Hobbes vs. Locke

[boondocks77]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

The answer is that it is an example of a dramatic imperfection in Democratic systems, and one which shows at least one of the commonly espoused ideological goals of Democracy to not actually be served by Democracy.

Me and devonin already established that. Scroll up.

[Kilroy_x]

I figured if you were asking me for a response, you meant specifically from me. At this point you should be trying to reconcile this new information with your original claims that Lockean thought is Democratic in nature and that you support Lockean thought. You have several ways to do this. You can

A: Claim Lockean thought is not Democratic in nature
B: Claim you are no longer completely Lockean
C: Claim I am somehow mistaken about the problem I have named.

[boondocks77]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

I figured if you were asking me for a response, you meant specifically from me. At this point you should be trying to reconcile this new information with your original claims that Lockean thought is Democratic in nature and that you support Lockean thought. You have several ways to do this. You can

A: Claim Lockean thought is not Democratic in nature
B: Claim you are no longer completely Lockean
C: Claim I am somehow mistaken about the problem I have named.

Well, in truth, I made this thread because of an assignment at school, and I needed feedback. Now that this assignment is over, this thread is irrelevant.
... unless you would like to continue on a debate with me, then I'm completely up to it.

[hayatewillown]

Why does he seem like a reasonable responsible man? Why is a lack of an action something worth voting for a person over? Most homeless people don't brag about how many medals they have on their chest either.

Hobbes is trying to present something that can better benefit the country and it's people.

Take a look at this:
Federalism:A system of government in which power is divided between a national (federal) government and various regional governments. As defined by the United States Constitution, federalism is a fundamental aspect of American government, whereby the states are not merely regional representatives of the federal government, but are granted independent powers and responsibilities. With their own legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch, states are empowered to pass, enforce, and interpret laws, provided they do not violate the Constitution. This arrangement not only allows state governments to respond directly to the interests of their local populations, but also serves to check the power of the federal government. Whereas the federal government determines foreign policy, with exclusive power to make treaties, declare war, and control imports and exports, the states have exclusive power to ratify the Constitution. Most governmental responsibilities, however, are shared by state and federal governments: both levels are involved in such public policy issues as taxation, business regulation, environmental protection, and civil rights.

Federalist: An advocate of federalism.
Anti-federalist: One of party opposed to a federative government; -- applied particularly to the party which opposed the adoption of the constitution of the United States.

--
It would seem that Hobbes would be a Federalist. It looks as if he is trying to present a government and rights to people.

We seem to be doing fine as far as power in the government.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by boondocks77

Well, in truth, I made this thread because of an assignment at school, and I needed feedback. Now that this assignment is over, this thread is irrelevant.
... unless you would like to continue on a debate with me, then I'm completely up to it.

If you don't actually care about something there isn't much meaning to learning about it. I'll leave it up to you whether you want to continue posting on the subject, but bear in mind there's a lot of ground you haven't covered and a lot of fashions in which you could be wrong, including those stated already.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by hayatewillown

Stuff

There are multiple meanings of the term you are using and you seem to be confusing several. In truth I am not especially familiar with Hobbes and would not feel comfortable making or dismissing any comparisons in regards to what kinds of political systems he might or might not support. With some things it seems superficially apparent where Hobbes stands, but in terms of Federalism in any sense making a comparison would be ahistorical, so I wouldn't want to make such a comparison without examining source texts.

[boondocks77]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

If you don't actually care about something there isn't much meaning to learning about it. I'll leave it up to you whether you want to continue posting on the subject, but bear in mind there's a lot of ground you haven't covered and a lot of fashions in which you could be wrong, including those stated already.

You know what Kilroy? Let's start fresh, how about you tell me who Hobbes and Locke were, and what they believed, the ''correct'' way, and then we'll see what we have to say about it ok? Just forget my 1st ''wrong'' and ''false'' post.

[Kilroy_x]

Both were social theorists and philosophers. Hobbes believed something which is essentially the opposite of what Rousseau believed, namely that human society acts to restrain human nature and keep human beings from engaging in transgressions against one another. For reference, Rousseau believed that human society was the root of human misery, that human beings were naturally free, more or less self-sufficient individuals and that society acted to corrupt this.

Hobbes seems to be one of if not the first advocate of a form of social contract theory. He believed the establishment of authority was necessary to prevent a war of all against all, but only enough authority to ensure common peace.

John Locke seemed mostly interested in what might be called natural law, in terms of his social perspective. He did not believe that men were inherently violent, but he did believe that they had the potential for violence. The main contention between Locke and Hobbes in this area is not over the legitimacy of government or even the reasoning behind it, but rather the extent to which power should be consolidated and considered legitimate.

Hobbes thought men would naturally and necessarily try to acquire all and so had to give up some of their freedoms of pursuits in order to gain peace. Locke thought that mens rights naturally stopped where others began. Both supported government, just to different degrees.

So to conclude, both believed violence was bad and that human beings shouldn't pass that point at which they would do violence. Both believed that government should enforce this border. So while there are significant contradictions between Hobbes and Locke it doesn't seem like they are completely at odds.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

So where would this particular train of thought that violence is caused by one's persuit of life, liberty, and property clashing with that of another's persuit of life, liberty, and property fall? After all, I believe that if someone feels as though they are better off doing what ever it takes to persue life, liberty, and property instead of treating others with respect (if they feel as though this would hinder their progress), that person might as well do what ever he/she wants (not to say that such a persuit would go without opposition or that I would favor it).

[chunky_cheese]

I've just been studying them in school recently, funny that it would be brought up.

From what I've learned about the "Philosophes" Hobbes and Locke had very similar opinions on government, although they both agree with an absolute monarchy, Locke values the right to rebel.

[hayatewillown]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Both were social theorists and philosophers. Hobbes believed something which is essentially the opposite of what Rousseau believed, namely that human society acts to restrain human nature and keep human beings from engaging in transgressions against one another. For reference, Rousseau believed that human society was the root of human misery, that human beings were naturally free, more or less self-sufficient individuals and that society acted to corrupt this.

Hobbes seems to be one of if not the first advocate of a form of social contract theory. He believed the establishment of authority was necessary to prevent a war of all against all, but only enough authority to ensure common peace.

John Locke seemed mostly interested in what might be called natural law, in terms of his social perspective. He did not believe that men were inherently violent, but he did believe that they had the potential for violence. The main contention between Locke and Hobbes in this area is not over the legitimacy of government or even the reasoning behind it, but rather the extent to which power should be consolidated and considered legitimate.

Hobbes thought men would naturally and necessarily try to acquire all and so had to give up some of their freedoms of pursuits in order to gain peace. Locke thought that mens rights naturally stopped where others began. Both supported government, just to different degrees.

So to conclude, both believed violence was bad and that human beings shouldn't pass that point at which they would do violence. Both believed that government should enforce this border. So while there are significant contradictions between Hobbes and Locke it doesn't seem like they are completely at odds.

Well since you've said this, I'm sticking to Hobbes. Thanks for clearing that up.