/lit/ - Literature

who was in the wrong here?

So the debate here is that

>man is evil and violent, and we need government to keep us from killing each other in the state of nature

vs

>man is pure and peaceful in nature, but the state corrupts and oppresses us

Now what has natural selection taught us? That man will do anything it takes to survive and reproduce. That makes us neither evil nor pure, we are simply as violent as we need to be (to survive), and peaceful as we can afford (to enjoy life).

So it seems to me that all we need is a system that allows us to feed and live safely, but no more. We can take care of ourselves from there, any additional restriction on the way we live (state intervention, regulation, laws prohibiting actions which don't affect a third party) are oppressive and harmful.

Who was ultimately right about human nature?
Are we secretly terrible without a forceful authority in society or is it society that ultimately makes us bad?
In your mind, where is the balance?