[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Overbear

The goverment is there to provide basics like roads, power grids, and defense. They are not there to act like a saftey net for people too stupid or too lazy to get off their ***** and WORK.

Why?

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by Umami

Social safety nets are not charity. They're a stopgap on failings inherent to our social, economic and cultural institutions.

You seem to neglect the natural state of man.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

You seem to neglect the natural state of man.

Who's?

[barrel roll]

The natural state of man, all man, is poverty.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

The natural state of man, all man, is poverty.

If we want to go all hobbes, then shouldn't the function of government be to bring us from that? If our natural state is bad, shouldn't we use our collective power be used to overcome that?

[kjjm4]

Originally Posted by Spock

That's a valid opinion, but not an indisputable fact. The government does whatever it wants, without regard for what the majority of people in the country wants it to do, irrespective of constitutional limitations.

Fixed.

It's been quite some time since our government cared about the Constitution.

[kjjm4]

Originally Posted by chodeyg

Do you really think that private donations could provide even half of the social safety net we currently have?

The purpose of those programs are to aid the poor temporarilyNot to make you feel good about your donation. Christ you people are dense

That whole "temporary" thing is where the problem comes. There are way too many people who are permanently on the government take. I have a problem with generational welfare on many levels, but most of all because those peopłe have an interest in growing government, expanding spending, and no interest whatsoever in keeping taxes low or in ecomic growth.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

If we want to go all hobbes, then shouldn't the function of government be to bring us from that? If our natural state is bad, shouldn't we use our collective power be used to overcome that?

The natural state isn't bad. Most people won't run if they can simply sit down.

[TheSilentAssassin]

the natural state of man implies a lot of things in many different contexts. can we get some clarity before we move on? I couldn't actually tell if barrel was going all heinlein, hobbes, or neither.

But, to be clear, the point I was making was that the argument that man's natural state is poor, weak, brutish, bad, etc is often accompanied by the idea that it is the duty of the collective power of man to prevent that bad natural state. I'd rather you not respond to this and wait for barrel to clarify his point before we move on.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

the natural state of man implies a lot of things in many different contexts. can we get some clarity before we move on? I couldn't actually tell if barrel was going all heinlein, hobbes, or neither.

But, to be clear, the point I was making was that the argument that man's natural state is poor, weak, brutish, bad, etc is often accompanied by the idea that it is the duty of the collective power of man to prevent that bad natural state. I'd rather you not respond to this and wait for barrel to clarify his point before we move on.

I'm interested, philosophically, why you see the condition you described as bad. Without clarifying what he meant by the natural state of man, we can touch on that too.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

I'm interested, philosophically, why you see the condition you described as bad. Without clarifying what he meant by the natural state of man, we can touch on that too.

I was using a hobbesian response to a hobbesian assertion. Personally I fall in line with Hume. I believe that natural state of man is social in its nature. An absence of community (or as developed: government) is inherently against our natural state.

Now as to why the natural state of man being poor is bad: I guess while I am a fan of simplicity and I have problems with the idea that advancement can be reconciled in material terms, I still contest that it would be silly to stay in our natural state if we can develop one that is better (via government).

Why is it better? Government allows stability. Stability allows true advancement (development of understanding and virtue).

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

I was using a hobbesian response to a hobbesian assertion. Personally I fall in line with Hume. I believe that natural state of man is social in its nature. An absence of community (or as developed: government) is inherently against our natural state.

Now as to why the natural state of man being poor is bad: I guess while I am a fan of simplicity and I have problems with the idea that advancement can be reconciled in material terms, I still contest that it would be silly to stay in our natural state if we can develop one that is better (via government).

Why is it better? Government allows stability. Stability allows true advancement (development of understanding and virtue).

Thank you. In purely physicalist terms of material existence I see the natural state of man as being a more neitzchian will to power. Social though we may, I suspect the need for comradry is a natural extension of this.

I'll keep this short, if this natural state has a causal relationship with the creation of government ( stability), can such a thing truly be called bad?

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Thank you.

I'll keep this short, if this natural state has a causal relationship with the creation of government ( stability), can such a thing truly be called bad?

For me the natural state of man is good because it is social (Hume).

But (hypothetically) if we want to view that natural state of man as being anarchial (hobbes), then the natural state of man is bad, and therefore communal power allows us to subvert that.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

For me the natural state of man is good because it is social (Hume).

But (hypothetically) if we want to view that natural state of man as being anarchial (hobbes), then the natural state of man is bad, and therefore communal power allows us to subvert that.

Ive always held Hobbes theory to be 100 percent inaccurate.

I think man is objectively and fundamentally good because he strives for order (a social nature is proof of this). Anarchy is fundamentally and objectively bad(evil) because disorder is deconstructive and ultimately self negating.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

I think man is objectively and fundamentally good because he strives for order (a social nature is proof of this). Anarchy is fundamentally and objectively bad(evil) because disorder is deconstructive and ultimately self negating.

That's not so far from hobbes. Hobbes would say that man reluctantly strives for order because the disorder of anarchy is scary/bad. You seem to be saying that man inherently strives for order and the disorder of anarchy is bad.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

That's not so far from hobbes. Hobbes would say that man reluctantly strives for order because the disorder of anarchy is scary/bad. You seem to be saying that man inherently strives for order and the disorder of anarchy is bad.

I don't believe it is out of reluctance. I don't think we do it out of conscious choice, but compulsion by design/nature.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

I don't believe it is out of reluctance. I don't think we do it out of conscious choice, but compulsion by design/nature.

I understand. I'm just pointing out that you aren't that far off.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

I understand. I'm just pointing out that you aren't that far off.

Perhaps. I'm not convinced that man's natural state is anarchy. As a matter of fact I think it is a product of conscious choice - a rejection of nature.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Perhaps. I'm not convinced that man's natural state is anarchy. As a matter of fact I think it is a product of conscious choice - a rejection of nature.

The problem here is differing notions of "natural state". By natural state, a Hobbesian would be implying simply where we began. We began anarchial until we developed structure (inherently like you or reluctantly like Hobbes). Do you not believe we began in an anarchy before we created structure?

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

The problem here is differing notions of "natural state". By natural state, a Hobbesian would be implying simply where we began. We began anarchial until we developed structure (inherently like you or reluctantly like Hobbes). Do you not believe we began in an anarchy before we created structure?

I reject the idea that we began in anarchy.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

If we want to go all hobbes, then shouldn't the function of government be to bring us from that? If our natural state is bad, shouldn't we use our collective power be used to overcome that?

I was pulling from Rose Wilder Lane.

Anyone who says that economic security is a human right, has been too much babied. While he battles, other men are risking and losing their lives to protect him. They are fighting this CD, fighting the land, fighting diseases and insects and weather and space and time, for him, while he chatters that all men have a right to security in it some pagan God–Society, The State, The Government, The Commune—must give it to them. Let the fighting men stop fighting this in human Earth for one hour, and he will learn how much security there is.

Paine talks about the life of the Indian being a continuous holiday compared to the European poor... even though the European poor has "more". (Agrarian Justice)

*I'm saying man's natural state isn't to have an abundance. Poverty isn't bad.*

In regards to the social creature talk - We are social creatures (an isolated homo sapien sapein will go insane, family groups are the basis of tribes etc etc), and forming groups makes the hardships of life easier (it is easier for 2 people to pick up 5 sticks than 1 person to pick up 5 sticks).