Hobbes vs. Locke

[boondocks77]

So I made this thread to provoke debate between the 2 founders of the concept of government. If you have no idea who they are of what this is here's a bit to talk about:
Thomas Hobbes was the first man to devise a process of governmental affairs. He belived that since man could not control his self-indulgence, he was likely to provoke 'war'. His perception of war could've been a simple argument between two people. This is why he thought that man needed a superior, whether it was one man, or an assembly of people, to judge and consider what would be best for the nation.
A number of years later, a man named John Locke challenged this way of thinking. He belived that man's right extended as far as not violating any other man's.

I am a Lockean, a supporter of Locke, but I would like to hear out what's your stand in this. Now everyone, whether apathetic or not, is either a Lockean (Locke supporter), or a Hobbesean (Hobbes supporter). Discuss.

[Kilroy_x]

Let's begin by rewriting your post.

Originally Posted by boondocks77

So I made this thread to provoke debate about 2 philosophies regarding conceptions of human beings and the proper role and form of government. If you have no idea who they are of what this is here's a bit to talk about:
Thomas Hobbes believed that since man could not control his self-indulgence, he was likely to provoke 'war'. His perception of war could've been a simple argument between two people. This is why he thought that man needed a superior, whether it was one man, or an assembly of people, to judge and consider what would be best for the nation.
A number of years later, a man named John Locke challenged this way of thinking. He belived that man's right extended as far as not violating any other man's.

I am a Lockean, a supporter of Locke, but I would like to hear out what's your stand in this. Now everyone, whether apathetic or not, is either a Lockean (Locke supporter), or a Hobbesean (Hobbes supporter). Discuss.

Your contention that Lockean notions of liberty are equivalent to the democratic ideal is false. Your contention that everyone supports either Locke or Hobbes is false. Your contention that these were the first men to come up with ideas about government is false.

That being said, I support the Lockean notion of human rights, and I support the intention of a constitution which is designed to enshrine these rights. With exceedingly rare exception, human beings are not violent towards one another as a default state of affairs. Generally social pressures act in synergy with an innate human aggressive drive to create violence. Aggression in this context is really just the human propensity to, explore, understand, dominate; human drive itself, in other words. It gets corrupted by social situations.

[boondocks77]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Let's begin by rewriting your post.

Let's not. I know what I said. By calling me false, you're stating an opinion not a fact. I stick by what I have said.

[lord_carbo]

He did not say the Lockean ideology was wrong, rather that your contentions were.

[Kilroy_x]

What? You made a number of claims which are verifiable. This means they are falsifiable. I called them false. To say that entails the conversation is in terms of opinion makes about as much sense as this:

"The sky is made of gold plated hamburgers"

"No it isn't"

"That's just your opinion"

[rade0110]

Originally Posted by boondocks77

So I made this thread to provoke debate between the 2 founders of the concept of government. If you have no idea who they are of what this is here's a bit to talk about:
Thomas Hobbes was the first man to devise a process of governmental affairs. He belived that since man could not control his self-indulgence, he was likely to provoke 'war'. His perception of war could've been a simple argument between two people. This is why he thought that man needed a superior, whether it was one man, or an assembly of people, to judge and consider what would be best for the nation.
A number of years later, a man named John Locke challenged this way of thinking. He belived that man's right extended as far as not violating any other man's. In other words, he was a democrat. (For the people, by the people.)

I am a Lockean, a supporter of Locke, but I would like to hear out what's your stand in this. Now everyone, whether apathetic or not, is either a Lockean (Locke supporter), or a Hobbesean (Hobbes supporter). Discuss.

A Lockean theory (in theory) is an ideal. But, in what society will you ever see every person living by the rule "for the people, by the people?" It's impossible. There has to be a set of guidelines is a must, especially for a society as large as the United States or any other massive population. Hobbes didn't believe in a government like a monarchy; where the controlling body put their best interest first. He believed in a government where there were elected delegates who would base their laws and government foundations on what is best for society as a whole.

[beaner692]

arn't hobbes those little fat people

[lord_carbo]

beaner, Critical Thinking is not your forte.

[beaner692]

I hadn't read through the posts:

I have a belief that religion is the cause of many wars
Yeah, Bush has a lot to do with the current war, but people from that side of this world would kill us just because we don't believe in what they believe in

And replying to the first post, I think I am more on the side of Locke; He seems most logical to me

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by beaner692

I hadn't read through the posts:

I have a belief that religion is the cause of many wars
Yeah, Bush has a lot to do with the current war, but people from that side of this world would kill us just because we don't believe in what they believe in

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

beaner, Critical Thinking is not your forte.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Tps222]

Listen to Kilroy, Boondocks.

He correctly re-wrote your post. Your post stated some wrong ideas that were shaped by your opinion.

I'm not an anarachist, so I like government. I don't trust people enough to be able to live without a supreme ruling force. I obviously believe in some of Locke's ideas as well, as I obviously don't want my "Life, Liberty, and right to own land" trampled on.

