[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, the mantra is that there should be no improvement at all, regardless of the nature of the previous government. Lack of a central government is a one-way ticket to bloodbath, perpetual war of all against all by people turned mindless thieving killer zombies. No law, no courts, no rights, no production, nothing except theft and rape and murder and perpetual carnage. Claiming that economic improvement in the absence of government is no big deal just because the former government was bad is nothing less than a repudiation of everything that statists claim about anarchy. Any government is supposed to be better than no government.
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the best example of a strawman argument I've seen on this forum, and that's saying quite a lot.
Who, exactly, has argued that a stateless society will be have worse results than a government REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT??????
[/ QUOTE ]
Thomas Hobbes?
[/ QUOTE ]
Hobbes argued that
regardless of the form of government the results are better with government than without???? I'd like to see where he said that (I very well might be wrong, but that's not what I remember from the Leviathan.) Hobbes certainly isn't in favor of unrestrained competition, but I don't recall him saying that ANY government is better than no government as you suggest.
[/ QUOTE ]
De Cive and
Leviathan make it as clear as 17th century english can be.
[ QUOTE ]
In Leviathan, Hobbes set out his doctrine of the foundation of societies and legitimate governments. This became one of the first scholarly works on Social contract theory. In the natural condition of mankind, what other philosophers refer to as the state of nature, while some men may be stronger or more intelligent than others, none is so strong and smart as to be beyond a fear of violent death. When threatened with death, man in his natural state cannot help but defend himself in any way possible. Self-defense against violent death is Hobbes' highest human necessity, and rights are borne of necessity. In the state of nature, then, each of us has a right, or license, to everything in the world. Due to the scarcity of things in the world, there is a constant, and rights-based, "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). Life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (xiii).
<font color="white"> . </font>
But war is not in man's best interest. According to Hobbes, man has a self-interested and materialistic desire to end war — "the passions that incline men to peace are fear of death, desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living, and a hope by their industry to obtain them" (xiii, 14). He forms peaceful societies by entering into a social contract. According to Hobbes, society is a population beneath an authority, to whom all individuals in that society covenant just enough of their natural right for the authority to be able to ensure internal peace and a common defense. This sovereign, whether monarchy, aristocracy or democracy (though Hobbes prefers monarchy), should be a Leviathan, an absolute authority. --
wiki
[/ QUOTE ]
He says explicitly that deposing tyrants and despots is bad, that such excesses are never the fault of the government, regardless of its form, but only of particular rulers (he mentions Nero, for example), and the people cannot rightly do anything about the rulers without destabilizing the social contract that keeps chaos at bay.
[ QUOTE ]
How many Kings (and those good men too) hath this one errour, That a Tyrant King might lawfully be put to death, been the slaughter of? How many throats hath this false position cut, That a prince for some causes may by some certain men be deposed? And what blood-shed hath not this erroneous doctrine caused, That Kings are not superiours to, but administrators for the multitude? Lastly, how many rebellions hath this opinion been the cause of which teacheth that the knowledge whether the commands of Kings be just or unjust, belongs to private men, and that before they yeeld obedience, they not only may, but ought to dispute them? - Hobbes, De Cive
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So are you claiming that it won't be?
[/ QUOTE ]
Won't be what? I do not claim, nor have I ever claimed, that the results of no government will be be worse than any possible government. Anyone who would make such a claim would have to have their head examined.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is probably the largest concession to anarchy I have ever seen from an unabashed statist in this forum. Bravo.