We give up true full freedom for a sense of security? Half Rant.

[Algazaleen!]

There are better ways to help people than killing everyone who doesn't think like you.

[Tipsy]

That is getting off point, I don't agree with the war on terror, or this whole self-proclaimed leaders of the free world thing, but it doesn't matter here. The point is that in the view of the Bush administration, they did just what they said they would. His administraion hopes that by planting a seed of democracy in the Middle East it will grow into a tree. The only thing I am arguing is that they did what they said they would.

[Algazaleen!]

They said that we would be out by now, and we (obviously) aren't.

But, I concede, that they did pretty much do what they said that they would, but the whole thing was a disaster.

[CelestialBadger]

Having too much freedom, or 'unrestrained liberty' will cause the downfall of a democracy just as fast, read Two Treatises of Government by John Locke, where much of the United States Constitution is based off.

How would we know given that we've never really seen "unrestrained liberty"?

[Algazaleen!]

Unrestrained liberty all depends on the people. If the people can handle it, like in hippie communes, than it will work, but if they can't such as Somalia, than it will be a disaster.

[Tipsy]

How would we know given that we've never really seen "unrestrained liberty"?

Due to our nature as humans we would not allow it to work. Imagine if there were no laws in society. We had every unrestrained liberty and had the freedom to do as we wish. From a political sense, all of our checks and balances would go out the window. On a sense of the society as a whole, with unrestrained liberty we would have the freedom to murder, steal, rape, etc.

[CelestialBadger]

http://www.anarchistfaq.de/secA2.html#seca215

[Tipsy]

http://www.anarchistfaq.de/secA2.html#seca215

What does this have to do with anything? I am not arguing whether democracy or any other form of government is better than another. I am saying just what you quoted me on says. Unrestrained liberties will be the downfall to democracy. The presence of anarchy means that the democracy that was created by the founding fathers is no longer present. You seem to only be supporting me with that link that with anarchy present, it means just as you originally quoted me, that it will cause the downfall to the democracy we have.

[CelestialBadger]

So you said:

Due to our nature as humans we would not allow it to work.

And I linked you to a webpage refuting that. About this "downfall of democracy" thing...how is anarchy not government by the people? Considering that the people are making all decisions it seems like it would be...

[Tipsy]

And I linked you to a webpage refuting that. About this "downfall of democracy" thing...how is anarchy not government by the people? Considering that the people are making all decisions it seems like it would be...

I was, and have been talking about the democracy of the founding fathers, the democracy of John Locke. If you would rather me state, that it would cause the downfall of our "Constitution-based federal republic" with "strong democratic tradition", then I will, but I thought it was implied. I have been talking about the government of the United States, what Akule's rant is about in the beginning of the thread. In this argument, I could really care less if anarchy is a democracy or not, the point of what you quoted from me is that the "Constitution-based federal republic" with "strong democratic tradition", which I guess I have to say to be politically correct, will no longer be what it was. To condense this all into one phrase, it would cause the 'downfall of our democracy'.

As for the human nature thing, I will say then it would be unlikely that anarchy would work. It would be similar to trying to obtain communism. Something that people will most likely always screw up because of human nature. Though there is always that unlikely chance which I will give it.

[CelestialBadger]

Wasn't Locke also the one who said that the government's power comes from the people's consent?

And your wording was "a democracy"...I was merely pointing out that unrestricted liberty would be "a democracy" so I don't see how it could actually lead to the downfall of "a democracy".

[Tipsy]

Wasn't Locke also the one who said that the government's power comes from the people's consent?

He's the guy who came up with the whole inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and property" which was borrowed. His works were also used to justify our revolution. He is basically the father of our government. His view was basically give the people liberty, but not enough to hurt themselves with. Though if you are interested in reading up on it, complete copies of Two Treatises of Government are online.

And your wording was "a democracy"...I was merely pointing out that unrestricted liberty would be "a democracy" so I don't see how it could actually lead to the downfall of "a democracy".

That is because you took it out of context. You quoted: "Having too much freedom, or 'unrestrained liberty' will cause the downfall of a democracy", when the actual quote was specifically talking about our government when the completely sentence said, "Having too much freedom, or 'unrestrained liberty' will cause the downfall of a democracy just as fast, read Two Treatises of Government by John Locke, where much of the United States Constitution is based off" where I specified it was the democracy of the United States. In context it should be obvious which democracy I was talking about.

[CelestialBadger]

Basically what you meant to say in response to my question was: "Yes, Locke did in fact say that." I'm not sure why you gave me the background on Locke instead. Maybe it was a typo.

The point is that if you're arguing that Locke's philosophies are the basis for our Constitution, then you should realize that Locke's philosophies also entitle the people to unrestricted liberty if they so desire.

[Tipsy]

Basically what you meant to say in response to my question was: "Yes, Locke did in fact say that." I'm not sure why you gave me the background on Locke instead. Maybe it was a typo.

The point is that if you're arguing that Locke's philosophies are the basis for our Constitution, then you should realize that Locke's philosophies also entitle the people to unrestricted liberty if they so desire.

Here I will just quote him to make it simpler:

"But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another."

To sum that up for those who do not wish to read that, you have a state of 'uncontrollable' liberty, you do not have the right to infringe on the rights of others.

For the sake of argument, if we have 'unrestrained' liberty then it would be in violation of his views on the "state of nature". Basically, if we did get unrestrained liberty then it would still cause the downfall of our "Constitution-based federal republic" with "strong democratic tradition".

[Algazaleen!]

In a small community, such as 50 or so people who really want to work together, unrestrained liberty can work. In groups larger than that, everyone would have to split up into communities that come together whenever there is a large problem, much like the senate, but the representatives would have to be different so corruption would be less likely, and the people would actually have to care about their own affairs.

[CelestialBadger]

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions

Basically Locke said there that it's human nature to know not to infringe on other people's rights.

Locke just GG'ed your human nature argument.

[Tipsy]

Basically Locke said there that it's human nature to know not to infringe on other people's rights.

Locke just GG'ed your human nature argument.

Unfortunately, it is not my human nature argument, it is your reading comprehension that has been, as you put it, “GG’ed”.

The quote you talk about is:
"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."

It is talking about the 'state' of nature. It is quite obvious that he is talking about the 'state' of nature. This is what he considers to be the 'government' of nature. You probably misunderstood this as the state of nature meaning human nature. The state of nature is supposed to be doing everything in that quote and if it isn't, it justifies your right to rebel, the reason used for the Revolutionary War.

[CelestialBadger]

Wtf are you talking about...?

He's saying that nature has a law which governs it. That law is reason. Reason tells all people that consult it that stealing/killing is bad. He's arguing that it's inherently wrong to infringe on other's rights, but he's saying that humans inherently know this.

"Government of nature"?? Wtf...

[Tipsy]

I am talking about the whole thing about you considering him supporting anarchy. He considers what he describes in second treatises to be the government, which is natural to man. Which could also be called the 'government of nature', but obviously you could not gather this. He goes to lengths by saying that citizens 'must defend government as an institution.' Or you can use that or just simply put it as he did with 'Wherever Law ends, Tyranny begins.' This alone says that he believes a government is necessary to protect our property from ourselves. He says himself that 'All men are liable to error, and most men are in many points, by passion or interest, under temptation to it.' We 'might' know what is right or wrong by an innate nature, but that doesn't stop us from giving into 'temptation' and 'passion', that is why he believes we need the institution, which he describes. He describes what man chooses, to do, not what they know is right or wrong. Anarchy is the destruction of what he believed in for a government.

[CelestialBadger]

Ok .