I think it is extremely rare that people think they need to be governed, as if they had no conscience, manners, or instinct. — NOS4A2

Where do you think conscience and manners arise from? Do you think they're magic universals breathed into our beings by sole virtue of us being human? Isn't it obvious they're socially contextualized with part of that context being that we live in highly structured states? The Plains Indians were about as close to stateless as described by your delusional utopia. As it happens, they tortured their enemies to death as a matter of routine. Yes, they had consciences and manners, just not any that someone like yourself, riddled with state morality, would recognize.

I don't feel like this is the way I want to live, considering that human beings have their own internal morality and, especially as adults, already know how to live and how to behave. — Silvia parmigiani

Reads like satire.

NOS should write a post-apocalyptic movie script where everyone is polite to each other and everything works out just fine and dandy. He can call it "Nice Max".

I started reading Oppenheimer’s The State. A problem appears early in the Preface:

The community, to use Toennies' term, changed into a "society." "Contract" seemed to be the only bond that held men together--the contract based on the purely rationalistic' relation of service for service the do ut des, the "Contraf Social" of Rousseau. A "society" would thus: appear to be a union of self-seeking individuals who hoped through combination to obtain their personal satisfactions, Aristotle had taught that the State had developed, by gradual growth, from the family group. The Stoics and Epicureans held individuals formed the State--with this difference, that the former viewed the individual as being socially inclined by nature, and the latter that he was naturally antisocial. — Oppenheimer, The State

While that description of exchange might apply to Locke's 'natural' community, it is a complete misrepresentation of Rousseau's understanding of the natural man. The second part of the Discourse on the Origin and the Foundations of Inequality Among Men begins with:

The first man who, after enclosing a piece of land, got the idea of saying This is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, what wars, what murders, what miseries and horrors would someone have spared the human race by pulling out the stakes or filling in the ditch and crying out to his fellows, “Stop listening to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the land belong to everyone and the earth belongs to no one.” But it appears very likely that by this time things had already come to the point where they could no longer continue as they were. For this idea of property depends on many previous ideas that could only have arisen in succession and thus was not formed in the human mind all at once. A good deal of progress was necessary: men had to acquire significant industry and enlightenment, and transmit and increase them from one era to the next, before arriving at this last stage in the state of nature. So let us take up these matters from the beginning and try to gather from a single perspective this slow sequence of events and knowledge in their most natural order. — Jean Jacques Rousseau, translated by Ian Johnston

The introduction of transactions between 'self-seeking individuals' is the beginning of inequality. The terms of that change from natural to social is the "Contract" Rousseau is referring to, not a deal between free agents for mutual gain.

Rousseau specifically addresses the difference of agency on either side of the contract in his discussion of amour propre. Here is a note of his on the matter:

(15) One must not confuse amour propre with amour de soi-même, two very different passions in their natures and in their effects. Amour de soi-même is a natural feeling that inclines every animal to see to its own preservation and which, guided in man by reason and modified by pity, produces humanity and virtue. Amour propre is only a relative feeling, factitious and born in society, which inclines each individual to be preoccupied with himself more than with anyone else, which inspires in men all the evils they do to each other, and which is the real source of honour.

Once this is well understood, I say that in our primitive condition, in the true state of nature, amour propre does not exist. For since each individual man looks at himself as the only spectator who observes him, as the only being in the universe who takes an interest in him, and as the only judge of his own merit, it is impossible that a sentiment that originates from comparisons, which he has no inclination to make, could spring up in his soul. For the same reason, this man could have neither hatred nor desire for vengeance, passions that can arise only from the feeling of some offense he has received. And since it is scorn or the intention to harm and not the evil itself that constitutes the offense, men who do not know either how to assess or to compare themselves can commit a great deal of violence against each other when there is some advantage to them in doing so, without ever offending each other. In a word, since each man hardly looks at his fellow men except in the way he would look at animals of a different species, he can carry off the prey of the weaker man or yield his to the stronger, without seeing these acts of plunder as anything other than natural events, without the least impulse of insolence or bitterness and without any passion other than the pain or joy at a good or a bad outcome. — ibid.

Oppenheimer does go on to make interesting observations of how the 'state of nature' philosophers were used for other than their intended purposes but that is not worth pursuing until this fundamental mistake is addressed.

.

Why must you be governed? — NOS4A2

Because I was born into a society. That society that allowed the events of my safe birth to take place did not arise organically and is not a permanent, intrinsic feature of reality. Long story short, people think "biting the hand that feeds them" doesn't apply after it already did and allowed them to possess some semblance of independence. Doesn't work that way. In terms folks like that would best understand, every habitable inch on Earth is "taken" by people who vote "society" and they outnumber you. Sorry. lol

Keep in mind, anyone tempted to give this thread an ounce of respect, NOS's mannerly folks with consciences who wouldn't dream of messing with your garden and who resolve all disputes through the friendly use of reason and so don't require authorities to control them include his neighbourly libertarian buddies who ran riot at the Capitol, beating up police officers and threatening to kill those inside... Because an angry orange man told them to.

