Quote:
Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+May 12 2005, 12:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ May 12 2005, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@May 11 2005, 04:14 PM
One of us here supports government organization, the law, and social-welfare, (apparently, again, making me a Communist) and one of us supports the destruction of the nation-state, rejection of the rule of law, and a confidence that man's good nature is all we need to ensure order. Which one of us is the radical?
|
In other topic I said this, and you never responded. I wonder why?
Disagree with Hobbes (obviously). Its funny, Hobbes argues that in the state of nature, men would constantly be at each others’ throats (hello Agamemnon). Yet somehow he thinks that regardless of how bad men are, the king, the judge, democratically elected president (all cutthroat humans) will be magically transformed into kind human beings caring about their fellow men. In the state of nature, where men are after each other, one puts a sticker reading "state" on his forehead and suddenly he becomes an ultimate judge and peacemaker?
and
Not surprising, because it just riles me up when you repeat over and over that "FOL wants a lawless society where the guy with biggest gun takes everything." No matter how many times I say that I do NOT advocate a lawless society, you will come back with same childish claims. How would YOU react if I kept repeating in every topic that Agamemnon wants to club seal pups?
Obviously you will keep on repeating the same stuff about me being anti-law no matter how many times I say otherwise. Oh well.[/b][/quote]
You still haven't said what you'd replace organized law enforcement with, after numerous questions from myself.
As far as I know (as you've said nothing to the contrary) you're relying on man's 'natural good will toward his fellows' or 'respect for other's property' as the key legal system.
This looks, sounds, and smells like a Utopian concept. I'm surprised you blame me for using that term, I think its quite apt. The quotes you've provided do nothing more than refute my claims about your ideology, because... well, apparently just because. You haven't forwarded your idea of justice beyond vague, philisophical niceties.
If you want to argue what things would be like in your dream world, that's totally cool. My dream world doesn't look a lot like this place either. But I know when to separate topics about philosophy and topics about reality. You have problems confusing the two.