Somalia

[Borodog]

John,

The animal kingdom most certainly does not flourish as a whole compared to mankind under the free market.

Are you actually arguing that if human beings did nothing but predate upon each other that some sort of desirable result would occur? If not, what exactly is your point? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

What you're describing is exactly what Hobbes feared; mankind reduced to the level of beasts struggling against each other to consume scarce resources, rather than cooperating with each other to increase the supply of scarce resources, which is the function of the market. Hobbes was right to fear that.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Consider not only my argument, but also the animal kingdom. It goes on even though it is rife with predation.

edit: every living thing consumes some other living thing (or something that was once living) to survive. Yet the system does not collapse but rather flourishes as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think a species would flourish if it only consumed those of its own species?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Consider not only my argument, but also the animal kingdom. It goes on even though it is rife with predation.

edit: every living thing consumes some other living thing (or something that was once living) to survive. Yet the system does not collapse but rather flourishes as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think a species would flourish if it only consumed those of its own species?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. But are humans going to give up eating animals and vegetables and turn instead to cannibalism? I don't believe so.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
John,

The animal kingdom most certainly does not flourish as a whole compared to mankind under the free market.

Are you actually arguing that if human beings did nothing but predate upon each other that some sort of desirable result would occur? If not, what exactly is your point? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

What you're describing is exactly what Hobbes feared; mankind reduced to the level of beasts struggling against each other to consume scarce resources, rather than cooperating with each other to increase the supply of scarce resources, which is the function of the market. Hobbes was right to fear that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did Hobbes suggest that in the natural state, humans would predate ONLY upon each other, and give up predating upon other species?

Beasts "get along" and flourish very well overall, in my opinion. Species rarely predate upon the same species, and the system works very well as an organic whole.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Consider not only my argument, but also the animal kingdom. It goes on even though it is rife with predation.

edit: every living thing consumes some other living thing (or something that was once living) to survive. Yet the system does not collapse but rather flourishes as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think a species would flourish if it only consumed those of its own species?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. But are humans going to give up eating animals and vegetables and turn instead to cannibalism? I don't believe so.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what "pradation" in the Hobbesian sense essentially means; predation upon the property of others is predation upon their person, since that's what "property" is; an extension of self ownership to produced goods. In the presence of such predation, who will bother to produce more than what they can carry and defend with their own hands? Nobody. If you think such a scenario can possibly lead to any kind of "flourishing" . . . I don't know what to say.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
John,

The animal kingdom most certainly does not flourish as a whole compared to mankind under the free market.

Are you actually arguing that if human beings did nothing but predate upon each other that some sort of desirable result would occur? If not, what exactly is your point? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

What you're describing is exactly what Hobbes feared; mankind reduced to the level of beasts struggling against each other to consume scarce resources, rather than cooperating with each other to increase the supply of scarce resources, which is the function of the market. Hobbes was right to fear that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did Hobbes suggest that in the natural state, humans would predate ONLY upon each other, and give up predating upon other species?

Beasts "get along" and flourish very well overall, in my opinion. Species rarely predate upon the same species, and the system works very well as an organic whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

I boggle. Do you really think that animal species "flourish" compared to mankind under the division of labor and trade? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Consider not only my argument, but also the animal kingdom. It goes on even though it is rife with predation.

edit: every living thing consumes some other living thing (or something that was once living) to survive. Yet the system does not collapse but rather flourishes as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think a species would flourish if it only consumed those of its own species?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. But are humans going to give up eating animals and vegetables and turn instead to cannibalism? I don't believe so.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what "pradation" in the Hobbesian sense essentially means; predation upon the property of others is predation upon their person, since that's what "property" is; an extension of self ownership to produced goods. In the presence of such predation, who will bother to produce more than what they can carry and defend with their own hands? Nobody. If you think such a scenario can possibly lead to any kind of "flourishing" . . . I don't know what to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think humans would still predate more upon other species than upon their own, even using "predate" in the very broad sense.

That everyone may be a predator in the hypothetical scenario, does not mean that they will all be voracious or reckless predators. Predators must be very leery of getting hurt in their attempts to predate, and generally must select only targets perceived as weaker. An all predator scenario does not mean they will all just immediately attack the closest target. And as mentioned earlier, humans would still predate upon other species for the most part.

A group endued with unstoppable powers over others, on the other hand, very well might become highly voracious because there would be no deterrent or potential heavy cost to their predations.

Are we perhaps talking past each other somehow?

[Borodog]

We must be, because as far as I can tell you're saying:

"No, you can have perpetual war of all against all and it'll be great. We'll be just like animals; it'll be some awesome flourishment."

In any event, I'm not really interested in this rabbit trail. Peace.

[Copernicus]

I'm not even sure what he's arguing. All of the Hobbesian arguments he's posted lead more naturally to statism as solution than to anarchy.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
We must be, because as far as I can tell you're saying:

"No, you can have perpetual war of all against all and it'll be great. We'll be just like animals; it'll be some awesome flourishment."

In any event, I'm not really interested in this rabbit trail. Peace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm more trying to say that the perpetual struggle you describe would likely be highly mitigated and circumscribed as compared to the all-out war of conquest that might easily result when one group possesses overwhelming power.

But we can drop it if you like. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]