I am not sure that the "state of nature" is tantamount to "anarchy". Good arguments can be made for and against this equivalency.
Both presume an equality of participation which is obviated by national and individual differences. Some individuals are large and aggressive. Soime are smart and subtle.Some nations have nukes, some don't.
Ouch, gotta go, someone is compeling my attention with money.
But I do believe that dichotomy with the caveat that "one person one vote" is not the only expression of democracy.
Hmmm... Well, I'm hesitant to say the market is a form of democracy, but they do have their similarities. What about alternative forms of government that have existed? What about monarchies?
I don't doubt that force is an essential tool in organizing society. It's not force per se that is a problem, but aggression. Acts of aggression such as theft are obviously anti-social acts, at least to the vast majority of people. Do you deny this? And yet theft is institutionalized in democracy, or any for of government for that matter. I can hardly describe something as a "society" if theft is institutionalized. Seems more like a war of all against all in the vein of Hobbes to me.
Corrupt? Yes. But still better than going at one another with knives, guns, and tactical nukes.
But isn't this exactly what is happening at the moment? We have rulers whom forcefully expropriate, a portion of our trade. I sell my three apples for your four oranges, and somewhere along the way, a group of people arbitrarily claim justification in claiming a portion of the benefits we both receive. How is that coherent?
Have you ever realized that the world of nations exists in a state of anarchy? Albeit, it is not the most peaceful grouping of relationships (I wouldn't expect competing mafias to act in the most civilized manner), but treaties are made, the majority of countries are peaceful, and I'd wager it is preferable to a one world government. Would you disagree? Do you deny that the competition, absent a central, binding, world institution, has given us more or less freedom? So, in this case, is anarchy not a preferable organization method?
I know I went far beyond anything you've said. I just felt like rambling :P
"Fight to the death" was hyperbole. Most folks will only fight to the infliction of a bad bruise over sewer bonds.
But I do believe that dichotomy with the caveat that "one person one vote" is not the only expression of democracy.
All human society is based on force. Democracy is merely a more or less effective instrument to divine the intentions of and direct or at least influence that force.
Hey I don't want it to be that way, but if human history has taught us anything it is that that is the way humans are.
We prattle a lot about "freedom" but our societal leitmotif is "money talks".This is expressed as political influence via campaign contributions. A person, including corporations, with money can effectively buy votes.
Corrupt? Yes. But still better than going at one another with knives, guns, and tactical nukes.
Ancient Greeks limited the franchise to hoplites (and old hoplites). Possessing military capability was to them what money is to us.
Some totalitarian regimes put party loyalty above money and military capability, though there is some "bleed over".
-- Edited by BigG on Wednesday 1st of December 2010 08:15:53 PM
-- Edited by BigG on Wednesday 1st of December 2010 08:23:23 PM
