>>395640
probably

>>395640
No

>>395640
Depends.

>>395640
Potentially

>>395640
Can you repeat the question?

>>395640
Perhaps.

We need authority to protect us from others. As far as I'm concerned, the most important freedom is enfranchisement, less about the specific freedoms enfranchisement gives. If you are enfranchised, you can move to change what freedoms you have as a society. If you are disenfranchised, others who are enfranchised will take advantage of your powerlessness and is a bigger threat to freedom.

>>395841
>>397991
>>397995
>>398005
>>400476
>>400504
Fuck off.

Authority and governance is a requirement to keep control over your standard human, else greed and lust for power and sex would go rampant, and any hope of going past quarreling and strife would be difficult. As it is people merely quarrel while still progressing somewhat, generating heaps of power for the untouchable few who are in power, assuring future development of our civilization. Whether this is good or not can certainly be disputed, humans are pretty trash anyway.

>>395640
Anarchists believe we don't have too.
Besides them most people do agree that we need a government, I wouldn't say it is needed to protect us from ourselves but rather to further our cause and fulfill our needs.

Note that this doesn't really apply to tribal societies without large urban centers.

One more thing, do you consider a direct democracy an authority?

>>400535
>humans are pretty trash
Why do people keep saying this? We're the #1 living species
>b-b-but we kill each other
Yeah and the difference between us and animals and that animals also do it but know neither guilt nor a penal system

This is like saying your first world country is pretty trash because it's not an utopia

>>400535
The Standard human hasn't had a government for what 90.000 years or so?

Large societies and civilization need authority to keep them from being shitheads, you haven't got that much room to do corrupt shit in a Germanic tribal village 100 BC.

>>395640
What's beneficial in the long run is to ensure each new generation is supported, educated ontologically, and that technology keep progressing so population can escape the planet.

Does excess security deprive us of freedoms, or do nearly all worthwhile freedoms depend on actions you could perform with everyone looking?

It seems perfectly clear that because we have such fractured ideology educations even one household over let alone nations abroad, that we do have to sacrifice some freedoms to achieve protection. Does that mean the current state is well planned out, or isn't doing harm? Of course not.

There's no reason to think we need to deprive freedoms for protection when the only beneficial thing in the long term for sure is educating people ontologically and developing technology.

Yes, authority works better. But only to a certain limit. Anarchy quickly devolves into the right of the strongest. Ofcourse, there's something to be said for that too, but I prefer my security at the cost of freedom, as opposed to my freedom at the cost of security.

Based fucking Hobbes was right

Fuck liberturdians
If these subhumans had their way we'd all be AIDS ridden heroin addicts in a collapsed society by now.

Authority is necessary to protect everyone from the uncivil and exploitation.

>>395640
>Do we really need authority to protect us from ourselves?

No, governments must exist to protect us from other people.

>Is the sacrifice of freedom for security beneficial in the long run?

No.

>>400573
Animals do it by necessity

>>402129
hobbes presents the government as a necessary evil as opposed to something that can be used to push for the common good so it fits with libertarianism

>>404117
humans can kill for no reason yet they can also refrain from killing when they feel compelled to

is there any substance to the "humans are shit" argument other than beeing edgy?

>>395640
No, no, no and no. Anyone who takes Hobbes serious after 19th century is a hopeless retard. Researches on archaic people proved him totally wrong.