Gyroscopic Investing

So, Im dabbling in Hobbes right now and From what I have read, I think a lot of people here would vehemently disagree with him. I havent started in on reading his original works yet, but this snippet from wikipedia should already invite some jeers. Nevertheless, it might be good for some of the anarchists / libertarians here to get a picture of what one particular social philosopher thought about weak central authority.

In Leviathan, Hobbes set out his doctrine of the foundation of states and legitimate governments – originating social contract theory. Leviathan was written during the English Civil War; much of the book is occupied with demonstrating the necessity of a strong central authority to avoid the evil of discord and civil war.

Beginning from a mechanistic understanding of human beings and the passions, Hobbes postulates what life would be like without government, a condition which he calls the state of nature. In that state, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. This, Hobbes argues, would lead to a "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). The description contains what has been called one of the best known passages in English philosophy, which describes the natural state mankind would be in, were it not for political community:



In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

— "Chapter XIII.: Of the Natural Condition of Mankind As Concerning Their Felicity, and Misery.", Leviathan





14]

The problem with his logic of people needing to be kept in line by a higher authority is that so long as the higher authority is also made up of similarly flawed humans, the same logic applies to them: if a world without government is a "war of all against all", then a world with human governments is simply a "war of all governments against all governments". Doesn't really solve the problem, only expands its scope.

Maybe we need an alien government to keep all the human governments from slaughtering one another?

Perhaps, PS, but there's something to be said for moving the war out to the border, where border is someplace other than where I'm standing.

Until of course you are standing there. Not everyone has the luxury of living in the most powerful nation on earth, with one of the largest physical landmasses, separated from most of the rest of the world by the two biggest oceans.

Outside of the USA, I would say the historical worldwide experience has very much been government against government, with the wanton slaughter of their people being the natural consequence. The only thing worse than government against government has been government against government-less people (native Americans, tribal Africans, etc), which explains why those people mostly don't exist in significant quantities anymore.

PS,

I play the devils advocate here a lot. I really don't have a firm grasp on what I believe about humans. We are perplexing creatures and our nature is as kind and magnanimous as it is vile and selfish. What scares me the most though is the surety that libertarianism and its tenets get discussed here and the blithe nature with which every dissenting viewpoint is eventually dismissed.

Hobbes lived through the English Civil War...a time of great upheaval and turmoil. He saw a side of humans that you have yet to experience in your life. The events that he gave witness to certainly colored his judgments regarding proper governance. Don't you think it would be a beneficial activity to delve into his mind and world for a bit and try to see things from a different perspective?

The libertarian fantasyland is great and I like discussing it, but I think people have a tendency to overestimate human behavior when they start discussing how enlightened people will self organize and regulate in such a peaceful manner. Look throughout history, has this ever really been the case for long? Can we find a single solitary example of this form of human society functioning for any duration of time? If not, then we might as well discuss unicorns and fairy's because we are not operating in reality.

Simonjester wrote:

doodle wrote: PS,

I play the devils advocate here a lot. I really don't have a firm grasp on what I believe about humans. We are perplexing creatures and our nature is as kind and magnanimous as it is vile and selfish. What scares me the most though is the surety that libertarianism and its tenets get discussed here and the blithe nature with which every dissenting viewpoint is eventually dismissed.

Hobbes lived through the English Civil War...a time of great upheaval and turmoil. He saw a side of humans that you have yet to experience in your life. The events that he gave witness to certainly colored his judgments regarding proper governance. Don't you think it would be a beneficial activity to delve into his mind and world for a bit and try to see things from a different perspective?

The libertarian fantasyland is great and I like discussing it, but I think people have a tendency to overestimate human behavior when they start discussing how enlightened people will self organize and regulate in such a peaceful manner. Look throughout history, has this ever really been the case for long? Can we find a single solitary example of this form of human society functioning for any duration of time? If not, then we might as well discuss unicorns and fairy's because we are not operating in reality.

the "libertarian fantasy land" is not so much a question about what "has" existed but a choice between the two directions we can head in, we know people are not enlightened, we know large governments made up of those very same unenlightened people are offensive to liberty and prosperity, so do we work toward a system where people are encouraged and educated to live up to the enlightened standard or do we accept we are thuggish brutes who need to be ground under the heal of other thuggish brutes to get anything done, no mater how hard that is on liberty and how little opportunity for advancement it leaves us?

the course of human history is filled with both advancements and set backs, there is no ideal version of any societal philosophy no perfect communist land, no perfect democracy, no perfect theocracy, no perfect monarchy etc,
so which direction seems more like advancement and which more like a setback?
libertarians can accept more government is sometimes necessary or different government or better government, but those are questions about specific circumstances. not questions of underlying philosophy. the underlying philosophy is to choose to move toward a system where people are encouraged and educated to live up to the enlightened standard

We are indeed perplexing creatures.

What I believe is that us humans are multifaceted beings, and we hold within us the potential for terrible violence and sublime enlightenment. The extent to which these tendencies emerge within each of us depends on our natural personalities, how we are raised, and what kind of society we grow up in.

So I think making blanket statements one way or another--"We're all violent and brutish," "we're all peaceful traders"--that's either defeatism or utopianism, respectively. These philosophers usually have a piece of the puzzle, but make the mistake of generalizing their theory onto all of humanity when it only describes a part of it.

Human nature is something I think is basically immutable; the violence never disappears, we just learn ways to control it (those of us who do of course), or channel it into productive or entertaining pursuits. This is what professional sports is: a means for people to engage in and observe simulated violence. Same with a lot of video games. Just because we have violence in our hearts, doesn't mean we have to turn it on one another in anger.

To that extent, I believe in helping humans and humanity overcome our violent, tribal impulses and seeing the world in terms of the human power to generate abundance and prosperity. In my mind, government opposes these aims because it is itself inherently violent, tribal, and scarcity-oriented, and therefore encourages the social continuity of these mindsets which require government to intermediate.

Each person who respects others' feelings, does not lie, cheat, or steal, refrains from initiating violent acts against innocents, and takes responsibility for his or her own success or failure is someone who has little use for government. It is these people that government fears most since in large numbers, they presage its obsolescence.

We may still need government today, but the way I see it, the more we have of it today, the more slowly we outgrow it because the less we mature as human beings. That's why I keep saying that government is no real solution to these problems of violence and selfishness, because all government does is encourage selfishness, tribal clannishness, and violence. The true solution comes from us as people deciding to raise our children better, be more tolerant of our neighbors, and solve our differences with words rather than guns.