Originally posted by DrKFSorry for butting in but I'd really love to see your answer to this:
You could draw a neat enough line to show a common ancestry in heterodox protestant settlers in the US, for example, and trace that back to the Reformation. Had you noticed the sublimated religious zeal..?
I'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".
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?
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlockI don't believe Wajoma is arguing for unbridled capitalism. Wajoma is arguing that no one should ever use force against anyone else. When I envision a functioning Wajomistan, I imagine that the whole thing would work because almost everyone there would naturally agree to help one another during times of need, so the extremes of inequality that lead to societal conflict would never arise - not because the government tells them to, but because they want to. Wajoma has never been opposed to people voluntarily offering to help one another.
Me and no1 I think so, but certainly not with Whodey and Wajoma. They're for unbridled capitalism as far as I understand them and nothing could be farther from what I understand and defend.
I also don't believe Whodey supports unbridled capitalism, even though he does often buy into stuff being peddled by the capitalists. But Whodey's main argument seems to be that government is ultimately controlled by the titans that run Wall Street. For example, that's his main argument regarding Cap and Trade - that it's being rammed down our throats because it would provide lots of additional business for the traders.
If you want someone who argues for unbridled capitalism, that's Elfejesus' department.
Originally posted by adam warlockbut you clearly agree that The State is at best a necessary evil, and that it would be best to have as small a state as possible - and that ideally, it should wither away completely.
I don't think I believe that.
I think that any form of coercion, any form of stratification, any form of hierarchy, any form of control, any form of power has to justify itself. The onus of the proof isn't in the oppressed, the onus of the proof is always in the oppressors.
I even think that sometimes a state is justified, but in the end it should do its best to wither away.
Originally posted by MelanerpesThe state should always justify its existence. I can see some situations were a centralized body of decision making and action taking is obviously necessary, but if it can swept aside it should be swept aside.
but you clearly agree that The State is at best a necessary evil, and that it would be best to have as small a state as possible - and that ideally, it should wither away completely.
At best it is: sometimes the state is a necessary evil.
3 edits
Originally posted by adam warlockNow what happens if in a small community, someone decides to use force to bully someone else? How should that be rectified? Should there be some person or group to intervene to stop the bully, or is there some way for the people in the community to rectify the matter in some other fashion?
The state should always justify its existence. I can see some situations were a centralized body of decision making and action taking is obviously necessary, but if it can swept aside it should be swept aside.
At best it is: sometimes the state is a necessary evil.
Originally posted by MelanerpesThat is for the community to decide. But self-defense and self-preservation are always valid choices.
Now what happens if in a small community, someone decides to use force to bully someone else? How should that be rectified? Should there be some person or group to intervene to stop the bully, or is there some way for the people in the community to rectify the matter in some other fashion?
Don't ask me about it. There are lot of written stuff about this. Just do your own reading, come to your own conclusions and discuss as much as you can.
There's a lot of free stuff in here for you to read: http://www.marxists.org/
You can start by wikipedia, or something like that, to see the names of the people more directly involved with this on a theoretical level, and then check their own texts to see what they have actually written..
2 edits
Originally posted by adam warlockone theory that I have:
That is for the community to decide. But self-defense and self-preservation are always valid choices.
Don't ask me about it. There are lot of written stuff about this. Just do your own reading, come to your own conclusions and discuss as much as you can.
There's a lot of free stuff in here for you to read: http://www.marxists.org/
You can start ...[text shortened]... n a theoretical level, and then check their own texts to see what they have actually written..
Often during a time of immediate crisis, people do seem to unite together, and put aside all their differences as they face the immediate threat.
Now consider the primitive hunter-gatherer band. For these people, pretty much every single day is an immediate crisis. Much like it is for every other species in nature. Every day presents a new puzzle of finding something to eat. Every day presents a new predator to flee from. Every day presents a new challenge from the weather. The only way a group of humans would be able to survive for any length of time is for everyone to continually be totally and completely reliant on everyone else. They would essentially become a single organism. No one would ever do anything that might harm anyone else - because everyone's survival would depend so much on everyone else being fully functional.
The problems arise once "civilization" advanced enough to eliminate most of these "daily crises". Mankind has probably never evolved to fully function in a larger society where day to day needs are met relatively easily and where he didn't have deep personal relationships with everyone else in the community.
Originally posted by adam warlockApologies. Interesting choice, given the comparison I was making to heterodox Christians, though!
Sorry for butting in but I'd really love to see your answer to this:I'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".
