Page 1 of 3
#3
To use the ham sandwich analogy, it's keeps the ham together in one place, and keeps the ham organised. Without the bread, the ham is useless and falls apart. With the bread it is much more delicious and less messy.

How's that for a bitchin' analogy?


Quote by Spoonman69
Rap is music,far better than metal for example. id much rather hear about hoes and anal sex than dragons and supressed homosexuality.
#4
Quote by Stormx
Not this again. ffs.

How do you justify a ham sandwich?

We're not talking about anarchy. We're talking about Government.

If you haven't noticed, I prefer to provoke thought rather than to assert points in threads of mine, though I'm not consistent with it. It'll be fun.
#6
Quote by sk8nalmost1394
Social Contract-John Locke, google it.

I was originally going to make the OP the Social Contract theory, and Locke is not the only notable classical advocate.

Social contract theory is ridiculous to be fair. Explain to me how consent is a good why to justify Government, being very specific about the types of consent. I've never given consent to be Governed, nor have you.
#7
Quote by sk8nalmost1394
Social Contract-John Locke, google it.


oooh i saw that episode of lost on tv yesterday.
Quote by Ichikurosaki
sloth is hacking away feebly at the grass because he is a sloth but he was trying so hard ;_; hes all "penguin im HERE i am here to help you penguin"
#8
True, I haven't. I'm not saying it works or anything. I'm just saying that's how most people would justify a government.
#10
Social Contract? Wasn't that a justification of government. Going with Hobbes, it would mean that because humans pursue only self-interest, they need a government in order to keep them in check and help them accomplish something. Going with Locke, in a state of nature (or anarchy) people would mutually consent to having a goverment as it would allow them to achieve their goals by ensuring peace, liberty and security.

I would honestly add my own arguments but these guys long ago justified governments. Whether you're close to Locke's view of man or Hobbes', the bottom line remains that humans need governments to better accomplish the things we want in life.

EDIT:
Quote by sk8nalmost1394
Social Contract-John Locke, google it.


Aha, you almost beat me... but the social contract is much much older than Locke. I believe Hobbes first used the word in his book, Leviathan, on how a big strong centralized/monarcy type government is good. And the idea itself, is much much older.
Last edited by Limaj_daas at Dec 8, 2009,
#11
Quote by sk8nalmost1394
True, I haven't. I'm not saying it works or anything. I'm just saying that's how most people would justify a government.

A key basis of it is consent. That would say a lot about how good it is.

It's a bit shit really.
#12
Because without some sort of government, everything would go to shit, basically.
FALKIRK

We'll win something someday

Quote by Minkaro
Falkirk is the home of runners up.

Check out my Tunes
#13
Quote by Craigo
A key basis of it is consent. That would say a lot about how good it is.

It's a bit shit really.


Well, I think most people would consent to having a government in order to have their lives and rights protected.
#14
Quote by Limaj_daas
Social Contract? Wasn't that a justification of government. Going with Hobbes, it would mean that because humans pursue only self-interest, they need a government in order to keep them in check and help them accomplish something. Going with Locke, in a state of nature (or anarchy) people would mutually consent to having a goverment as it would allow them to achieve their goals by ensuring peace, liberty and security.

I would honestly add my own arguments but these guys long ago justified governments. Whether you're close to Locke's view of man or Hobbes', the bottom line remains that humans need governments to better accomplish the things we want in life.

The social contract theory is ridiculous.

It says that the people got together and choose to be ruled. That's not what happened. Many people got conquered and had leaders forced onto them. Communities that worked well without hierarchy were taken over because that's what some leaders do with their armies sometime. Most simple civilisations never mutually agreed to leadership.

Modern theorists go with tacit and hypothetical consent. The problem is, hell, anarchists can vote for Governments but it doesn't say that they wished to be Governed. It's a sway of influence in society which they'd be happy to do. Hypothetical is silly because it's just prescriptivism really.
#15
EDIT: My reply was to craigo, quoted the wrong person.
Well, I think consent or not, without governments, we're too disorderly. And plus, we have a tendency to try to align ourselves with someone. In the family you have whoever's the head of the family, in tribes you had the tribal leader, then in a collection of tribes you had a wise old sage who was the leader of that. Government is just a massive collection of "tribes" with a leader on top who can unify the efforts of each individual towards a common goal.
Last edited by Limaj_daas at Dec 8, 2009,
#16
I suppose you justify government if it honestly reflects what people desire to be legislated.

