Is there anything legitimately debunking Thomas Hobbes's "we need state cos we is evil and shit" meme?

is there anything legitimately debunking Thomas Hobbes's "we need state cos we is evil and shit" meme?

You can`t since he was right about the state of nature.

read Santa Claus

Rousseau's social contract

Not an argument.

He based it off the idea of natural rights(that included property rights), that holds no basis in reality or history.

have to jack off to elf porn now thanks

How is "people are inherently evil" also not a feels-over-reals position? People are not psychologically uniform. If we were, we would not be sapient; even gorillas have personalities.

Hey, it's really not nice to the roaches to compare them to humans.

Humans are not inherently evil but we are an evolutionary mismatch.

In old tribal life, we would know the people we travelled around with and treat them nicely while having no mercy for other tribes. With the tribal structure we had broken and humans thrust into a world too big for them, we can either see the entire world as our tribe or, which is more common, regard us as a one man tribe and fuck up everyone elses shit. The former is called a saint, the latter an egoist. Guess from what sort we have more running around.

Not thinking in eternal truths and ideals. Read Marx.

Is there anything legitimately debunking the Anarkiddies "we don´t need state cos we is gud and shit" meme?

Read Nietzsche.

He simply states that life before the state was nasty,brutish and short, he did not state that humans were inherently evil or bad, only that it is within self-interests of humanity to form states.

His analysis is based on facts and needs of people, not on some phony idealism.

The state is necessary for certain things and not for some others. It is merely a tool of a class to dominate another.


Positivist drivel.

Not immutable and entirely dependent upon (most importantly) material conditions and mode of production.

Those needs can only be met by the stability that state provides. Every attempt to abolish state or decentralize command hierarchy has ultimately lead into failure and is on ideal level worse than allowing state to exist.
Scientific funding, division of labor, upkeep of modern technology etc. need larger social structures to provide stability.

Again being a crypto-metaphysicist. As expected from a succdem. lrn2dialectical thinking and only then come back to this board, faggot.

Dialectics of yours are just another form of fatalism detached form material and social conditions.

Stirner. Nietzsche. Cioran. Etc.

There's nothing wrong with a state so long as it's a democratic one IMO. But I don't see any reason to believe that we wuz evil n shiet.

Define democratic.
Current two party systems are doing a terrible job at being representative.

I would disagree. The state needn't be democratic; it needs to function on its own internal dynamics of administration. What needs to be democratic is the workplace, and the state should ensure this remains as such.


Emphasis on current; the issue nowadays is not so much parliamentary liberal democracy, but the fact that capitalism naturally corrupts the democratic nature of such institutions. This is why 'taking the money out of politics!' is a very idealistic modern stance; it fails to see how money will always be present in politics so long as there is a ruling class.

Was Nietzsche really against state? Form what I have read of his works it seems that he opposes the unnatural democratic rule of moral slaves and favors state build around his own pseudo-aristocracy of supermen.

How was he right?

Historic evidence proves that life before existence of states in state of nature was more deathly and short lived(murder rate for example was lot higher).

You've got it all backwards. The state doesn't provide anything by itself. It's not autonomous. What is the state without the division of labor, class society, and so on? What do the bureaucrats of the state administer without all of that informing their decisions? It can't stand on its own, empty of all societal context.

I seriously doubt you could find evidence of murder rates considering widespread statistics weren't kept back then. It just seems like a priori bullshit to me.

There would be no markets(expect black ones) without the state. There would be no operational basis for society, as basis for education would collapse without it.

Archaeological evidence points to that.

Source?

Kek gonna need a source for that one pal.

Currently they are, but there are many example of successful democracies using proper constitutions and representation.


A non-democratic state fails at having a universal.

Not really against the state, but he would be against caring about the state for the purposes that Hobbes did. I'm not really a Nietzschean myself anyway.

War Before Civilization: the Myth of the Peaceful Savage (Oxford University Press, 1996). Read it.

The problem is just that, my friend. No state can be perfectly democratic.
That being said every implementation of "anarchism" that went anywhere was really just municipalism. Which seems like a pretty good model. Of course it wouldn't work right away in, say, America, because people are used to their big army and shit, and one of the problems with municipalism was actually exposed in the Civil War when none of the Confederate States wanted to fucking contribute to the war effort. So I think there are some things that you just can't municipalize, and even Chiapas and Rojava know this. So I would really go for a modified municipalism with some federal aspects, probably just anything to do with the economy and taxes and things like the FBI and FEMA.
The abolition of a class of career politicians is vital. De Leon's idea was to replace them with labor union representatives, which is, I think, a solid idea as far as actual government business goes, but I don't want a bunch of labor union representatives getting a vote on pointless shit like banning gay marriage, I'd want a referendum. So I'd have the unions power restricted to the federal economic board and local (and federal) executive departments- the legislature itself would be the public on all non-economic matters.

No one's going to argue a state can be perfectly democratic. In fact I'd argue that's a bad idea, because it would be very inefficient. Constitutions are also necessary.

I'm not claiming to be able to perfectly lay out a system that works, but we need to discuss the limits of democracy, the types of democracy, constitution etc. The issue though, is that a non-democratic state like the USSR does have heavy stagnation, and failure of universal.

Aren't tribes just microcosm states anyway? That's hardly a natural state of man. This book doesn't prove Hobbes right.

Read Graeber.

Of course not. Anyone with half a brain can see that humans are cruel, violent, and generally stupid creatures. The only problem with his argument is that humans are obviously not fit to be in charge either.

The solution, as usual, is to build an AI and let it rule over us with an iron fist.

If people aren't evil, was Christ's death in vain?

If christianity is true, god created evil humans and then sacrificed himself/jesus (depending on which account you believe) to forgive the sins of those which he made.

Suddenly the sacrifice seems a lot less meaningful.

We need a state because it's the only thing that can protect the common good against the tragedy of the commons. Communes are better than businesses for sure but they'll still end up competing against each other.

Everyone is forgetting the context of his work wherein he supposed that the English Civil War could have been avoided with a strong central authority. Similarly he disproves his own point, if human beings are inherently corruptible and 'evil' then surely a state made up of people would be just as corrupt and 'evil'. It lacks internal logic and consistency.

No.
Just no.

"What is made in God's image"
"What is free will"
"What is original sin"

...

spook

spook

Your dad is a spook faggot

So Jesus only died to clear humanity of original sin? What about their individual sins? Does this mean that salvation is works based?

Someone please post the full version of "Self Pride World Wide"

...

Thank you so much user! This is now my wallpaper.

Tribes have a hierarchical structure that holds a monopoly on violence.
How is that not a state?