You tell me 🙂
Discussion
Thomas Hobbes: “During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.”
"The life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." - Hobbes’ Leviathan
What is the point of these quotes?
He’s one person that has put some thoughts into your question.
Not sure the relevance but we’ve never seen more senseless war than under the current political system
I think that’s his point, there’s always going to be war. The question is how and where.
Are you saying that we can’t live in peace so we might as well give permission to psychopaths to enslave us? I’m not sure what conclusion you’re leading me toward.
I am not leading you to a conclusion, I am questioning what’s coming into fill the vacuum?
I am hearing there will be peace?
No there won’t be. But the solution is not violent government.
I am still not hearing what the solution that replaces the existing “constitution”.
What the solution is*
The constitution is a piece of paper with ink on it and it isn’t even doing what it claims to do. Because it’s a piece of paper and can’t do anything. This is equivalent to saying we need to replace an idol with something else. It won’t fix anything but you insist that it needs to be replaced with something.
The piece of paper can’t do anything, but the army that’s pledged allegiance to it can.
Then the piece of paper is irrelevant. The people choose to act this way.
Yes, it’s a collaboration.
A “tribe” of its own.
Is this not sufficient? Couldn’t people work together to fix their own problems then? Because if you accept the premise that the constitution is just a piece of paper with no real power, then all we really have left is a group of individuals acting.
Instead of this strange example you gave where a government is overthrown, let’s try another scenario. What would happen in this same “country” if all the people stopped paying taxes?
If you don’t like the terms “government” and “country”, then substitute all of it for “tribe”. I am good with that.
That's the view from behind the rosy glasses, indeed. Not reality.
Constitutions are trampled by emergency powers, and the US has been in a constant state of emergency for over half a century. You could say the constitution is "temporarily"® suspended, until the emergency ends™. Not a new game, same happens to every babylonian state.
Voting for change is a meaningless practice as the unfavorable result to the status quo gets discarded or a re-do forced. Voting to legitimize a corrupt oligarchy however is not meaningless - that's the reason elections get massive publicity. Without your vote, which wont lead to positive change for you, they would have to resort to more obvious authoritarian methods. That's bad for bizz and grifting so voting is heavily encouraged.
The alternative to a bad practice is not doing it. The alternative to stealing and killing is not doing it. So the alternative to voting for masters is not to vote. If you insist voting is the only meaningful activity to your community I encourage you to think if you are in a good place and if not - move (vote with your feet).
When you remove a parasite from your body, what do you replace it with?
This sounds like an over simplification, but I think we understand each other.
Suppose we take any nation state leader, suppose they are a parasite. We forcefully remove them, we leave, are we saying no one will step in to take their place? If we stay and enforce this new peace, are we not the parasite?
Hobbes call this entity the “Leviathan”.
This new peace you’re suggesting we enforce is an oxymoron. Using theft and violence to enforce “peace” is not peace at all.
Removing the leader doesn’t make all the other government institutions disappear.
So you’re suggesting the other option, overthrow the existing parasite and leave. See if another parasite doesn’t take its place.
I didn’t suggest anything. You made up this weird scenario where a government overthrows another government and just leaves. As if a government would make a selfless act like that lol
Whether another parasite takes its place doesn’t make it right. The question is, do you think people are capable of ruling themselves and fixing their own problems without having a slave master?
Do I think some people are capable of ruling themselves? Of course.
Do I think there will psychopaths that want to rule them? Also of course.
Will there be war? Of course.
Do you believe that violence is necessary for human civilization?
Yes
Do you believe that only a select number of people should have the right to use violence in anyway they see fit?
I only speak for myself and the right to use violence.
I think defense and violence are different things. Do you mean right to defend yourself?
Defense is a sub component of violence.
I don’t see it that way. A fence isn’t used violently for example.
I can zap you with an electric fence ⚡️
You wouldn’t really be zapping me as much as I’d be zapping myself if I touch the fence
If you’re going to talk “state of nature” you cannot ignore Locke and Rousseau among Hobbes
Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau represent the three distinct possibilities that the State of Nature could have resulted in theoretically
Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau were highly influential in shaping the ideas behind modern constitutional government, particularly the U.S. Constitution.
Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) argued for a strong central authority to prevent chaos, influencing ideas about the necessity of government.
John Locke (Two Treatises of Government) introduced the concept of natural rights—life, liberty, and property—which became foundational to democratic governance.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (The Social Contract) emphasized the general will and popular sovereignty, reinforcing the idea that government should reflect the collective will of the people.
Locke’s ideas were particularly influential in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, while Rousseau’s emphasis on direct democracy shaped later democratic movements.
Thomas Hobbes was the propagandist of a king.
A king who deeply resented the feudal and Christian restraints on his power.
Hobbes was a revolutionary, but not the kind I like.
It used to be small tribes that were usually closely related. They’d hunt and gather together.
The point is that these systems have changed over time. Just because you can’t imagine what it would be like to be free, doesn’t mean it isn’t possible. Just like your tribal ancestors could never imagine the power dynamics of the world today.
There’s definitely tribal systems still existing.