Government I think is designed to be the spine of society, while separate states develop the rib cage and support and protect the heart of the people.
That's the best metaphor I could contrive.
Last edited by Z_cup_boy at Dec 8, 2009,
#17
Quote by sk8nalmost1394
Well, I think most people would consent to having a government in order to have their lives and rights protected.

But they haven't consented.

And even if they were asked, would they say 'yes'? They might want a completely different political arrangement so may say 'no'.
#19
Quote by hugh20
To use the ham sandwich analogy, it's keeps the ham together in one place, and keeps the ham organised. Without the bread, the ham is useless and falls apart. With the bread it is much more delicious and less messy.

How's that for a bitchin' analogy?


That was indeed a bitchin' analogy.
Sunn O))):
Quote by Doppelgänger
You could always just sleep beside your refrigerator.

Guitar:
- Ibanez S670FM w/ JB
- Fender 'Lite Ash' Stratocaster
- Fender '72 Deluxe Telecaster
- Arbiter LP Jr. Doublecut
Amp:
- Laney VC15

'72 Tele Appreciation Group
RIP DIO
#20
Quote by Random88
Because without some sort of government, everything would go to shit, basically.

How does the Government have authoritative rights over people?
Quote by Limaj_daas
Well, I think consent or not, without governments, we're too disorderly. And plus, we have a tendency to try to align ourselves with someone. In the family you have whoever's the head of the family, in tribes you had the tribal leader, then in a collection of tribes you had a wise old sage who was the leader of that. Government is just a massive collection of "tribes" with a leader on top who can unify the efforts of each individual towards a common goal.

Many, if not most Native American tribes were anarchist. They had no formal hierarchy. There was some authority, but it was communal and not based on leadership.
#22
Quote by Craigo
But they haven't consented.

And even if they were asked, would they say 'yes'? They might want a completely different political arrangement so may say 'no'.


I know they haven't consented. That would be rediculous to say. I also know that in the beginning, no one would have consented. Humanity worked fine without governments until they were conquered by one, formed one, etc. Also whatever arrangement they want, they would still be consenting, just to a different system but a system all the same.
#23
Quote by sk8nalmost1394
Well, I think most people would consent to having a government in order to have their lives and rights protected.

Many people dissent against Government to have their lives and rights protected. Maybe you need to talk about the Government itself.
#24
Quote by sk8nalmost1394
I know they haven't consented. That would be rediculous to say. I also know that in the beginning, no one would have consented. Humanity worked fine without governments until they were conquered by one, formed one, etc. Also whatever arrangement they want, they would still be consenting, just to a different system but a system all the same.

*ridiculous

Clarify yourself.
#25
Quote by Craigo
But they haven't consented.

And even if they were asked, would they say 'yes'? They might want a completely different political arrangement so may say 'no'.

consent by conduct.

there's always revolution.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#26
Quote by Craigo
Many people dissent against Government to have their lives and rights protected. Maybe you need to talk about the Government itself.


Well when they dissent it's because the government isn't doing it's job and technically is no longer legitimate(if we're going with Locke).
#27
Quote by Lemoninfluence
consent by conduct.

there's always revolution.

That's tacit consent. I've already talked about this. Many anarchists vote in elections, it says nothing about their consent for Government.
#28
Quote by sk8nalmost1394
Well when they dissent it's because the government isn't doing it's job and technically is no longer legitimate(if we're going with Locke).

Then define a legitimate Government.

EDIT: Final post for now. Off to do some work
#29
...eh? What kind of government are we talking about here? A democracy, communist, monarchy.....
A government of apples over the rebellious orange population?
Tool
Sleep
Gojira
Puscifer
Neurosis
Sunn O)))
Meshuggah
Modest Mouse
Electric Wizard
Mammoth Grinder


Lucid Dreaming Thread
#30
I know they haven't consented. That would be rediculous to say. I also know that in the beginning, no one would have consented. Humanity worked fine without governments until they were conquered by one, formed one, etc. Also whatever arrangement they want, they would still be consenting, just to a different system but a system all the same.


