It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
According to social contract theory (SCT),
“morality consists in the set of rules governing behavior, that rational people would accept, on the condition that others accept them as well.”
(Rachels, p. 145)
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
“A State of Nature” = anarchy Makes life “poor, nasty, brutish and short”
This is because of 4 features of the human condition:
· equality of need
· scarcity
· the essential equality of human power
· limited altruism
In a “state of nature”, there are no social goods… No
Farming
Industry
Education
Housing
Technology
Etc.
….because the social cooperation needed to produce these things doesn’t exist.
In order to avoid this fate,
(1) there must be guarantees that people will not harm one another, and
(2) people must be able to rely on one another to keep their agreements.
Only a government can provide for (1) and (2). Therefore, we need a government. In establishing a government, people give up some of their personal freedom (the freedom of anarchy, such as it is) and give the government the authority to enforce laws and agreements.
Those living under a government are parties to a social contract. Each person agrees to follow the laws of the state on the condition that everyone else does the same. That way, we are all relatively safe from each other and we all benefit from the other social goods that will result.
According to SCT, “the state exists to enforce the rules necessary for social living, while morality consists in the whole set of rules that facilitate social living”. (Rachels, p. 144) Thus, government is needed to enforce the basic rules of social living (e.g. don’t rob people, don’t break agreements), while morality may encompass some rules that are important for social living but are outside the scope of the state (this might include, for example, “Don’t insult people for no reason”.)
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yuppa
When did we use to think long term? I can't think of a single time during American history where that was the case. Heck the American Civil War happened because politicians kept playing "Kick the Can" with the slavery issue until it blew up in everyone's face, and that issue started with the creation of the country.
The FRAMERS used to think long term. otherwise we would have no constitution.
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
“A State of Nature” = anarchy Makes life “poor, nasty, brutish and short”
“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed.”
Mahatma Gandhi
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
At their most basic level, human beings are nothing more than animals with the amazing ability to adapt. When push comes to shove in order to survive, we'll kill, steal, and commit unspeakable acts and crimes.
People have this misguided notion that everyone can just wander around, alone, and still maintain some semblance of normalcy and society. People also seem to have over inflated ideas about their capacity to survive in a "Mad Max" like world. The vast majority of these people would die from starvation or be slaughtered by rivals.
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Well, we have to give government and (which gives us stable society) credit -- for without it, we wouldn't be able to discuss this over the internet.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yuppa
When did we use to think long term? I can't think of a single time during American history where that was the case. Heck the American Civil War happened because politicians kept playing "Kick the Can" with the slavery issue until it blew up in everyone's face, and that issue started with the creation of the country.
The FRAMERS used to think long term. otherwise we would have no constitution.
Ok, they thought long term when they wrote the Constitution, but many of the framers went on to be politicians in the new government and IMMEDIATELY stopped thinking long term.
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Public services and utilities are needed......politicians, politics and big government are not - especially with the advent of computers - we could build a program to direct all taxation to go into education, infrastructure maintenance, health, no wars (imagine the cash cow from a massively reduced defense budget that focuses on domestic defense only?) and a myriad of other things - all without politicians even existing - they are the quintessential oxygen thieving wastes of space.
originally posted by: Metallicus
Local communities can function just fine without the Fed's. In fact, lives would be saved if the Federal Government was completely eliminated. No local community is going to send their kids around the world to shoot at people in some desert in the Middle East. Only a corrupt and bloated Federal entity does stupid crap like that.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Shamrock6
Then, if we are talking about a 1st world country with established infrastructure that NEEDS to be maintained by the government that tons of people rely on suddenly stopping, things will get messy. Look at the inner cities NOW, WITH government, will that magically improve without government? Cities would devolve into warzones.
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
So we all do our own jobs but we also log-in and do the job of politicians as well (that should consume about 3 minutes per day).
originally posted by: yuppa
Exactly. We used to think long term though. W e need to get back to that solution is to put non negotiable and changable things in place to force them to think long term again. Ripping the fed funds off any faster would kill th e country for sure.
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: intrptr
except that no one knows how to do those basic things anymore....
how many know how to take the wool from a sheep and turn it into a roll of cloth so someone can sew it into a piece of clothing? or do the same with cotton? will your community even be able to grow cotton? how many factories in your area are equipped to mass produce clothing, or anything else that is really of use?
originally posted by: Aazadan
And what would happen to communities like mine which are among the poorest in the nation? We have no industry, no jobs, and no tax base.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yuppa
I just see it as a flaw in the way our government works. The only way to fix it is to completely rewrite the Constitution, which is something I don't want done because then there is a chance that nefarious interests could corrupt it AWAY from freedom instead of improving the system.
originally posted by: Tyrion79
If you don't mind me asking, how did your town originate?
There must be a reason people settled there in the past, how come it's not viable anymore today?
originally posted by: Talorc
I can't blame you for being scared though- not everyone has what it takes, and when society turns you into a helpless infant, it's hard to pull yourself out of it.
"I can already hear the conditioned responses: “Anarchy as solution? No, anarchy means violence and chaos, we need social-systems to stay safe.” Now if you find yourself having a thought similar to this, you need to realize something basic first of all: Anarchy means “No ruler,” it means a society without social-systems of control, without forced government, it is not (despite the pervasive propaganda saying it is) synonymous with violence and chaos. Anarchy is against violence, the violence of the State that forces us to participate in the destruction of the Earth, individuals and communities. Anarchy, in its pure form, is an unwavering belief that slavery and acts of authoritarian aggression are always wrong; not really an extreme notion! But amazingly, in Orwellian fashion, this stance of non-violence has been totally distorted (by those it benefits to do so) into its complete opposite."