Spot on, it's so sad to see this kind of thinking so ingrained in people, when literally 3 seconds of critical thinking would lead to the opposite conclusion. Are kids just as selfish as adults, at every age? Does their selfishness change depending on what they're taught and how selfish their role models are? Is selfishness among adults at the exact same level across decades, eras, cultures, nations?

If the answer to any of these questions is "no" (and anyone capable of using HN should realistically be answering them as such), then it's abundantly clear you can't just hold up your hands and say "oh well, everybody is inherently selfish, 'ts just the way it is". Even the idea of everyone being somewhat selfish isn't really true when you consider the countless cases of people literally sacrificing their own lives through history - and not for some kind of post-mortem glory. One can argue semantics over that still being "selfish" as it's done to further a goal of themselves but that's just wasting everyone's time.

> when literally 3 seconds of critical thinking would lead to the opposite conclusion

Understanding why free markets work takes a lot longer than 3 seconds, as it is counter-intuitive.

> the countless cases of people literally sacrificing their own lives through history

Decades ago, the Scientific American ran an article about this, where a study showed that people self-sacrificing can mathematically be shown to ensure the survival of their genes. For an obvious case, parents sacrificing themselves for their children's sake. This makes it selfish. People are less willing to sacrifice themselves the genetically further away the people benefiting from such sacrifice.

BTW, it's perfectly legal to set up a commune in the US. Feel free to start one and let us know how it works out!

Ostrom: "the ones that worked did have a kind of property rights system"

LOL. And the fact that she gets a Nobel Prize for this shows how unworkable it is in general.

> we're not inherently selfish

You're selfish, so am I, so is everyone you know.

> free markets don't work in any rate. how do you even come to this conclusion?

The success of free markets in the US, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam, China, Singapore, etc.

Worker cooperatives: A worker cooperative is not a commune. In any case, there are what, a hundred examples listed? What that shows is they are so rare that a global list can be compiled on Wikipedia. Set that against the scores of millions of businesses.

> You're selfish, so am I, so is everyone you know.

you can ignore the evidence all you want. Doesn't make it correct. Google it for yourself then.

> The success of free markets in the US, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam, China, Singapore, etc.

how have they succeeded? enshittification and wealth accumulation is success? what's the metric here? decreased health? decreased lifespan? increased addiction? increased unhappiness?

> Worker cooperatives: A worker cooperative is not a commune.

Let me quote the discussion, which you obviously didn't even understand:

>> I've tried to start multiple non-heirarchical anarchist cooperative organizations and the number one challenge is finding people who will put the group ahead of the individual. It just doesn't happen.

> I could have saved you the trouble if you'd just asked me!

> Over 20,000 communes have been started in the US. None have survived. What baffles me is why people keep believing they can work.

they talked about cooperatives, you answered with communes. I gave proof that cooperatives work.

do better.

> how have they succeeded?

Bootstrapping poor people up into the middle class and beyond.

> they talked about cooperatives, you answered with communes

You score that point!

> I gave proof that cooperatives work

So go start one. What are you waiting for?