I think there were very fine people on both sides, Baden.

Is it the case that this kind of political discussion hinges mostly on a judgement made about human behavior?

Are you saying that when he told me:

Also, I do not nor have not called for a change in the future world order. — NOS4A2

that he was not being honest?

Is it the case that this kind of political discussion hinges mostly on a judgement made about human behavior? — Tom Storm

It hinges on a fairly basic understanding of human behaviour, biology, society, culture, and history. There is no "manners" or "conscience" DNA that separates us from other humans who routinely tortured, raped and killed each other when it was to their advantage to do so. Our sense of ourselves as subjects, our experience of individuality, and our sense of morality may vary but are predominantly socially constructed. And the state is an intrinsic part of the social machine that has constructed us. It's entirely disingenuous then for this manufactured subject to imagine it can lift itself out of its own moral boots by its own moral bootstraps and declare it has no need of the source from and through which it speaks in any coherent moral tongue.

that he was not being honest? — Paine

:zip:

Incidentally, the fact that people in states have the luxury of presuming that people in general are cooperative and kind etc and can get along without states, as @NOS4A2 supposedly believes, is itself a great argument for the existence of states. This pollyannaish illusion could never last long without them.

Yes it seems so to me too. Nicely worded.

anyone tempted to give this thread an ounce of respect — Baden

You learn to separate the art from the artist. After all, were it not for the hectic world we live in and the idiosyncrasies it creates within ourselves we arguably wouldn't need art to begin with. A major unexamined tenet of popular non-deistic theist belief is in few words the idea that anything created or used for malice or ill-intent is or will ultimately be used for good (ie. workers of inequity produce naught, the lion will lay with the lamb, etc) and so encourage people to look for the good in everything and everyone, if not for strategic purposes and advancement of positive social change. Looking at things that way, that's not so bad now is it?

Not why should men be governed, but why must we be? It's a fair question, if not situation dependent. One asked by many an oppressed, decent man. Some of the obvious answers that may come to mind ie. burden sharing, united we stand divided we fall, teamwork makes the dream work, etc. may start to fall short to honest inquiry derived from pondering the numerous travesties committed by governments over the years as well as other, simpler forms of civilization that - while they were around - seemed to have done "just fine" with their own socially-derived customs and practices that purportedly kept most of the negative occurrences mentioned as rationale by supporters of "big government" at bay.

So, why must we be governed?

I don't object to a charitable reworking of the thread. And hey, the plasticity of individual morality and social norms in the face of varying societal and environmental contexts is an indelible mark of the adaptivity that has made us the undisputed kings of the animal kingdom. So, we need not be governed but we are better when we are if we define "better" by such prosaic considerations as security, health, life expectancy, shelter, etc. If, however, one's Trump card is "freedom" then one may take a long walk in the woods and just not come back...

I reiterate: it's a stupid question.

"Governed," to the corporatist, is to be forever infantilized. Might as well be asking, "Why MUST you always need mommy around?"

That's the frame. And that's why it's stupid.

Where do you think conscience and manners arise from? Do you think they're magic universals breathed into our beings by sole virtue of us being human? Isn't it obvious they're socially contextualized with part of that context being that we live in highly structured states? The Plains Indians were about as close to stateless as described by your delusional utopia. As it happens, they tortured their enemies to death as a matter of routine. Yes, they had consciences and manners, just not any that someone like yourself, riddled with state morality, would recognize.

And there we have it. “State morality”.

Personally, I wasn’t raised by the state, nor did I socialize with bureaucrats and politicians in my formative years. We have tried law, compulsion, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and statism of various kinds, but the result is nothing to be proud of.

It is interesting though to poke at this sentiment: Why must you be governed? I have manners and conscience, which are constant and impregnable, you clearly do not. Isn't this self-righteous "I", reflected in the social, the kernel of all "us" vs "them" mentalities? No doubt many of the rioters that attacked the Capitol believe they don't need to be governed, that they have manners and consciences, and were doing only what was necessary to protect themselves from the corrupt "other" and its "state morality". Sweep them back in time and they are a tribe of Plains Indians or Vikings, fully equipped with manners, consciences, and compassion (for their own), securing and protecting their interests; the torture, rape, and terror only a different level of necessity. We may even turn NOS's thesis on its head and say those who say they don't need to be governed, demonstrate the need for governance most as their projection on themselves of a false exception proves most pointedly the need for common rules. Of course, I don't need to be governed, I am of divine moral purity and have no need for state morality; it is you, the plebs, the evil ones, who require external constraints...

