The world would do just fine w/o departmets for the humanities, but it would be in deep doodo w/o engineers and trades people.

OF course, the only example you will be able to think of are – humans, since you will claim that humans are by nature unwilling to live in society and then somehow magically decided that living in society would be better than not living in society, elected one of their own to rule over them and then accept this rule and lived happily ever after.

Why none of the ‘great minds’ of history ever realized the absurdity of this is beyond me, though I suspect theism may have something to do with it.

You fail to understand the point of my reference to other species. I was criticizing the idea that without the state, humans would be incapable of forming societies – the Hobbesian concept.

That view is clearly mistaken. I was not comparing humans to any other species, since I was not drawing comparisons between the organization of the societies of different social species. I was merely saying that IF humans had not an innate tendency towards living in society in the first place, there would be no human societies at all.

The assumptions underlying the Hobbesian “state of nature” are not realistic. Humans have formed societies long before the state ever came into existence. Hence, there is no need for the state to organize human society.

The belief that states were created to protect private property is absolutely laughable and ahistoric. Private property rights were not respected very much by most states until quite recently in history (feudalism is the best example). Private property rights emerge as the state retreats (mostly out of economic necessity).

The claim that states were created to protect private property is simply that, a claim. Please provide me historical evidence for this claim (and just-so stories a la Hobbes and Locke don’t count).

It’s interesting you should bring up copyright: yes, copyright can only exist in the context of states. In a private property society, there could be no copyright and there wouldn’t be patents. Trade secrets, yes. But not copyright laws. They would be unenforceable without the state.

But, copyright and patents are also not compatible with private property as defined in a strict libertarian interpretation, according to which only physical things can be property (since only physical things are scarce. Concepts and technologies, once created, don’t diminish with use – hence cannot be private property.

Patents and copyrights are simply state-enforced monopolies that violate the natural rights of other people (in particular the right to free thought).

But, I’m sure this argument is so far above your head, you’ll only screech in reply rather than engage it rationally.

It’s funny that the two of you who react most hostile to my argument are also the least capable of discussing it.

What the point to discuss astronomy with the person who can “prove” that Earth is the center of universe?

The State was created to protect the Right of private property! How do you think Bill Gates is protecting his f*&^ing Windows?

General Khlynov on October 18, 2008 2:43 pm

What point are you trying to make when you compare elephants to humans?

Me?
I thought it would be interesting to expand your list of tigers and termits

General Khlynov on October 17, 2008 5:41 pm

Kolya,

my basic assumption is that if humans were not predisposed towards cooperation, it would have been impossible for society to arise in the first place. Of course, humans also have competitive and anti-social instincts – but if these were the dominant instincts, how could societies have come about?

Tigers, for example, are not predisposed towards cooperation – hence there are no tiger societies. Termites apparently are so predisposed towards cooperation, they do not seem to have an anti-social joint in their bodies.

The interesting thing about humans is that they seem to be one of the few animals

But I think penguins would be the best example. Social, friendly, stateless.

So, what does bringing elephants into the discussion prove?

I guess your – like Chris – were just trying to make some random comment with no intent to actually discuss.

It’s funny that the two of you who react most hostile to my argument are also the least capable of discussing it. A bit like ideological fanatics. Lots of noise, no argument.