Members banned from this thread: jet57 |
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Sure. Locke, too. There are any number of Enlightened theorists who axiomatically assume the truth of individualism had to invent the fiction of social contracts to account for man unnaturally forming a social order called the state. Marx was a later thinker in this line who thought by perfecting the individual you could dispense with society altogether and leave a mass of atomized individuals in the loving hands of the state. Our most recent theorist along this line of thought is none other than Jet.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
The modern state, yes. Up until the Middle Ages, states formed based on, dependent on hierarchical social order, from families, up through various associations, to the state. In the late Middle Ages, culminating during the Enlightenment, all that was turned upsidedown to when now individuals are dependent on the state with little left of that older social order.
Completely irrelevant to nomadism v sedentarism.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
You ignore the more negative qualities of humanity in your analysis. The state arises when the "bad guys" in a sedentary society through hook or by crook or militaristic actions attempt to dispossess people of what is rightfully their's causing people to organize, creating laws, legislation and armies to protect them. I remind you of this: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.
Negative qualities of humanity?
Uh, no, it did not. It arose while man changed over from hunting-gathering to agriculture. Agriculture, once established, allowed for and supported a sedentary existence that needed to be protected. It wasn't all good, in fact, the changes were devastating in term of disease and death, worse than the Industrial Revolution--see James C. Scott's Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States. And it allowed for the growth of the bureaucratic and militaristic state.The state arises when the "bad guys" in a sedentary society through hook or by crook or militaristic actions attempt to dispossess people of what is rightfully their's causing people to organize, creating laws, legislation and armies to protect them.
It was not brought about by "bad guys."
The full quote from Madison was much more insightful of the nature of the modern state (in relation to individuals lacking a social order): "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
So you're saying the family does not exist? Associations of friends, classmates, co-workers and so on do not exist? Religious groups do not exist? Clubs, scientific societies and technological groups, and other organizations do not exist? Businesses do not exist?
A simplistic definition, from the likes of Rousseau, Hobbes, Grotius, Locke, and others, of social contract is "We each create civil societies out of our desires." That is the fiction. "We each create civil societies out of our desires," is what Marx advocated when he argued for perfecting society in the individual.The social contract does not exist either.
You ought to be more aware of what you're declaring belief in.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
Um, I began from the point where man became sedentarian and while disease borne of people living in close proximity may well have been an issue, it didn't result in the state because medical knowledge of communicable disease was nonexistent at the time. However, as they were becoming rather productive in horticulture and agriculture, animal husbandry and the like, they were targets both from within and without. Nevertheless, they chose sedentarianism because nomadism in the face of weather and climate issues became undependable. Hunter gathering often led to starvation when prey were not breeding because there wasn't enough food. People migrated to places where the land was fertile and warm enough to produce crops. However, with so many people living in larger and larger groups, social dynamics changed. I read somewhere that the key indicator of the evolution of a state was the development of a city which allowed for the development of trades, administration and all manner of other non-agricultural means of earning a living.Uh, no, it did not. It arose while man changed over from hunting-gathering to agriculture. Agriculture, once established, allowed for and supported a sedentary existence that needed to be protected. It wasn't all good, in fact, the changes were devastating in term of disease and death, worse than the Industrial Revolution--see James C. Scott's Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States. And it allowed for the growth of the bureaucratic and militaristic state.
So what exactly are you disagreeing with? The fact that the state evolved from the need to protect large groups of people in a fixed location both from internal sources of crime and exploitation as well as external marauders?
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Notice
@jet57 @jet57 has been threadbanned from this thread for bad faith off topic posting. If you have any questions or concerns about this moderation action, please use the Report Button to let us know.
If you have questions or concerns about this moderation action, please use the Report button to let us know.
Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes