Are we capable of civilized interaction without laws and governments or is freedom the price to pay for security from each other?
>>1223443
>Are we capable of civilized interaction without laws and governments
no
>>1223443
Do you act civilized because you will go to jail otherwise or because you feel like it?
>>1223443
Every anthropological evidence points out to this : Humans, by nature, are dirty animals who would love to bash each other's heads for any particular reason of survival. The only way to civilize people is to impose order on them.
>>1223465
provide the anthropological evidence you refer to
>>1223464
Personally I feel I wouldnt commit a crime even if i knew i wouldnt get caught
>>1223443
Essential liberty and security have a correlation, but that doesn't include "freedom" which is subjective in such a connotation. In the west, we contend each individual to have specific rights inherent to exist as a member of "humankind", these are, properly interpreted, the right to "live" and the right to "be happy".
As a matter of fact, liberties which are not specifically essential, are particularly damaging to both the interior and exterior security of a society. If one argues "I am not free if I cannot wantonly kill and steal" they would, in practice, infringe on the essential liberty of others, and if we allow this to be representative of our culture as a whole, we're asking for our own essential liberties to be restricted by those who take offense.
>>1223465
That seems intuitively incorrect tho. I feel like there are plenty of cases in which one individual might forego their lives for the sake of another, a wife for a husband or vice versa, perhaps a soldier for a comrade.
>>1223443
Small societies are, but then they get conquered and enslaved by a greater power that is willing to use force.
>>1223464
If I knew I wouldn't get caught, I'd steal left and right and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
Hell I'm already doing it with internet piracy.
There being some people who would behave civilly without civilization does in no way imply that everyone would be like that. In fact, you only need a very small minority of "evil" doers do destroy whatever sort of anarchist utopia you can think of.
Besides, I do wonder how much of that civilized behaviour came from actually having been brought up in a civilized society. Would those same people behave the same if they had grown up wild? I don't think so.
Why are the only options complete faith in humanity versus no faith in humanity?
Why can't we recognize that some people will be assholes and some will have compassion, while most people will just be bystanders letting those two duke it out?
>>1223709
Everything about human behavior comes from upbringing. That doesn't mean the default human state is that of selfishness.
>>1223741
>muh tabula rasa
It's literally a religious belief. Impossible to prove and disprove.
>>1223739
Because those assholes always take shit to a logical extreme.
Literally why we can't have nice things.
>>1223739
Because sitting back and letting assholes be assholes is the same as being an asshole yourself.
I think people want to behave kindly towards each other, but it fails because they think they need to cheat before they get cheated, and people know that other people think that, and so on.
>>1223763
>Impossible to prove and disprove.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_%28feral_child%29
Ok. Please enlighten us to what kind of knowledge this child had innately.
No. Rousseau was the ultimate meme and basically paved the way for anarcho autism.
Hobbes was absolutely right. Not only are we savages that bash each others heads in, we also inevitably seek out hierarchy for precisely this reason. Every anarchist system will always evolve into an authoritarian one.
>>1223876
Pure ideology.
civilized interaction without laws only really works when shit like wealth inequality doesnt exist. if everyone knows that rational individuals would have no logical reason to harm them or steal from them, laws become quite unnecessary, as crime is only really committed by people who are crazy, who can be identified fairly easily. yes it wouldnt be perfect but neither is the current system.
the obvious problem is that when one individual is a lot wealthier than other individuals it makes economic sense for people to steal from them and threaten them. furthermore when one individual is a lot less wealthy than most people it again makes economic sense for them to steam from most people. then once you have a group of criminals in society they will drive each other to be more brutal as well as organizing so they can commit crime better. against this you basically need laws and governments.
also the government sets up shit like currency and regulations so there can be a capitalist free market, if that what floats your boat
>>1223443
Quite posible if we can stop being hypocrites & living by the basic human laws
>>1223443
All things' existence is contingent on an endless number of other factors. Human individuals are not inherently selfish or inherently selfless by definition; the degree of civility or ruthlessness a person holds is dependent upon an incredibly vast network of social, psychological, biological, cultural, etc. influences.
>>1223873
>Knowledge
Nice job putting words in his mouth.
The critique isn't that the slate already has words on it, it's just that you've neglected to notice what the slate is made of, it's condition, what method of writing you're using, and what language you're writing in.
>>1223443
Yes.
Look at organized criminals and the ways they motivate gang members to stay loyal, "respect" is similar to "honor" etcetera.