[boondocks77]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

sorry im only quoting Guido because of what he did to my siggy. And I do apologize for it. Once my friend told me at lunch about it, I was going to remove it.

As for the rest of you, I was trying to get at asking who do you support and why?

[CAFK]

I'd have to say that I'm on the Lockean side of this debate. My government teacher explained that a person's right to voilate another's stops when they come in contact with the latter. We as people decide what our own limitations are, and therefore decide what is right and wrong in their own eyes.
In regards to Hobbes' thinking, although there may be an authority figure, there are going to be people who don't agree with that person's view, and might have their own definition of what's right and what's wrong. So how is an authority figure or a group of people going to be able to agree on certain laws that people live by if no one agrees with them?
Anyways, that's what I think.

[boondocks77]

Originally Posted by CAFK

I'd have to say that I'm on the Lockean side of this debate. My government teacher explained that a person's right to voilate another's stops when they come in contact with the latter. We as people decide what our own limitations are, and therefore decide what is right and wrong in their own eyes.
In regards to Hobbes' thinking, although there may be an authority figure, there are going to be people who don't agree with that person's view, and might have their own definition of what's right and what's wrong. So how is an authority figure or a group of people going to be able to agree on certain laws that people live by if no one agrees with them?
Anyways, that's what I think.

Noob. Lol just kidding. But I don't completely agree with your idea as to why you're a Lockean, though I am that.. also. I just can't grasp how Hobbesean's were any success in the past. Was Hitler killing millions of jews a success? Was Stalin's government a success when doctors, highly educated people, had to work a 2nd job by cleaning houses? Though democrats may have not been successful, they did not kill people. That is basically why I'm a Lockean.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by boondocks77

Noob. Lol just kidding.

Just kidding or not, ad hominem attacks have no place in CT.

But I don't completely agree with your idea as to why you're a Lockean, though I am that

Please provide some reasons why you feel his reasoning for supporting Locke is insufficent instead of just stating so with nothing to back it up.

.. also. I just can't grasp how Hobbesean's were any success in the past. Was Hitler killing millions of jews a success? Was Stalin's government a success when doctors, highly educated people, had to work a 2nd job by cleaning houses?

So, you've picked two of the most extreme possible examples you could think of, and claim that they represent the whole of Hobbes' political thought...straw man says -5 points. Also, Godwin'd

Further, depending on your perspective, Hitler's government was a stunning success compared to the ruinous state of the Weimar Republic before the Nazi rise to power. What he did with the power was horrible, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all the concepts are wrong.

Even more further, Hobbes saying that society needs authority figures doesn't even mean dictatorial authority figures in all cases. You can have a Hobbesean central authority legislating the populous without requiring that they be despots.

Though democrats may have not been successful, they did not kill people.

Um...there have been democratic nations involved in genocides, wars, concentration and internment camps, forced sterilization of the handicapped and many more things. I utterly don't get where you're getting this "Democratic nations have never done anything bad" idea from.

That is basically why I'm a Lockean.

So...to sum up, you believe in the precepts of Locke because Hitler and Stalin were bad, and Democratic people have never killed anybody?

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

Further, depending on your perspective, Hitler's government was a stunning success compared to the ruinous state of the Weimar Republic before the Nazi rise to power. What he did with the power was horrible, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all the concepts are wrong.

Probably 90% of them are wrong, for different reasons. False understandings of biology were prevalent in Nazi Germany, for example, as well as false understandings of economics. Plundering accumulated wealth and redistributing it might generate the impression of a successful economic plan, but it really isn't.

[rade0110]

Originally Posted by CAFK

In regards to Hobbes' thinking, although there may be an authority figure, there are going to be people who don't agree with that person's view, and might have their own definition of what's right and what's wrong. So how is an authority figure or a group of people going to be able to agree on certain laws that people live by if no one agrees with them?
Anyways, that's what I think.

You do realize you basically summed up how the US Government works right?

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Probably 90% of them are wrong, for different reasons. False understandings of biology were prevalent in Nazi Germany, for example, as well as false understandings of economics. Plundering accumulated wealth and redistributing it might generate the impression of a successful economic plan, but it really isn't.

Oh believe me, I'm happy to list all kinds of reasons why I think Hobbesean thought is not "right" My point was to state that 'Hobbes is bad because Hitler is bad" is not one of the valid reasons to object to Hobbes.

[Kilroy_x]

Heh, I thought you were talking about concepts used to support Hitlers regime. Hobbes is wrong in fewer ways for fewer reasons than Hitler.

[devonin]

Well, I was saying to "Hitler = Bad, Hitler = Hobbes; Hobbes = Bad" that I had issues with all three of those equalities. Both that Hitler's regime was universally and in all ways bad and negative -and- that Hitler's regime was somehow textbook Hobbesean thought, and that therefore, saying that the latter was bad because of the former was not good logic.