The unintended consequences of liberal America

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

LOL.

So a state of nature would be considered more collectivist than something like the Soviet Union or China?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Absolutely.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

This is a serious question? You cant think of how a stronger person can take something from a weaker person without serious harm to themselves?

Yes it's a serious question. Is there a reason you're not able to answer it?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Absolutely.

OK.

"A state of nature is more collectivist than the Soviet Union!"

"Pigs can fly!"

What's the difference between these two statements?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Yes it's a serious question. Is there a reason you're not able to answer it?

You need an explanation of how a strong person could overpower a weak person other than simply being bigger and stronger? We could add weapons to the mix if you wish, or simply getting some other people to help me if I'm unsure of the outcome. Is that a sufficient answer?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

OK.

"A state of nature is more collectivist than the Soviet Union!"

"Pigs can fly!"

What's the difference between these two statements?

I mean, even the Soviets had a constitution that recognized rights. Does the state of nature recognize the right to rest and leisure or care in old age? Of course not. The state of nature is the war of groups of people against other groups of people with no individual rights recognized. Its a collectivist nightmare.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

You need an explanation of how a strong person could overpower a weak person other than simply being bigger and stronger? We could add weapons to the mix if you wish, or simply getting some other people to help me if I'm unsure of the outcome. Is that a sufficient answer?

No, it's not sufficient.

How would a stronger person not be harming himself by stealing something from a weaker person? By pursuing such an action, he'd be creating an enemy, assuming he leaves his victim alive. And if he kills his victim, he's destroying a potential trade partner or future ally. So how would that not be harmful?

I'm open to persuasion. Show me the error of my thinking.

[GatorRade]

Count me in with river that religion does not create morality. Humans create morality. And religion.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I mean, even the Soviets had a constitution that recognized rights.

You mean, a piece of paper that claimed to recognize rights.

Of course, that piece of paper wouldn't do you much good if you openly dissented with the State, and it certainly wouldn't stop them from throwing you in the gulag.

Does the state of nature recognize the right to rest and leisure or care in old age?

Only man can recognize rights, and yes, many men would recognize the natural rights of other men to be left alone.

Old age care isn't a right.

Of course not. The state of nature is the war of groups of people against other groups of people with no individual rights recognized. Its a collectivist nightmare.

The problem is you don't understand the concept of rights. I recall you saying something in another thread that rights are determined by voting, or something like that. That's a perversion of the concept of rights, and will only lead to us talking past each other.

Anyway, what you just described, the war of groups of people against other groups of people, has been a constant feature of mankind both inside and outside the state of nature, so you're not really making any kind of point here. People fight each other. So what? How does that support your point?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

No, it's not sufficient.

How would a stronger person not be harming himself by stealing something from a weaker person? By pursuing such an action, he'd be creating an enemy, assuming he leaves his victim alive. And if he kills his victim, he's destroying a potential trade partner or future ally. So how would that not be harmful?

I'm open to persuasion. Show me the error of my thinking.

Why would I consider someone a hypothetical future trade partner or ally when my entire existence is based on short term survival?

[tegator80]

Originally Posted by rivergator

You guys are the ones who attributed our problems to lack of religion in the schools. There's no indication that religion helps those problems at all.

I presume that your line of thought in your posts is to justify your beliefs (or lack there of). I was merely trying to help you to get some clarity as to why Man embraces religion and how it affects the quality - if not down right survival - of a civilization. And in dong so I also attempted to use more secular reasoning instead of religious dogma. I despise any person who wants to convert someone to their way of thinking because they believe it. Enlighten, yes. But to coerce or "enforce God's laws" is to invite terrible hardship (the Inquisitions the best Christian example).

But if you want to be a non-believer, don't let me get in your way. I just feel sorry for anyone who doesn't believe in anything. It must be very isolating. And as I said in the last post, what an individual does is completely different than what a community must do to survive. So your mantra is fine for you but don't be surprised when an idea reaches a critical mass of people and those things that you expect magically go away, and then maybe you can see that life is a little bit more complicated than you imagined. And most likely the ability to change course back to sanity (or whatever you want to call it) will not be there.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Why would I consider someone a hypothetical future trade partner or ally when my entire existence is based on short term survival?

Because, other people enrich our lives. They provide value and benefit to us, just by existing.

You might be good at catching fish and building shelters, while another person might be good at hunting and pottery. You could certainly kill that person and take his stuff, but you'd be depriving yourself of a steady trade partner and ally whose unique talents and skills would help make your life better, both over the short and long term.

That's why I don't understand how you could propose a person steal from and kill another person without it causing some kind of harm. And this is just one way of looking at the situation. You also have to consider the societal ramifications of theft and murder. If people know you're a thief or murderer, they usually won't sit around and wait until you victimize them too. They'll come looking for you before you can go looking for them.

So how is the strong man going to escape harm to himself by killing the weak man? I'm still hazy on this.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by tegator80

I presume that your line of thought in your posts is to justify your beliefs (or lack there of). I was merely trying to help you to get some clarity as to why Man embraces religion and how it affects the quality - if not down right survival - of a civilization. And in dong so I also attempted to use more secular reasoning instead of religious dogma. I despise any person who wants to convert someone to their way of thinking because they believe it. Enlighten, yes. But to coerce or "enforce God's laws" is to invite terrible hardship (the Inquisitions the best Christian example).

But if you want to be a non-believer, don't let me get in your way. I just feel sorry for anyone who doesn't believe in anything. It must be very isolating. And as I said in the last post, what an individual does is completely different than what a community must do to survive. So your mantra is fine for you but don't be surprised when an idea reaches a critical mass of people and those things that you expect magically go away, and then maybe you can see that life is a little bit more complicated than you imagined. And most likely the ability to change course back to sanity (or whatever you want to call it) will not be there.

No, I'm not trying to justify my beliefs and your claim of feeling sorry for me is just silly stuff.
I'll try to make this clearer: The claim was made here multiple times that a lack of religion in the schools is a significant cause of our problems. I pointed to evidence that the presence of religion doesn't seem to make things better and the absence of it doesn't seem to make things worse.
Seems pretty clear.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Because, other people enrich our lives. They provide value and benefit to us, just by existing.

You might be good at catching fish and building shelters, while another person might be good at hunting and pottery. You could certainly kill that person and take his stuff, but you'd be depriving yourself of a steady trade partner and ally whose unique talents and skills would help make your life better, both over the short and long term.

That's why I don't understand how you could propose a person steal from and kill another person without it causing some kind of harm. And this is just one way of looking at the situation. You also have to consider the societal ramifications of theft and murder. If people know you're a thief or murderer, they usually won't sit around and wait until you victimize them too. They'll come looking for you before you can go looking for them.

So how is the strong man going to escape harm to himself by killing the weak man? I'm still hazy on this.

I only propose that in order to survive in a state of nature, rational self-interest means that I can and will kill or be violent to get what I need to survive. Immediate survival will always trump any other hypothetical future need or desire. And the state of nature is a constant battle for survival, so when is this enrichment occuring in a existence that is all about my short term self-interest?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

You mean, a piece of paper that claimed to recognize rights.

Of course, that piece of paper wouldn't do you much good if you openly dissented with the State, and it certainly wouldn't stop them from throwing you in the gulag.



Only man can recognize rights, and yes, many men would recognize the natural rights of other men to be left alone.

Old age care isn't a right.



The problem is you don't understand the concept of rights. I recall you saying something in another thread that rights are determined by voting, or something like that. That's a perversion of the concept of rights, and will only lead to us talking past each other.

Anyway, what you just described, the war of groups of people against other groups of people, has been a constant feature of mankind both inside and outside the state of nature, so you're not really making any kind of point here. People fight each other. So what? How does that support your point?

So a piece of paper backed by sovereign force is a worthless guarantee, but your assumption that others will respect your rights without a piece of paper and no force is rock-solid?

Sure, people still fight and resort to violence, even war. That doesnt put it on the level of nature though. There's lots of evidence that violence has decreased through the centuries, and that the state has been an instrumental civilizing force in that.