Leaders of these groups distribute authority, rewards and punishments in an ad-hoc manner, a subordinate cannot have too much authority, but the leader has to delegate for practical reasons, someone with a lot of wealth already might only feel rewarded by being given more power, they also have to prevent jealousy and bickering.
This system is unstable and negotiations can break down however.
>is freedom the price to pay for security from each other
Being at the mercy of bandits is often less freedom than paying taxes to a state.
>>1223908
>it's just that you've neglected to notice what the slate is made of, it's condition, what method of writing you're using, and what language you're writing in.
What does this mean? I mean, I understand the grammar, but I don't get your analogy at all.
>>1223920
You're neglecting culture, religion, class, caste, geography, diet, genetics, culture again, etc.
People aren't these magical constructs that exist separate from their environment. There are millions of factors that affect who we are and many of them are biochemical (before someone has an autistic fit, keep in mind how you get crabby when you haven't had your tendies).
>>1223927
>You're neglecting culture, religion, class, caste, geography, diet, genetics, culture again, etc.
I'm not at all, because all of those things are learned knowledge. Nobody is born with a conception of culture, religion, class, caste, or anything else.
Knowledge is gained, and it's not innate.
>>1223936
You're still neglecting genetics, diet, and environment.
>>1223940
No I am not, because they are only contingent, not necessary factors.
A person can have a gene for X disease, and still never get it, or have the gene for X behavior, and never act that way.
You're mistaking my insistence on the tabula rasa for denial of biological causality, which is ridiculous. But I would argue that most things humans do, come about through social situations, and not because of genetics.
The thing is if there are no laws, smart 'alphas' would just organize 'beta's into groups with inside laws to foster order and organization. They would win out eventually because of their efficiency.
>>1223443
>Are we capable of civilized interaction
Rousseau never argued that to be quite honest famiglia. He argued that in the natural state there was no property, no civilization, no knowledge of virtue nor vice. Man wasn't inherrently good, he was more or less animalistic in a romantic sense. He ate, slept and fucked like most animals.
Personally I'm more inclined to agree with Hobbes on the natural state of man, but with Rousseau on his conclusions. Though Plato got it better than both of the aforementioned to be honest. He pointed out scarcity as the main driving factor for conflict in humanity. And when does scarcity arise? When someone puts up a fence and says "this is mine", someone puts up another fence and says "this is mine" and after a while everyone starts putting up fences. Some people end with nothing due to scarcity, others have some but want more.
I don't like Rousseau's glorification of primitive man, but I like his state model more than that of Hobbes.
Also, why aren't we discussing Locke? Locke vs Rousseau is a much more interesting discussion, considering neither of them were authoritarians and both agreed that the social contract was a more or less voluntary engagement one could overthrow or leave if unsatisfied with it. [spoiler]To be honest, other than "muh noble savage" I don't even see the difference between the two[/spoiler]
>>1223464
The amount of crime I would commit if I knew I wouldn't get caught, my God
You don't even know
>"human nature" is defined by the condition and behavior of humans absent the State and society
Shit Tier Philosophy
>>1223944
The reality is that as animals they are biologically incentivized to be selfish.
>>1223464
Because of the jail.
>>1223876
>we also inevitably seek out hierarchy for precisely this reason. Every anarchist system will always evolve into an authoritarian one.
t. assumptionist pro
>>1223443
Isn't this kind of a analytic question? Isn't "having laws" what "being civilized" means? It sounds kinda like asking "can we have a state without a government?" or something. I mean, at least theoretically you could have a "bunch of nice non-savage people" without laws, but the word "civilized" implies you have a group which can actually be called a civilization.
Technically speaking though, all governing systems are just constructions which emerge from anarchy and are placed overtop of it. Civilization comes from anarchy and exists within a physically anarchic reality either way.
>Did the man who invented society live in a society?
>>1224942
That's kindof a dumbed down version of hobbes.
What hobbes is really arguing is that humans are inherently selfish, but by being both selfish and shortsighted, we do harm to one another and thus ourselves, and as beings which are still selfish, we realize that the smarter way to be selfish would be to sacrifice a little selfishness. From repeatedly trying to touch the hot stove for hedonistic reasons, we learn "hey, that fucking hurts," and for equally hedonistic reasons we try different methods.
Hobbes just isn't enough of a verbal nitpick to use a word less stupid than "nature," since most would argue that everything is technically natural.
>>1223464
The problem is that 1 out of every 100 humans is a sociopath who only follow the rules because of fear of punishment.
If there were no official punishment system those 1/100's would ruin civilization for those who have things like empathy.
>>1223464
A little bit of both, depends on what law we're talking about
I wouldn't want to assume everyones the same as me though
>>1223443
Sometimes i feel like killing people that piss me off really badly. But then i remember that i would go to jail if i did it
>>1223464
Considering I go out of my way to be considerate even when there would be no consequences for being an asshole simply because I'd fucking hate to be on the receiving end of assholery, I'd say the second.
>>1226240
I'm pretty sure the other 99 would just unofficially punish them.
>>1227551
But what about socio/psycopath businessmen protected by the law?
>>1223472
Not that guy but almost every single creation story of the earliest civilizations involved the process of civilizing men and imposing order upon a chaotic world.
>>1227557
Well, without systems of punishment, would they really be protected by law? I think the natural conclusion is just that some form of law would move in to fill the void.
>>1224959
Rationally selfish - in the sense that if collective action is ultimately a net gain than unselfish behaviour might proliferate.
>>1226111
Not everyone is a free spirit/ubermensch who can face the realities of life. I know I'm not.
>>1223443
Individuals are, groups are not.
>>1223465
This is misconceiving. Men aren't naturally aggressive, they're naturally primal. They're brash and instinctive. When we fear, self-preservation kicks in. When we are angry, we become violent. When we are envious, we take.
But why do we help others? All logic dictates that if your life is in danger, your survival instincts kick in. If so, then why would those dehydrated share their water? Why would someone risk their own life to save another's?
Humans are neither good, nor evil. Whether in nature or society. Humans are just that: Human.
>>1223464
A little bit choice a) and a little bit choice b)
>>1223443
>Are we capable of civilized interaction without laws and governments
Yes, it's called honour, an honour code. In all cultures without centralised and perhaps intrusive laws and government, a high code of honour, social law, develops.
>>1223443
Neither Hobbes nor Rousseau was entirely right. Humans are capable of peaceful interaction without laws and governments, but they do not maintain this at all times. Humans are programmed instinctually to take both social and antisocial actions depending mostly on circumstances and somewhat on personality (agreeableness) or internal disposition, if you will. But of course in some cases people have particular mental conditions that greatly incline them one way or another.
To achieve peace among men, first you need a government to enforce laws against destructive antisocial behaviors such as the use of force and the taking of property (but of course this government must limited, or else conflict will ensue in opposition to it). Cooperation (or at least non-aggression and self-sustention) becomes the most rational choice in such a situation. And some will object that men are not rational, but when it comes to practical matters, they generally are. I grant that men are irrational when it comes to abstract matters.
Other factors that help in achieving peace are a culture that encourages cooperation, honesty, and trust, as well as an economy that can provide for the satiation of the desires of men through cooperation and exchange, that is, a market economy, preferably a free market economy, which has been proven the best system in theory and practice.
social cohesion + well being (health+education) > freedom memes and anarchy
>>1223488
There are two types of relationship familial and foreign. With friends and family the familial do gooder instincts with dominate but with strangers antisocial instincts are more likely to dominate, especially when institutional incentives are neutral with regard to force and fraud.
>>1223464
Both, and I imagine that's true for most people
>>1223465
You could not be more objectively wrong. Cooperation and friendship are by far the strongest forces in the human psyche.
Consider every evil, brutal human to live and you will find that not a single one acted without a desire for protecting his own people, or protecting his status, or acquiring status among others. These are the actions of animals with a deep compulsion for acceptance and kinship.
>>1223443
both
Most people can be civil without the enforcement of rules of laws, and usually will be, but not all of them-- and, crucially, not forever. If there's never judgment, if there's never reckoning, much of "civilized society" falls apart-- not all of it, and not immediately, but it's happened countless times; it's human nature.
>>1230271
The upshot of this is that people try to form order and rules to combat this eventuality. They also try to form order just because it feels good to have it; that's also human nature.
>>1230280
Maybe when you have no friends
>>1230303
I would like my friend to be my whole world, but there are also murderers and rapists who i want nothing to do with.
>>1230334
If we are talking about human nature it is, by definition, the same in everyone. Are murderers and rapists not compelled by the same set of emotions as the rest of us?
>>1230351
No they are not, they are aberrations; God's little mistakes who are worse than the rest of us.
>>1230358
Little man, take your bait elsewhere
>>1230386
thanks for your opinion mr. serial murderer
>>1223443
Civilized interaction is the source of all law.
Think of it like this: If you gave law and government to a pack of lions would it civilise them? No. They would just behave like lions.
Civilized interaction is how humans behave, if we were all lions society would have been destroyed long ago.