We have tried law .... but the result is nothing to be proud of. — NOS4A2

Please remember this line the next time you try to pull your "law and order" stuff. Not so much "defund the police" as just get rid of them completely. It'll be fine, really. :lol:

It is interesting though to poke at this sentiment: Why must you be governed? I have manners and conscience, which are constant and impregnable, you clearly do not. Isn't this self-righteous "I", reflected in the social, the kernel of all "us" vs "them" mentalities? No doubt many of the rioters that attacked the Capitol believe they don't need to be governed, that they have manners and consciences, and were doing only what was necessary to protect themselves from the corrupt "other" and its "state morality". Sweep them back in time and they are a tribe of Plains Indians or Vikings, fully equipped with manners, consciences, and compassion (for their own), securing and protecting their interests; the torture, rape, and terror only a different level of necessity. We may even turn NOS's thesis on its head and say those who say they don't need to be governed, demonstrate the need for governance most as their projection on themselves of a false exception proves most pointedly the need for common rules. Of course, I don't need to be governed, I am of divine moral purity and have no need for state morality; it is you, the plebs, the evil ones, who require external constraints...

That’s an odd projection, especially since I have already admitted that I do not believe people actually need or want to be governed, that they wish only for others to be governed. The answers to the question have confirmed my suspicions. You keep mentioning the violence of aboriginals and Vikings, for instance, which serves as a good reminder that people need states to protect them the barbarians at the gates. It’s invariably someone else who needs to be governed.

I have also explicitly assumed people here are adults, that they have fully developed moralities, so much so that I wager their professed hostility to another’s property is fake.

they have fully developed moralities — NOS4A2

What is a "fully developed morality" and where does it come from under your view? Do you see it as present in most human adults in roughly equal proportion regardless of historical, cultural and political context? Or what are you trying to say? Please elaborate.

I assume that adults have some semblance of right and wrong which they develop as they age.

I'll repeat the question:

What is a "fully developed morality" and where does it come from under your view? Do you see it as present in most human adults in roughly equal proportion regardless of historical, cultural and political context?

If you can't answer this, you have no basis for anything you've said here.

A fully developed morality is a set of principles of conduct and behavior. It develops as one ages. Yes.

Again, you are saying nothing. Obviously morality pertains to conduct and behaviour and develops with age.

Here's the question:

What is a "fully developed morality" and where does it come from under your view? Do you see it as present in most human adults in roughly equal proportion regardless of historical, cultural and political context? — Baden

Address the role of social, political and historical context re morality. Address its origin.

It is interesting though to poke at this sentiment: Why must you be governed? — Baden

Eh, it’s the same nonsense dressed up in different clothes. Government bad. Individual good. Statism. Fruits of one’s labor. Taxes. :yawn:

All you have to do is look at the results: voting for and defending the likes of Donald Trump. The rest is just elaborate rationalizations.

elaborate rationalizations. — Mikie

I wish. There's not even that. So far, utterly devoid of developed arguments. Says stuff, doesn't know what he's saying, can't back it up. Two-dimensionally political from every angle. That's why his threads are generally a waste of time.

Well you only say this because you’re a statist, blinded by statist indoctrination.

Statism. That’s the real enemy.

There— I just summed up this thread. And every one of his threads. One-trick pony.

I wish. There's not even that. So far, utterly devoid of arguments. Says stuff, doesn't know what he's saying, can't back it up. Two-dimensionally political from every angle. That's why his threads are generally a waste of time.

And here you both are, wasting your time, in everyone of my threads. I just want to talk about this stuff. Why are you both here?

NOS was brought up in a state all his life, enjoyed all the benefits, but somehow managed to avoid getting one of those "state moralities" that he says we have. He seems to consider his non-state morality to be one of those things you can just refuse to define and whose origins require no theory or explanation. And in the same breath claims:

I just want to talk about this stuff. — NOS4A2

The evidence suggests otherwise. But we'll try again for the third time.

What is a "fully developed morality" and where does it come from under your view? Do you see it as present in most human adults in roughly equal proportion regardless of historical, cultural and political context?
— Baden

Address the role of social, political and historical context re morality. Address its origin. — Baden

This isn’t an interview. I’ve expressed my views and you can shit on them all you want. If you wish to speak in the topic I’m all ears.

If you're unable to answer pertinent questions on a thread you started, don't start the thread. Anyhow, I'm out and will leave moderation to others.

I just want to talk about this stuff. — NOS4A2

This isn’t an interview. — NOS4A2

:up: