What do you mean by artificial? Give me an example of other things you would consider an artificial construct. Are civil rights or social justice artificial?
I disagree about the idea that it can be whatever a person wants it to be. Imagine a society without a centralized government. That was actually norm for most of human history. Now, imagine what a person could do in such a society. I think most people could agree what a person might be free to do if there was no government to forbid it.
Hard to give a very concise summary of Hobbes. I’m giving a faithful representation of his idea, but Hobbes didn’t really give a damn about freedom. I’m taking it a different direction.
A law becomes an imposition on freedom when a person is no longer free to do what he would be absent restraint. That’s the pith.
There’s a debate to be had about when it is and isn’t right to curtail a freedom. What I’m objecting to is blatantly curtailing a freedom and trying to hide it by semantics.
You don’t believe the fact that something has worked as the basis of liberal democracy for centuries gives credence to the use of that idea as a way to critique liberal democracy?
Your rebuttal in 51 was “It’s just some bullshit you made up” and then something about Og.
I’ve argued that using the state of nature as an idea to make judgments about freedom is prima facie logical.
I’ve argued that the philosophy from which I drew the idea of the state of nature is one of the major underpinnings of Western government. That’s not an appeal to tradition, but an appeal to efficacy.
I’m making the argument evaluating an institution in light of the philosophy that gave birth to that institution is a valid exercise.
By artificial I mean that there is no objective reference point called “the state of nature”. 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. This “state of nature” could as easily be re-defined by reference to the current state of some modern day culture in which the latter behaviour is unlawful. It all just depends on what particular “state of nature” one chooses to reference.
“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. And the laws imposed by those governments fall in a range between barely existent through to totalitarian. There just isn’t any objective golden line delineating a “state of nature” or what is or is not allowed in such a state. 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.
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.
You say what 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.
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?
As your final points: as to 1) your point isn’t “logical” its just an attempt to hide your subjective view in BS. 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. As to 3), no there is really no particulary good reason to limit an evaluation of an institution in that way.
Both. They reach out to individuals via direct mailing, telephone calls, etc. And they address clubs, groups, PACs, churches, etc. Both are part of political activism.
Fair enough, but you really can’t gripe when we try to give objectively true answers also. Words really do have meanings. Some of us may have unorthodox personal associations with words, but the terms do have an objective history, going back to the French Revolution and the positions in which the King’s Supporters (on the right) and his opposition (on the left) sat in the assembly room.
I grew up during the opposition to the war in Viet Nam, so, to me, “left” will always have a personal association with the anti-war movement. “Left” connotes pacifism, or at least a strong reluctance to go to war. But I don’t know if this is really a formal part of the definition of “leftist” ideology.
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.
Then we agree.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I’ve never said it should be limited to it. I said it’s a valid exercise.
I’m not griping, I’m clarifying. I’m asking people what they associate with certain terms. Dictionaries are easy to come by if I want the official definition of something.
Firstly, you miss a key point namely that a total lack of government may be “a” state of nature, but it is not “the” state of nature. It is simply a particular point which you have chosen to use as your point of reference. It’s just arbitrary. One could just as easily choose some other state or extent of government and call that one’s “state of nature” against which one will measure laws or freedoms.
I pointed out that “no government” is not a natural state and that human societies always form governments of some sort and your response is a No True Scotsman: you purport to rebut my point by saying that government as a monopoly on the legitimate use of force is a comparatively new phenomenon, implying that goverments that are not such a monopoly are not goverments. This is just an additional arbitrary restriction you have introduced to try to avoid being wrong. Also, I suspect your statement about the age of this phenomenon is wrong anyway, because if I remember my long ago anthropology lectures there is plenty of evidence that violence sanctioned by tribal power structures was regarded as legitimate and vice versa.
I said that “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”. You now say you agree with this proposition but earlier (see #50) you were suggesting that freedom from discrimination was “twisting” which is what started this whole debate in the first place. You may now agree with me but you disagree with yourself.
re Hobbes, you clearly said he was the source of your argument, and that by calling your argument a crock I was calling his argument a crock. Now he was just your source for your idea of a state of nature. Really, stop digging. Your hole is way deep enough.
There is nothing particularly logical about setting an arbitrary standard and then working off it as if it forms an objective benchmark. Hobbes philosophy is in no way comparable to the Pythagorean theorem. The latter “works” in a pragmatic sense. Hobbes like all philosophy is essentially mental masturbation. There is no evidence it is in any objective way efficacious. Something is not a valid exercise if it attempts to draw a useful conclusion based on an artificially limited enquiry.
You want to dismiss all arguments to the contrary out of hand and call arbitrary what you can’t refute. So, I can add plenty of useful info, but it would be a futile effort.
In AUS, the Left are people who believe that you can make each individual better off if you make the group they belong to better off.
The Right are people who believe that you can make every group better off if you make the individuals in it better off.
So, The Left see the Right as a group of morons and/or sociopaths. The Right sees the Left as individuals who are morons and/or sociopaths.
The Left here tends to look to the UK for inspiration (and to look away from the USA). The Right tends to be less international/ more local. Also, the Left is more tribal.
Everything else, conservative, radical, dry, wet, liberal, big business, development, corruption,protectionism,chauvanism, although it depends on the individuals, it seem pretty much the same on both sides.