[tegator80]

Originally Posted by rivergator

No, I'm not trying to justify my beliefs and your claim of feeling sorry for me is just silly stuff.
I'll try to make this clearer: The claim was made here multiple times that a lack of religion in the schools is a significant cause of our problems. I pointed to evidence that the presence of religion doesn't seem to make things better and the absence of it doesn't seem to make things worse.
Seems pretty clear.

I am sorry to have gotten the message wrong. But my point is still the same: you want to see tangible results between religion and non-religion as a function of society and I am saying that without religion it is likely that civilized society doesn't exist. And it seems to me you want it to be all one way of the other. Religion is good/bad or lack of religion is good/bad and your conclusion is that it doesn't have any impact. But this premise is not taking into consideration the underpinnings of what people would call religion (something bigger than themselves) that just isn't a cognitive trait in their decision making but nonetheless is still there. And as I said, if enough people decide that religion really doesn't have value then I expect that what we all consider the foundation of society will magically disappear with little or no ability to turn back around. JMHO

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I only propose that in order to survive in a state of nature, rational self-interest means that I can and will kill or be violent to get what I need to survive. Immediate survival will always trump any other hypothetical future need or desire. And the state of nature is a constant battle for survival, so when is this enrichment occuring in a existence that is all about my short term self-interest?

Stealing from and murdering others isn't in your rational self-interest, though. Your rational self-interest is to survive, live your life, and maybe find a little peace and happiness. It's hard to do that when you attack others, since it's in everyone's rational self-interest to defend themselves from attackers.

You have a much better chance of maintaining your life and surviving by respecting others. This is where the concept of rights comes from.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by tegator80

I am sorry to have gotten the message wrong. But my point is still the same: you want to see tangible results between religion and non-religion as a function of society and I am saying that without religion it is likely that civilized society doesn't exist. And it seems to me you want it to be all one way of the other. Religion is good/bad or lack of religion is good/bad and your conclusion is that it doesn't have any impact. But this premise is not taking into consideration the underpinnings of what people would call religion (something bigger than themselves) that just isn't a cognitive trait in their decision making but nonetheless is still there. And as I said, if enough people decide that religion really doesn't have value then I expect that what we all consider the foundation of society will magically disappear with little or no ability to turn back around. JMHO

I see no evidence that civilization is dependent upon religion. Here's the 10 least religious countries, according to Gallup. I don't see them falling apart:


Country Yes, important No, unimportant
Sweden 16.5% 83%
Denmark 18% 80.5%
Estonia 16% 78%
Norway 20.5% 78%
Hong Kong 23% 75.5%
Japan 23.5% 75%
Czech Republic 20.5% 74.5%
United Kingdom 26.5% 73%
Finland 28% 70%
France 29.5% 69.5%

And the 10 most religious. They're not really the pinnacle of civilization on this planet:


Country Yes, important No, unimportant
Niger 100% 0%
Bangladesh 100% 0%
Oman 99.5% 0.5%
Morocco 98.5% 1%
Indonesia 99% 1%
Mauritania 98% 1.5%
Democratic Republic of the Congo 98.5% 1.5%
Djibouti 98% 1.5%
Malawi 98.5% 1.5%
Sierra Leone 98% 1.5%

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

So a piece of paper backed by sovereign force is a worthless guarantee, but your assumption that others will respect your rights without a piece of paper and no force is rock-solid?

What kind of point are you trying to make here? That the tyrannical government monopoly of the Soviet Union, which didn't give two turds about individual human rights, is a much safer bet than a state of competitive nature against other men whose very lives depend on respecting natural rights?

Uh, no.

Sure, people still fight and resort to violence, even war. That doesnt put it on the level of nature though. There's lots of evidence that violence has decreased through the centuries, and that the state has been an instrumental civilizing force in that.

I see no evidence for this. On the contrary, I see violence everywhere. In fact, violence has been institutionalized by the State. In a state of nature, no man would have the legitimate right to imprison and torture another man, but under the State, this is legal and considered legitimate. Everything the State does is through violence.

How could that - institutionalized threats, coercion, and violence - be considered a "civilizing force"?