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

[B~E]

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.

But you do know that this argument on human nature isn't true, right ? It is indubitably in human nature to cooperate to a certain degree wioth each other to form groups, here refuting the argument of anarchy, but it is also in human nature to have those groups murder each other in a bloody race for supremacy called History, here refuting the argment about human nature being naturaly benevolant.

[CelestialBadger]

Consider that "human nature" isn't exactly a science I don't know how you guys know all this stuff about it.

Oh, and Tipsy...all you've done is proven something wrong by showing that it conflicts with Locke's concept of democracy. My next question for you would be: who ****ing cares? Black is the opposite of white. Which one is right?

[Tipsy]

But you do know that this argument on human nature isn't true, right ? It is indubitably in human nature to cooperate to a certain degree wioth each other to form groups, here refuting the argument of anarchy, but it is also in human nature to have those groups murder each other in a bloody race for supremacy called History, here refuting the argment about human nature being naturaly benevolant.

Not disagreeing, but I just wanted to point out that John Locke believed in human nature as a Christian. He actually justifies democracy based off of the bible, specifically the story of Adam and Eve, and after all, he was an Anglican Bishop.

Consider that "human nature" isn't exactly a science I don't know how you guys know all this stuff about it.

Because many people have devoted their lives to philosophical studies such as this and we, assuming B~E does, have seen their works.

Oh, and Tipsy...all you've done is proven something wrong by showing that it conflicts with Locke's concept of democracy. My next question for you would be: who ****ing cares? Black is the opposite of white. Which one is right?

Well, there is of course there are the countless people who actually care about their government, the history of it, and the rights that it has. And of course anyone who believes the Declaration of Independence was justifiable cares about it.

And it looks like someone they cares is you, considering you are the one who, considering you are the one who brought the subject up after all. If you didn't care about it I don't see any reason for you to have brought it up unless you felt like wasting space in the Arcane Sanctuary to up your post count.

[CelestialBadger]

Uhm...I'm saying that I don't care whether anarchy and Locke's democracy are polar opposites. You were trying to prove that unrestricted liberty was wrong remember? The best you have so far is that human nature (what the **** is human nature anyway? Something that is inherent in all humans?) would make a society with unrestricted liberty fail.

[Tipsy]

Uhm...I'm saying that I don't care whether anarchy and Locke's democracy are polar opposites. You were trying to prove that unrestricted liberty was wrong remember? The best you have so far is that human nature (what the **** is human nature anyway? Something that is inherent in all humans?) would make a society with unrestricted liberty fail.

You quoted me saying that unrestrained liberty would destroy the democracy described in Two Treatises of Government, which the government of the United States has taken much from. I am talking about the democracy of the United States only, since that is what this topic was originally talking about.

As for human nature, it is basically just something that does not change across different cultures and does not change for incredibly long periods of time. There are tons of different perspectives looking at this, but the one I was talking about with John Locke was the one he believed, the one based off religions that believe in the God of Abraham (Islam, Judaism, Christainity).

[CelestialBadger]

You quoted me saying that unrestrained liberty would destroy the democracy described in Two Treatises of Government, which the government of the United States has taken much from. I am talking about the democracy of the United States only, since that is what this topic was originally talking about.

We're both talking about the United States. I agree that it conflicts with Locke's democracy, but you still haven't explained why that's a problem.

As for human nature, it is basically just something that does not change across different cultures and does not change for incredibly long periods of time.

And what exactly is it that "does not change across different cultures"? I guess you're trying to tell me that it's greed...? You see something you want and you take it even if you know it's wrong?

[Tipsy]

We're both talking about the United States. I agree that it conflicts with Locke's democracy, but you still haven't explained why that's a problem.

It is a problem because our government is based off of his democracy. Much of what was incorporated into our nation by our founding fathers was borrowed from John Locke's views. Locke describes nothing more than what his opinion is on the natural government. Is it wrong? Is it right? It doesn't really matter right here, the only problem is that if you contradict too much of John Locke's beliefs, then you are going to contradict what our founding fathers intended. Unrestrained liberty is one of these things. It is this simple, founding fathers borrowed much of our political philosophy as a country from John Locke, so what John Locke believes is much incorporated into our government, meaning that what John Locke wrote about political philosophy has much to do with our government. From this you can gather if you contradict one, it is most likely going to contradict the other.

I am in no way saying that there should be little liberty, on the contrary, I am saying that we live in a land where liberty is plentiful. All I am saying is there has to be a limit where the law steps in and stops us from doing something harmful.

And what exactly is it that "does not change across different cultures"? I guess you're trying to tell me that it's greed...? You see something you want and you take it even if you know it's wrong?

That is where it gets more in depth. There are different perspectives on this subject. The one John Locke believed in was due to his religion as an Anglican Christian. I can't get any more specific with describing what specifically human nature is without going into the specifics of each perspective, which it would be easier for anyone to learn by just searching on the internet than to read my rambling on it.

[CelestialBadger]

I don't really want a history lesson. You're still not actually making a point. As I said:

all you've done is proven something wrong by showing that it conflicts with Locke's concept of democracy. My next question for you would be: who ****ing cares? Black is the opposite of white. Which one is right?

No one cares if you can rigorously prove something that's already obvious. I was hoping for you to maybe try to explain why Locke and our founding fathers have better philosophies than other people.

That is where it gets more in depth. There are different perspectives on this subject. The one John Locke believed in was due to his religion as an Anglican Christian. I can't get any more specific with describing what specifically human nature is without going into the specifics of each perspective, which it would be easier for anyone to learn by just searching on the internet than to read my rambling on it.

So you're saying that this science of human nature is basically a set of conflicting theories based on personal opinions?

[Tipsy]

No one cares if you can rigorously prove something that's already obvious. I was hoping for you to maybe try to explain why Locke and our founding fathers have better philosophies than other people.

I never said their philosophy was better than anyone else's. All I said was that unrestrained liberty would cause the downfall of the democracy that is here right now in the United States. I did not say it was better than anything else and I did not say it was worse than anything else. I said exactly what you quoted me on and challenged.

So you're saying that this science of human nature is basically a set of conflicting theories based on personal opinions?

Slightly more scientific, but that is basically it.

[CelestialBadger]

This isn't going to actually go anywhere since you don't want to tell me why the status quo is inherently good.

[Tipsy]

This isn't going to actually go anywhere since you don't want to tell me why the status quo is inherently good.

Whether it is inherently good or not has absolutely nothing to do with will unrestrained liberties will bring the downfall to our "Constitution-based federal republic" with "strong democratic tradition". You said:

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

Then I explained that through his work why it would not fit in with our "Constitution-based federal republic" with "strong democratic tradition".

That is all there is to it. You are right, this will not go anywhere because I have already answered the question you asked. It is over and done with.

[CelestialBadger]

**** this. AS blows.