# Right Vs Left **URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-vs-left/709016 **Category:** In My Humble Opinion **Created:** [January 5, 2015, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-vs-left/709016 "2015-01-05T06:42:22Z") **Posts on this page:** 1 **Showing post:** 64
### Author: ![Waymore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore) #### Post date: [January 6, 2015, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-vs-left/709016/64 "2015-01-06T05:00:12Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > By artificial I mean that there is no objective reference point called “the state of nature”. A person unencumbered by government is an objective reference point for a state of nature. > [@Financial disacuity](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/403): > > The “state of nature” to which you refer is simply a state you made up in which murder would be unlawful but discriminating against someone for being gay would be lawful. It’s not about being lawful, but being free. If there was no government to stop you, you’d be free to commit murder, discriminate, commit sodomy, etc. > [@Financial disacuity](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/403): > > “No government” is not a “natural state”. Human societies always form governments of some sort, be it tribal elders or the US system or anything in between. People always live in relation to one another, but government being [the monopoly on legitimate use of force](http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Monopoly_on_the_legitimate_use_of_physical_force.html) is a comparatively new phenomenon. > [@Financial disacuity](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/403): > > You attempt a blatant hand wave of the key argument in my post #51 (don’t think I didn’t notice) and really don’t deal with it. I expressly laid out three arguments, number for your convenience. I’m marshaling more arguments in this post as I have in previous posts. That’s hardly a hand wave. > [@Financial disacuity](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/403): > > All laws that stop A from doing something in relation to B are protection for B and an imposition on the freedom of A. That is true of laws against murder all the way down to discrimination. It’s all just a question of where one draws the line. There is no magical point at which impositions upon freedom start or stop. Then we agree. > [@Financial disacuity](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/403): > > You say you are objecting to is “blatantly curtailing a freedom and trying to hide it by semantics” but hiding things in semantics is precisely what you are doing by your “state of nature” thing. Instead of just coming out and saying what you think to be an appropriate or inappropriate level of curtailment of people’s freedom, you try to hide _your subjective judgment_ in BS about certain things being a “state of nature” while other things are not. I’m not even necessarily disagreeing with you about your subjective judgment . I just think your attempt to hide your exercise of judgment away by reference to some mythical “state of nature” is a crock. You’re missing the point. I’ll lay this out again. I’m not exercising judgment. I’m saying that people will advocate the curtailing of a freedom but argue they’re not. They do that by semantics. We’d all agree that certain freedoms should be denied; e.g. the freedom to murder. People in the US are hit over the head with the “land of the free” bullshit so hard they’d prefer to deny certain other freedoms without saying as much. That’s what I object to. > [@Financial disacuity](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/403): > > As to Hobbes, one minute you’re telling me he’s “your source” for your argument and that Hobbes wouldn’t think your argument was a crock, and the next you are telling me he “didn’t really give a damn” about something central to your argument and that you are taking “it in a different direction”. I see. I think maybe you need to just forget the whole Hobbes thing, don’t you? He’s my source for the idea of the state of nature. I’ve said as much. I’m applying it in a different way. I’ve said as much. I think maybe you should read Hobbes and see for yourself, don’t you? > [@Financial disacuity](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/403): > > As your final points: as to 1) your point isn’t “logical” its just an attempt to hide your subjective view in BS. But you’ve done nothing to show it’s not logical besides say it’s made up bullshit and appeal to Og. I’ve made clear rebuttals to that, without implying dishonesty on your part. > [@Financial disacuity](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/403): > > As to 2) your point is exactly an appeal to tradition. An appeal to “efficacy” would be one to say that your “state of nature” thing worked well, which isn’t something you’ve even attempted to do. By that logic the Pythagorean theorem is an appeal to tradition. People have used the theorem for centuries because it works. People have referred to Hobbes’ philosophy because it works. > [@Financial disacuity](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/403): > > As to 3), no there is really no particulary good reason to limit an evaluation of an institution in that way. I’ve never said it should be limited to it. I said it’s a valid exercise. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-vs-left/709016)._