. Human's have lived together for thousands of years because that is what we naturally do. We have done that before we actually had laws, although we knew right from wrong.
In your example you give murder as an example of a law. But if you murder somebody is a matter of opinion. My grandfather killed Germans in WW2, he didn't murder them, because the army he joined told him to. To murder somebody is to kill a 'goodie' rather than a 'baddie'. Like Jaketk said, we a social creatures, we form tribes, so if you were to kill your own tribe, you would be putting yourself in danger. It's counterproductive. So laws against murder are good for the tribe as a whole.
Laws that require the tribe to impair its own chance of survival would be flawed. A law requiring the tribe not to mate (for example) would backfire. I'm not saying that societies don't need laws, just that if a law lessens the effectivity of it, they why should we have it?