And unlike Hobbes, that didn't kn ...[text shortened]... t's your take on what de las Casas described? Was he hallucinating or something?
I'm no expert, either, so I wouldn't want to comment too much at all. I have read some delightfully graphic 'first hand' accounts of wars between different tribes and even ritual cannibalism, though. Although I suppose people with that agenda might be driven to exaggeration or outright falsehood in pursuit of a political objective...
Originally posted by MelanerpesI'm very suspicious of your reasoning.
one theory that I have:
Often during a time of immediate crisis, people do seem to unite together, and put aside all their differences as they face the immediate threat.
Now consider the primitive hunter-gatherer band. For these people, pretty much every single day is an immediate crisis. Much like it is for every other species in nature. Every day ...[text shortened]... and where he didn't have deep personal relationships with everyone else in the community.
1 edit
Originally posted by DrKFI've asked you the question earlier, but you missed it. The thing is de las Casas was with Columbus when they arrived and his account of what the Indian way of life was like was very optimistic.
Apologies. Interesting choice, given the comparison I was making to heterodox Christians, though!
I'm no expert, either, so I wouldn't want to comment too much at all. I have read some delightfully graphic 'first hand' accounts of wars between different tribes and even ritual cannibalism, though. Although I suppose people with that agenda might be driven to exaggeration or outright falsehood in pursuit of a political objective...
He says that women had real rights, children had real rights, there was virtually no feeling of possession and in was a very deeply egalitarian society. His accounts are substantiated by other accounts (the people doing the looting and the killing) and this is all first hand accounts and primary sources we are speaking. It's no Hobbes that never set on foot out of England, it's no Pinker extrapolating wildly back for no apparent reason.
I find de las Casas accounts extremely puzzling and refreshing. Of course this is only about how indians behaved in their own tribe. How they behaved with other tribes wasn't pretty, but I do know that the indians complained about the Europeans way of doing war. They said it was way too ferocious. Pretty much everybody that encountered Europeans around the globe complained about their way of doing war (and the europeans also boasted that they were indeed more ferocious in battle).
Originally posted by sh76Yes. On the grounds that it violates Freedom of Expression, a Fundamental Right that predates the Constitution and cannot be taken away by any Man made law.
I see this thread has gone in all sorts of directions since this morning, but let me ask you this, No1:
1) I think we can all agree that freedom of expression is a fundamental right; correct?
2) The Supreme Court has rules, as we all know, that flag burning to make a political statement is protected by freedom of expression.
3) We all know that there h ...[text shortened]... es in public.
Now, should the federal courts strike down this law? If so, on what grounds?
The idea that the Constitution could be an instrument for reducing the rights of the People would have been an appalling one in the Framer's view.
To sh76: Suppose this Amendment was added to the Constitution:
The People shall have only those rights affirmatively granted to them by the Congress of the United States anything to the contrary in the Constitution of the United States or in any State constitution or statutes is annulled and/or void.
Originally posted by no1marauderI, Scalia and, apparently, Elena Kagan
the argument that Scalia and presumably you are making
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100701/ap_on_go_su_co/us_kagan_supreme_court
Questioned by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., on guns, Kagan said she accepts a recent ruling upholding individuals' rights to possess firearms, but she would not say whether she believed there was a "fundamental right" — meaning one that applies to states as well as the federal government — to bear arms.
A seemingly incredulous Coburn asked Kagan whether she believed in "unalienable rights," such as those referenced in the Declaration of Independence.
"You should not want me to act in any way on the basis of such a belief" in people's rights outside the Constitution and laws, Kagan retorted. "I think you should want me to act on the basis of law."
Hmmm.
I guess we can add Kagan to the list of people who don't understand the Framers' intent, eh?
3 edits
Originally posted by sh76Why is it a partisan thing with you? Is it really sooooooooooo difficult for right wingers on this board to think in any way but "Republican v. Democrat"?
I, Scalia and, apparently, Elena Kagan
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100701/ap_on_go_su_co/us_kagan_supreme_court
[/i]Questioned by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., on guns, Kagan said she accepts a recent ruling upholding individuals' rights to possess firearms, but she would not say whether she believed there was a "fundamental right" — meaning one that applies we can add Kagan to the list of people who don't understand the Framers' intent, eh?
I listened to the exchange; Kagan said something like "I have no view about Natural Rights outside of the Constitution and the law." If that is a denial of their existence, yes, she is at odds with the Framer's beliefs. Of course there is a textual basis for the enforcement of non-enumerated natural rights in the Constitution i.e. the Ninth Amendment if judges wish to use it (so far, few have).