|
|
#51
08-03-2006, 04:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hobbes and Locke
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] My point is that without a reasonably strong government modern commerce and civil society would be impossible and the stong would inevitably exploit the weak. [/ QUOTE ] Isn't that exactly what happens *now*??? [/ QUOTE ] No. 
|
|
#52
08-03-2006, 05:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hobbes and Locke
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] My point is that without a reasonably strong government modern commerce and civil society would be impossible and the stong would inevitably exploit the weak. [/ QUOTE ] Isn't that exactly what happens *now*??? [/ QUOTE ] No. [/ QUOTE ]         
|
|
#53
08-03-2006, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hobbes and Locke
Right, sorry, I guess I misunderstood the word 'inevitably.' I thought it meant that it would happen no matter what as a result of the system that was set up. Not just that it has happened, because of other factors not inherent to the system. MY BAD.
|
|
#54
08-03-2006, 06:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hobbes and Locke
If it is even possible, it would take a book to convince you that you are entirely misguided in your optimism. I consider myself basically a classical liberal, who thinks the state needs to step in when markets cannot handle an issue. The difference we seem to have partially revolves around what markets can "handle"--I think not much, you seem to think a lot. This debate partially boils down to one of "information" and organization--I think independent agents or firms will often not have information about what is in their best interests long term (like a transcontinental highway system) and even if they do, they will not be able to organize with other agents/firms to get much done other than raising barns, etc. (i.e., small, parochial projects partially dependent on personal bonds).
As far as "violence" instituted by the government, unless you are still smarting from the Civil War, the threat of arbitrary violence or deprivation from the US government worries me less than just about any organized social group/government that has ever existed. Among other things, this is what the Bill of Rights is for--the pics posted don't seem to have taken place in societies where rights matter or reflect a condition of war where the ememy is dehumanized (and by nice "rational" people--the government doesn't commit atrocities, people do).
|
|
#55
08-03-2006, 06:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hobbes and Locke
[ QUOTE ]
If it is even possible, it would take a book to convince you that you are entirely misguided in your optimism. I consider myself basically a classical liberal, who thinks the state needs to step in when markets cannot handle an issue. The difference we seem to have partially revolves around what markets can "handle"--I think not much, you seem to think a lot. This debate partially boils down to one of "information" and organization--I think independent agents or firms will often not have information about what is in their best interests long term (like a transcontinental highway system) and even if they do, they will not be able to organize with other agents/firms to get much done other than raising barns, etc. (i.e., small, parochial projects partially dependent on personal bonds). As far as "violence" instituted by the government, unless you are still smarting from the Civil War, the threat of arbitrary violence or deprivation from the US government worries me less than just about any organized social group/government that has ever existed. Among other things, this is what the Bill of Rights is for--the pics posted don't seem to have taken place in societies where rights matter or reflect a condition of war where the ememy is dehumanized (and by nice "rational" people--the government doesn't commit atrocities, people do). [/ QUOTE ] Was this directed at me or quick reply?
|
|
#56
08-03-2006, 06:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hobbes and Locke
[ QUOTE ]
Was this directed at me or quick reply? [/ QUOTE ] More of a general reply. I'm not going to write a book to respond to ever point the prior posters make.
|
|
#57
08-03-2006, 06:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hobbes and Locke
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Was this directed at me or quick reply? [/ QUOTE ] More of a general reply. I'm not going to write a book to respond to ever point the prior posters make. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, just checking, because I basically agree with what you were saying, and I didn't understand what I had said previously that deserved your response. No worries.
|
|
#58
08-03-2006, 07:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hobbes and Locke
AC isn't market-worship. It's entirely possible to create groups to handle issues without a government. There's nothing preventing anyone from regulating business practices. Just as long as they don't use force to do so.
Of course, being able to stick guns in a person's face and say "you're not allowed to do such-and-such" can be much more appealing than community efforts when you want to have your way, hell with everyone else.
|
|
#59
08-03-2006, 07:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hobbes and Locke
[ QUOTE ]
The difference we seem to have partially revolves around what markets can "handle"--I think not much, you seem to think a lot. [/ QUOTE ] Yet you haven't provided any examples of stuff the market can't handle. [ QUOTE ] This debate partially boils down to one of "information" and organization--I think independent agents or firms will often not have information about what is in their best interests long term (like a transcontinental highway system) [/ QUOTE ] How does the state get this information? [ QUOTE ] and even if they do, they will not be able to organize with other agents/firms to get much done other than raising barns, etc. (i.e., small, parochial projects partially dependent on personal bonds). [/ QUOTE ] Laughable. And more importantly, all completely unjustifiable. You have made no case to give any coercive collectivism any moral legitimacy. You can argue for efficiency all you want (even though all you have done is assert), but until you can make a moral argument, you have nothing. It may be more efficient for me to get to work if I simply pave a road through my neighbor's yard to the main road. Justified? [ QUOTE ] As far as "violence" instituted by the government, unless you are still smarting from the Civil War, the threat of arbitrary violence or deprivation from the US government worries me less than just about any organized social group/government that has ever existed. [/ QUOTE ] Ah. As long as it's worse somewhere else, there's no problem? [ QUOTE ] Among other things, this is what the Bill of Rights is for--the pics posted don't seem to have taken place in societies where rights matter [/ QUOTE ] Five of them depict *Americans* applying force. [ QUOTE ] or reflect a condition of war where the ememy is dehumanized [/ QUOTE ] Of course! How else can the state convince kids to march off to their death? [ QUOTE ] (and by nice "rational" people--the government doesn't commit atrocities, people do). [/ QUOTE ] True - but they often do so *in the name of* the state. And invariably, these atrocities are the largest and bloodiest.
|
|
#60
08-03-2006, 07:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hobbes and Locke
[ QUOTE ]
If it is even possible, it would take a book to convince you that you are entirely misguided in your optimism. [/ QUOTE ] There is no optimism, only summarized deductive logic present in The Don's post.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
