Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Bernie Sanders and the establishment DNC
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Whither" data-source="post: 4383772" data-attributes="member: 76643"><p>The situation <em>could</em> be worse. However, it is very clear that state power -- e.g., the executive branch -- has expanded considerably since at least the Cold War, and always under the auspices of national security. I know you remember the old adage re: exchanging liberty for security ... And this is to say nothing of the line all states have taken against rebellious workers: they have always, correctly, been perceived as a threat (a dangerous 'faction' in the language of Federalist 10) and neutralized as expediently as possible -- with the carrot and/or the stick. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There's no evidence that anything like states/governments existed until roughly 5000 years ago. However, taking your thought for granted, arbitrarily granting a person or an institution 'the final say' does not resolve the problem of violence, it just displaces it by rhetorical (mystical) means. For example, the authority decides a person must be executed, banished, physically restrained, but the same actions are considered violent when conducted without the sanction of the authority.</p><p></p><p>In any case you are rehashing the ancient complaints of administrators. The common refrain has been: "The barbarians/savages in our hinterlands are lazy, do not submit to laws, do not pay tribute/taxes, and are caught in a vicious cycles of war/violence. Let us make them see reason! Let us bring peace!" Even if we suppose it is <em>generally</em> true -- that life under state rule decreases one's risk of suffering brute, physical violence --, there are still live questions. What other kinds of violence germinate within state societies? Are these worse, and precisely because we are so accustomed to them that we hardly notice? And, ultimately, is the 'bargain' worth it: is it worse to live a freer life at greater risk of violent death or a controlled life at less risk of violent death? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Since we are talking here re: the 'nature', e.g., biological drives, that we share with other animals, would you say there is no difference between the lives of animals born in the wild and those born in captivity? An old biology teacher used to say "genes load the gun and the environment pulls the trigger." Circumstances are always a crucial factor. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well put. This is why I have as little interest in socialism as I do capitalism.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Whither, post: 4383772, member: 76643"] The situation [I]could[/I] be worse. However, it is very clear that state power -- e.g., the executive branch -- has expanded considerably since at least the Cold War, and always under the auspices of national security. I know you remember the old adage re: exchanging liberty for security ... And this is to say nothing of the line all states have taken against rebellious workers: they have always, correctly, been perceived as a threat (a dangerous 'faction' in the language of Federalist 10) and neutralized as expediently as possible -- with the carrot and/or the stick. There's no evidence that anything like states/governments existed until roughly 5000 years ago. However, taking your thought for granted, arbitrarily granting a person or an institution 'the final say' does not resolve the problem of violence, it just displaces it by rhetorical (mystical) means. For example, the authority decides a person must be executed, banished, physically restrained, but the same actions are considered violent when conducted without the sanction of the authority. In any case you are rehashing the ancient complaints of administrators. The common refrain has been: "The barbarians/savages in our hinterlands are lazy, do not submit to laws, do not pay tribute/taxes, and are caught in a vicious cycles of war/violence. Let us make them see reason! Let us bring peace!" Even if we suppose it is [I]generally[/I] true -- that life under state rule decreases one's risk of suffering brute, physical violence --, there are still live questions. What other kinds of violence germinate within state societies? Are these worse, and precisely because we are so accustomed to them that we hardly notice? And, ultimately, is the 'bargain' worth it: is it worse to live a freer life at greater risk of violent death or a controlled life at less risk of violent death? Since we are talking here re: the 'nature', e.g., biological drives, that we share with other animals, would you say there is no difference between the lives of animals born in the wild and those born in captivity? An old biology teacher used to say "genes load the gun and the environment pulls the trigger." Circumstances are always a crucial factor. Well put. This is why I have as little interest in socialism as I do capitalism. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Bernie Sanders and the establishment DNC
Top