I agree with Hobbes. If there is no government or no authority then there will be strife a-aplenty and the evil strong will eat up the less strong or at least eat their lunch.
Every human society that has ever existed and survived for any significant length of time has has some form of regulating behavior within the society to prevent widespread plunder and violence.
That’s not really what Hobbes says though. The argument wasn’t simply, that gee, we need laws and order and security, and that these are good things. The argument he gives is that it is literally impossible for two people to cooperate, that they will be like wolves and eat each other up, unless a third party is like a wolf to both of them, ergo, we must have an absolute sovereign. Quite a different claim than the trivial one of, oh well we need laws and rules to prevent crime.
So then are you and advocate of a single worldwide government?
It depends on what is technologically and economically viable. I think that a planetary government is desirable. If humans in the future decide to colonize the solar system, a unified government will be harder to accomplish due to the great distances an expenses.
It depends on what is technologically and economically viable. I think that a planetary government is desirable. If humans in the future decide to colonize the solar system, a unified government will be harder to accomplish due to the great distances an expenses.
Federalism is also an important principle here.
I’d love a one world government.
The bigger the bureaucracy with more useless unproductive government educated dummies employed in it…
That’s not really what Hobbes says though. The argument wasn’t simply, that gee, we need laws and order and security, and that these are good things. The argument he gives is that it is literally impossible for two people to cooperate, that they will be like wolves and eat each other up, unless a third party is like a wolf to both of them, ergo, we must have an absolute sovereign. Quite a different claim than the trivial one of, oh well we need laws and rules to prevent crime.
Wish all you will. Out there are people who regard their own judgement as supreme and will act on that assumption. That means that someone is going to make life miserable for others. The best way to handle this is for sane people to get together and establish a system of rules (i.e. law) and someone to enforce the law (without enforcement the law is worthless).
The only proper government function is to put the use of retaliatory force under the strict control of objective law. Even today government doesn’t run law enforcement agencies-the police officers do. It doesn’t run courts-judges suppose to be independent. Government even doesn’t pay for these services-it doesn’t create any wealth. Government only provides laws for police and courts to act which is its legitimate function and forces population to pay for it, which is violation of rights and initiation of force. So how a government which very existence is based on the violation of rights can protect rights? Only privately and voluntary funded law enforcement agencies and courts are compatible with the free objectivist society. The only proper government function, the legislation, would be voluntary funded by those who need it most-private security companies and courts.
What is your working definition of “objective law”?
You are starting to be a major image problem for this forum.
You made no attempt to understand the context of my post.
You said:
I think that a planetary government is desirable.
You see a big one world government as being good… while I view it as an accurate indicator of the failure of irresponsible people to govern themselves.
And since the government is created by the parasitic political majority, my approach to it is: The bigger the bureaucracy, the dumber the bureaucrats, and the more it screws up… exactly like Ayn so accurately predicted it would in Atlas Shrugged.
Colonizing other planets is a utopian fantasy when people can’t even budget their own finances, and neither can the government they created in their own irresponsible image.
I stand by my original post. I didn’t say I wanted a world government made by the people of today. I also did not say anything about it being “big”. I advocate a federal body that can manage police actions that need to take place across a large geographic region. Attacking this idea only results in an absurd sort of “anarchism” which claims that the police do not have the right to “invade” somone’s house even if they are a wanted murderer.
International law does not hold the individual rights at their foundation. If you want police actions that must take place across the globe to be based on rule of law rather than international treaty, planetary government is the final answer.
This of course would have to happen in the far future, after the majority of states were already law abiding. The context of my post was theoretical from the get go and this should have gone without saying.
Technological progress has happened despite the supposed irresponsbility of people you have never met, and despite the government which have made no effort to understand.
The bigger the government (in either scope of function or geographical extent) the more incompetent it is.
…and oddly enough, the more freedom you can enjoy. I knew a courageous man who escaped from Germany during the war. Because he understood the principle of bureaucratic incompetence he was able to use it to gain his freedom.
Wish all you will. Out there are people who regard their own judgement as supreme and will act on that assumption. That means that someone is going to make life miserable for others. The best way to handle this is for sane people to get together and establish a system of rules (i.e. law) and someone to enforce the law (without enforcement the law is worthless).
Huh? What am I wishing? Are you clueless about what Hobbes actually says?
That’s not really what Hobbes says though. The argument wasn’t simply, that gee, we need laws and order and security, and that these are good things. The argument he gives is that it is literally impossible for two people to cooperate, that they will be like wolves and eat each other up, unless a third party is like a wolf to both of them, ergo, we must have an absolute sovereign. Quite a different claim than the trivial one of, oh well we need laws and rules to prevent crime.
