|
|
#21 | |
|
is against custom titles
|
Quote:
And chicken, the societies about which I was talking (pretty much all band/village/chiefdom/state societies that I can think of dating from thousands of years ago to the present) selected their leader willingly. Sure there are some societies who didn't have a contractual agreement between ruler and subjects, and Hobbes was most certainly right in his situation, but it's too much of a stretch to apply that generally where Locke's ideas are much more fitting. --Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Away from Computer
|
It's not what the founding fathers said, its what the government IS. This can be interpreted multiple ways.
Also, guido. It's not a stretch to apply Hobbes' ideas there. Locke's ideas aren't most fitting in many many cases. You can't stretch them either. Take the middle ages for example. people would fight for whatever government gave them the most food and protection. Mercenaries were used throughout history as people without a counry who fought for whoever paid/fed them. These are people who are just going for survival- not in any society, and they are ruthless. The Romans hired barbarian mercinaries (who turned against them). The British East India company hired Indian mercenaries to do their work. All these people are people without government, who act in a very hobbesian way. Do whatever it takes to help yourself. They didn't have any allegiance to a nation. This goes against Locke's idea that they would get together and form a government, as these people would much rather kill each other to get food and money. Also, I would just like to add that it isn't something that can be different at different periods. We are talking about the State of Nature. The Nature of Man, how people would act if there was no society. Would we kill our neighbors to steal their money if we didn't like them(remember no government to stop us), or would we work together to prevent chaos? Also you could look at the big picture and say that on a large scale we are still like that. The fact that the whole world is split up shows this. Countries constantly try to attack each other because they don't like each other. They don't work together. They try, but they, never really trust each other. There is a reason why our world is split up into so many countries. There may be alliances, but it is not the same as being unified. this isn't something that changes over time
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northeasterly
Age: 31
Posts: 401
|
I prefer not to think about it to hard, but I really have to go with Locke. I like his whole thing of life liberty and the pursuit of property as our basic rights. Hell, we founded our nation on it, didn't we? Plus, I'm sorta anti-totalitarianism, preferring to believe that the people will make the right decision most of the time. We just need a little constitution to keep us from shafting the minorities, and we're set.
__________________
How has it been 15 years |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|