What I meant was: If you go back in history, most tribes or communities didn't really have government. It wasn't one president/leader/king telling everyone what to do. It was mostly councils and such that made decisions about things like warfare.
#32
Actually, my next final post.
Quote by chaos13
...eh? What kind of government are we talking about here? A democracy, communist, monarchy.....
A government of apples over the rebellious orange population?

A Communist Government is an oxymoron. Communism is anarchy by definition.

And any Government. You want to say what a legitimate Government is, go ahead.
#33
Quote by Craigo
Then define a legitimate Government
.

A legitimate government is one that protects the rights of it's people.
#34
Quote by Craigo
How does the Government have authoritative rights over people?

Many, if not most Native American tribes were anarchist. They had no formal hierarchy. There was some authority, but it was communal and not based on leadership.

Well, no they still had their tribal chiefs but anyways, due to their anarchy, they were utterly wiped out. They refused to unite against a common threat until it was much too late.

http://www.nanations.com/chieftains/

I'm not saying that anarchy is bad or anything but it is better to have a government because if we're all heading towards a common goal, then it becomes easier to achieve them.
#35
Quote by Craigo
That's tacit consent. I've already talked about this. Many anarchists vote in elections, it says nothing about their consent for Government.

then they are consenting by their conduct.

they don't have to vote.

they don't have to live here.

They don't have to sit back and accept anything.

There's no way you can please everyone.
Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433
Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.
#36
Quote by Stormx
How do you justify a ham sandwich?

Yeah! I mean what the hell?!

Anyway, enough of that. To paraphrase Lysander Spooner, if you compare government to a thief, you find that a thief jumps out and yells "your money, or your life." He/she will not pretend to be anything other than what they are, a thief.
Government, on the other hand, pretends it wants to protect you in exchange for money (when you have your own gun). Government is a thief disguised as protection, when they really don't protect us at all.
#37
Dammit.
Quote by duggyrocks
Yes. I would probably steal everything instead of getting off my ass and earning it if there wasn't any consequences

Then you're straight up being naive. If I stole from someone in a 'state of nature', I will have consequences. What would you do if someone stole from you? You'd try to get your stuff back wouldn't you? That's a consequence.

If hypothetically too all the men in the community recognised each other as worthy of consideration, not to be hurt or stolen from, then people can get by. If you break it, you're liable to face consequences for it.
#38
Quote by Lemoninfluence
then they are consenting by their conduct.

they don't have to vote.

they don't have to live here.

They don't have to sit back and accept anything.

There's no way you can please everyone.

Choosing a preference to a lesser evil is not saying 'I think evil should occur'. Same with anarchists who vote. Also, if Party A hates unions and Party B wants good labour laws, wouldn't anarchists vote party B to help themselves?

And sometimes people have to live here, but blah blah.
#39
Quote by Craigo
I was originally going to make the OP the Social Contract theory, and Locke is not the only notable classical advocate.

Social contract theory is ridiculous to be fair. Explain to me how consent is a good why to justify Government, being very specific about the types of consent. I've never given consent to be Governed, nor have you.


You use roads don't you? the NHS? You recieve tax benefits? A Pension? Education? You vote?
This is the idea of tacit consent. Even though no formal contract has ever taken place in which you consent to be governed, you consent implicitly by using public services. Some people take issue with this idea, but tbh, humans, being essentially rational, would never choose to live in a state of anarchy as our freedom would be much more curtailed than it is now, and our lives would be 'nasty, poor, brutish and short' according to Hobbes.
#40
Quote by Swifty.
You use roads don't you? the NHS? You recieve tax benefits? A Pension? Education? You vote?
This is the idea of tacit consent. Even though no formal contract has ever taken place in which you consent to be governed, you consent implicitly by using public services. Some people take issue with this idea, but tbh, humans, being essentially rational, would never choose to live in a state of anarchy as our freedom would be much more curtailed than it is now, and our lives would be 'nasty, poor, brutish and short' according to Hobbes.

*bangs head on desk*
Page 1 of 3