Huh? What am I wishing? Are you clueless about what Hobbes actually says?
That’s not really what Hobbes says though. The argument wasn’t simply, that gee, we need laws and order and security, and that these are good things. The argument he gives is that it is literally impossible for two people to cooperate, that they will be like wolves and eat each other up, unless a third party is like a wolf to both of them, ergo, we must have an absolute sovereign. Quite a different claim than the trivial one of, oh well we need laws and rules to prevent crime.
Consider the times in which Hobbes lived. The hundred years war that lasted 116 years and the mayhem that took place between Catholics and Protestants on the continent. Hobbes was empirically correct in his skepticism about natural “good behavior” between humans. Stephen Pinker has pointed out that per capita the world is much less violent now than it was during Hobbes time.
Consider the times in which Hobbes lived. The hundred years war that lasted 116 years and the mayhem that took place between Catholics and Protestants on the continent. Hobbes was empirically correct in his skepticism about natural “good behavior” between humans. Stephen Pinker has pointed out that per capita the world is much less violent now than it was during Hobbes time.
Now you’re making a completely different third claim. Okay cool, Walter Block has written criticisms of Stephen Pinker’s empirical claims about the state and less violence. Sure, Hobbes may have thought cooperation impossible because he saw lots of war. But what does that have to do with your claims that, hey, law is a good thing. Still totally different from Hobbes’ claims. Still doesn’t tell us whether or not Hobbes claim that social cooperation without an absolute sovereign is justified.
Moreover, how can you claim Hobbes’ theories are empirically verified by the Hundred Years’ War? Do you know what empirical verification is? All Hobbes can empirically verify is “I observed a war.” That tells us nothing about whether or not humans are capabale of social cooperation without an absolute sovereign. Any given instance of war doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not there are other possibilities in other instances.
Now you’re making a completely different third claim. Okay cool, Walter Block has written criticisms of Stephen Pinker’s empirical claims about the state and less violence. Sure, Hobbes may have thought cooperation impossible because he saw lots of war. But what does that have to do with your claims that, hey, law is a good thing. Still totally different from Hobbes’ claims. Still doesn’t tell us whether or not Hobbes claim that social cooperation without an absolute sovereign is justified.
Law has its dark side, to be sure, but look at a country where there is no law. Somalia. I would want to live in anything like that. Without some kind of adjusting, adjudicating regulatory function to discourage really bad behavior we would be in for a world of pain.
And here is a practical question: Without a central taxing authority how would we afford a defense against countries who are perfectly willing to steal from their citizens and subjects the money to make very heavy duty military material. Do you think we could maintain a sufficiently good Army on a voluntary subscription system?
Law has its dark side, to be sure, but look at a country where there is no law. Somalia. I would want to live in anything like that. Without some kind of adjusting, adjudicating regulatory function to discourage really bad behavior we would be in for a world of pain.
And here is a practical question: Without a central taxing authority how would we afford a defense against countries who are perfectly willing to steal from their citizens and subjects the money to make very heavy duty military material. Do you think we could maintain a sufficiently good Army on a voluntary subscription system?
Sorry I really want to try and understand, but as far as I can tell, all of your posts seem logically unconnected to each other and to mine. Okay, sure, having no law is bad, but who in the world said we should have no law? What does that have to do with Hobbes as previously discussed?
Actually the idea of Somalia having no law is a myth, it has a quite historic system of customary law. Note I’m not saying its legal system is in any way libertarian or something to model, but that’s different from saying there are no laws to follow if you go to Somalia.
As far as national defense and security, of course there is a ton of libertarian literature on this out there, anyone serious-minded about such topics can find it.
Sorry I really want to try and understand, but as far as I can tell, all of your posts seem logically unconnected to each other and to mine. Okay, sure, having no law is bad, but who in the world said we should have no law? What does that have to do with Hobbes as previously discussed?
Hobbes’ basic thesis is that men living in a state of no law, each man doing as he sees fit will live in a state of perpetual war. There will be no industry, no culture and as Hobbes put it,. the life of man will be nasty, brutish and short. I concur with his assumption. Where there is no law or authority to deter violence the strong plunder, rape, injure and kill the weak. Look at Africa in the lawless countries. It is just as Hobbes presumed.
So Hobbes thesis that an authority to impose constraints on the community is necessary for any kind of social peace and order is correct.
A lawless land will become a desolation of destruction and woe.
When people refer to “small vs big government” they typically mean the percent of GDP that the government takes up. A government that takes up only a small ammount of GDP could exist on a planetary level yes.
