30 Jun 10
Originally posted by DrKFUnfortunately as pointed out before, the anthropological evidence supports my view of primitive hunter gatherer societies and refutes yours. Your constant approach to this reality is in effect "holding yer breath until you turn blue".
Fundamental, equal and universally applied rights, or in-group/out-group rights, is that? That is to ask, not for the first time - and of course, you're talking about your wholly mythologised hunter-gatherers - did those fundamental and equal rights apply between or only within distinct social groups?
And, again again, is there something particular a ...[text shortened]... e does the settled life go against man's very nature in almost every single instance[/i]?
Concentrations of population led to the masses being more susceptible to the disease of elitism particularly as the areas not under control of oppressive societies diminished. But he history of such elite driven societies is one of constant turmoil, bloodshed and instability contrasting sharply with the conditions existing in our original, natural state. This is the real history of Man.
30 Jun 10
Originally posted by no1marauderWHAT anthropological evidence?
Unfortunately as pointed out before, the anthropological evidence supports my view of primitive hunter gatherer societies and refutes yours. Your constant approach to this reality is in effect "holding yer breath until you turn blue".
Concentrations of population led to the masses being more susceptible to the disease of elitism particul ...[text shortened]... with the conditions existing in our original, natural state. This is the real history of Man.
30 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderLocke lived before the modern socialist and mixed democratic socialist forms of government came into being.
Of course, this side debate is really somewhat off-topic; whatever your view of Lockean Natural Rights theory it is beyond question the Framers endorsed it wholeheartedly. Thus the question posed by this topic is how to apply this philosophy to governance, not its validity.
In your view - would Locke have preferred an individualistic libertarian state that focused on protecting life, liberty, and property -- or would he have preferred a more socialistic state in which people's rights included access to large amounts of education, healthcare, lesiure time, and a certain percentage of the national wealth even though this would mean confiscating a certain % of people's property?
30 Jun 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesExcuse me for butting in but why don't you read Locke and understand the man in his own words rather than asking about it?
In your view - would Locke have preferred an individualistic libertarian state that focused on protecting life, liberty, and property -- or would he have preferred a more socialistic state in which people's rights included access to large amounts of education, healthcare, lesiure time, and a certain percentage of the national wealth even though this would mean confiscating a certain % of people's property?
30 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by DrKFI'm no expert in this, but de las Casas writings on the Indians Columbus found and their way of life seems to corroborate very nicely that the life of the "savages" was very different from being "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".
The implicit comparison here appears to suggest that those existing liberal societies with universal rights are 'stable', but, given that such societies have existed formally for only a few hundred years and substantively for considerably less than that, if at all, such a comparison is unwarranted. Plenty of non-universal rights societies existed for considerab ely tells us nothing of any real value about their relation to any sort of 'human nature'.
And unlike Hobbes, that didn't know what he was talking about, de las Casas was there, saw it and reported it.
What's your take on what de las Casas described? Was he hallucinating or something?
30 Jun 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesThere is a misperception that Locke Natural Rights theory embraces laissez faire economics, but this is simply not so. I don't think that an individualistic libertarian society is incompatible with economic policies that lead to a more egalitarian sharing of wealth; after all Man in his natural state was essentially communistic.
Locke lived before the modern socialist and mixed democratic socialist forms of government came into being.
In your view - would Locke have preferred an individualistic libertarian state that focused on protecting life, liberty, and property -- or would he have preferred a more socialistic state in which people's rights included access to large amounts ...[text shortened]... the national wealth even though this would mean confiscating a certain % of people's property?
30 Jun 10
Originally posted by adam warlockBecause Locke wasn't around the witness all the events that have taken place over the last couple of centuries since the time of the American and French Revolutions
Excuse me for butting in but why don't you read Locke and understand the man in his own words rather than asking about it?
Much of the debate today boils down to whether we should have a relatively libertarian government, or whether we should have a relatively socialistic government in which all sort of "social rights" are recognized such as education, healthcare, and some sort of "redistribution of wealth".
What is your position on this -- do you believe government should be more hands-off libertarian, or should be it more hands-on socialistic?
30 Jun 10
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIf everyone was to embrace their natural inner communist, then there'd be no need for governments -- people with more wealth would freely give to others who had less and no one would ever face poverty or deprivation
There is a misperception that Locke Natural Rights theory embraces laissez faire economics, but this is simply not so. I don't think that an individualistic libertarian society is incompatible with economic policies that lead to a more egalitarian sharing of wealth; after all Man in his natural state was essentially communistic.
But even the most charitable people today strongly resist such extremes of communistic action. What do you think needs to be done to restore mankind to his natural state?
You mention that the problem started when man started to live in more concentrated communities -- is concentration itself the cause of inequality and elitism? -- does this mean that we all need to again become isolated bands of hunter-gatherers?
30 Jun 10
Originally posted by Melanerpes
Because Locke wasn't around the witness all the events that have taken place over the last couple of centuries since the time of the American and French Revolutions
Much of the debate today boils down to whether we should have a relatively libertarian government, or whether we should have a relatively socialistic government in which all sort of "social ...[text shortened]... government should be more hands-off libertarian, or should be it more hands-on socialistic?
Because Locke wasn't around the witness all the events that have taken place over the last couple of centuries since the time of the American and French Revolutions
In that case why ask no1 about it? 😕
What is your position on this -- do you believe government should be more hands-off libertarian, or should be it more hands-on socialistic?
I use the terms socialist and libertarian in their original meaning. And in their original meaning these two terms are pretty much the same. Libertarian was first used by french anarchists when they were forbidden to publish texts with the anarchist label, and socialism was first associated with Fourier, Proudhon, Owen, Saint-Simon, etc...
If you read what these people talked about you'd see very similar things being theorized.
In the Manifesto Marx called this type of socialism utopian and his own brand of socialism as being scientific. Other thinks more closely related to the first conceptions of socialism called themselves libertarian socialists and Marx type of socialism as authoritarian socialism.
I don't think we should have a government in the first place. My ideal society would be something along the lines described by Bookchin...
30 Jun 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesThere are a lot of non sequiturs in this post. Perhaps you'd actually look at what I said rather than come up with the Strawmen you have.
If everyone was to embrace their natural inner communist, then there'd be no need for governments -- people with more wealth would freely give to others who had less and no one would ever face poverty or deprivation
But even the most charitable people today strongly resist such extremes of communistic action. What do you think needs to be done to resto ...[text shortened]... elitism? -- does this mean that we all need to again become isolated bands of hunter-gatherers?
30 Jun 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotYeah, that article really helps your "argument":
the so-called "evidence" is a mishmash of unsupported inference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_warfare
Of the many cave paintings from the Upper Paleolithic, none depict people attacking other people. There is no known archaeological evidence of large scale fighting until well into the Aurignacian.[