The myth that it is anti-capitalistic to give money away, or to help others for free.
For some reason, many people believe this; that charity is against the profit motive, or against the self-interest.
Also, that true libertarians/an-caps wouldn't donate to charity or otherwise wouldn't help others if not for money.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Sounds like someone's confused the philosophy of libertarianism with the philosophy of Objectivism.
I don't think it's "anti-capitalistic," but it's not something I would do either. I think part of the beauty of capitalism is that it allows everyone to follow their own moral code so long as they do not aggress against another.
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
Rand considered charity to be neither morally condemnable nor to be praised in and of itself. Though she wasn't against it if it satisfied the individual in question, as in fulfilled their values.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus:Sounds like someone's confused the philosophy of libertarianism with the philosophy of Objectivism. Rand considered charity to be neither morally condemnable nor to be praised in and of itself. Though she wasn't against it if it satisfied the individual in question, as in fulfilled their values.
See, this is the probem I have with Objectivism, it's tautological. If you're using "selfish" in the sense that it fulfils ones values, then essentially every act will be selfish.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Praetyre:Sounds like someone's confused the philosophy of libertarianism with the philosophy of Objectivism.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Praetyre:Sounds like someone's confused the philosophy of libertarianism with the philosophy of Objectivism.No, it's more of the strawman from the socialists that capitalism denies charitable acts.
This.
I like the example of Wal-Mart right before Katrina hit. If Wal-Mart is a profit-seeking company, why would donate supplies to the would-victims of the hurricane and FEMA? One reason it would do so, is that it would improve its "public relations," so that the next time someone has to choose between Wal-Mart and some other mega store, that someone might say, "hey, Wal-Mart helped the victims of Katrina and FEMA, I want to shop there instead."
At its root, this is a discussion about incentives, which consistently seems to be the disconnect point between socialists and libertarians.
Charity without incentive, or in contrast to contradictory incentives can only be enforced with violence.
I am sure there are many socialists would think it is fine to force Walmart to assist at gunpoint, but not ok if they do it and reap a reward in the form of increased reputation.
In all cases, as repetitive as it may be, it is necessary to point out the gun in the room. Keep pointing out the gun in the room. People must reject socialism if they reject violence.
I agree. Empathy for others is not on the philosophical level, though, in my experience. It can't be taught, but is usually a mentality of authentically sensitive people. Usually it takes a high degree of self-awareness to see helplessness in others and want to genuinely help them. Because their pain is something we ourselves feel, having a common bond. Whether it is poverty, victims of war, refugees, people in natural disasters, etc. It amazes me the degree to which people watch the news and are not sickened or saddened by the treatment of war and other disasters.
Whether left wing or right or libertarian or whatever... I find that people either understand other people and have genuine connection to them... or create abstract theories that allow someone else to deal with it. Some type of mechanism liek the market or the state or God's divine hand or whatever. None seem to be opposed to other people in general. Nor does their philosophy convince them of their supposed relation to others. Most likely their theories, in substitution for actual relations to others, helps them lay their head down at night.
In a free and open society one cannot escape profiting from others’ misfortunes when one gives to charity. It may be looked down upon if one is driven entirely by selfishness but trying to prevent this is even more unethical.
By a free and open society I mean a liberal society with a liberal state. A liberal state is where the community recognised the natural trait of man that he does not like to be told what to do by others. In this state one is reasonably protected from coercion of others. There is a place for a central government but its major functions are limited to protecting the personal private sphere of individuals from coercion and reducing transaction costs. Reducing transaction costs means reducing cost of trade. This may mean reducing cost of risk of trade by ensuring proper enforcement of contracts, or creating standards like a measurement system. The society in such a state still looks after the needy by mandatory contributions from the rest. But provision is only the minimum which ensures that coercion is minimised. This prevents extreme hardship of fellow man and also protects the general society from acts of desperation (e.g. food riots etc.).
In such liberal state one may not be forced to contribute to help the needy beyond stopping starvation. This means that if one does contribute to charity it is more likely to be a show of genuine, and more importantly voluntary, compassion.
A voluntary contribution to charity in a liberal state will obviously improve one's standing in the community. This is because the gift to the needy would be more likely to be genuine show of compassion and mercy if one does not obviously boast about it. Naturally man values those who are willing to help him and ask for nothing back in return. However the receiver of charity may be less impressed by the gift if he found out that the charitable contribution was made for selfish reasons, like trying to improve his standing in a community which values selflessness. At the very least if one gives to charity only to improve his standing it is no longer compassion. At worst one may say that one is in fact is profiting from someone else’s misfortune. Of course this is an oversimplification since people would be able to, to a large degree, judge when charity is genuine and when not.
However profiting from someone’s misfortune is not necessarily ‘bad’, at least from a materialistic point of view. It does not hurt the giver or the receiver but benefits both. The giver profits from his increased standing in the community. The receiver’s position is obviously helped out because of the hand out. This kind of an improvement where both parties benefit while no one is made worse off is called Pareto-improvement. However there is still the question of ethics. One may argue that it is always improper to profit from someone else’s misfortune and the state should concern itself to make the situation more ethical.
One possibility is banning all charitable giving. This would be impossible to enforce. People would still find a way to give to others. More importantly a ban on charity would be unnatural as it interferes with a basic natural trait of man to show compassion and mercy. This solution seems to even more unethical (whatever that means) than the unethical situation it is trying to resolve.
A more reasonable solution may lie in making all charitable giving secret. This would mean that the giver no longer has any selfish incentive to give to charity and all charity contributions would be genuine. However if the incentive is lost many people would stop contributing to charity and many needy would be worse off. It is also somewhat questionable if forcing people to make their contributions secret is in itself all that ethical. This solution may end up hurting the poor and the needy for the benefit of allowing few moralists to sleep easier.
Another possibility may be to allow the state to take from the well off and give to the poor like Robin Hood did. But forcing people to give in such a way is hardly ethical and constitutes robbery. This solution looses all traits of compassion and mercy and imposes on the natural freedom to choose not to give. This solution seems to be most unethical. From a materialistic point of view it does benefit the poor the most because the state can rob the rich to a very large extent and make the poor as rich as it pleases.
A theoretical solution may be to stop people from thinking selfishly or to make people stop regarding mercy and compassion as a virtue. This would require a vast social engineering project which of course would impose on individuals’ natural make up. This would be tyranny.
It seems that there are no ethical solutions to the unethical situation where one profits from another’s misfortune but falsely calls it compassion. All the solutions seem to be even more unethical. It seems that the best thing to do is simply let people be people and let them make their own judgment what is ethical and unethical, what they should do and not do.
This is slightly off topic, so I apologize in advance, but I have to ask...
If
spetsnaz:Another possibility may be to allow the state to take from the well off and give to the poor like Robin Hood did. But forcing people to give in such a way is hardly ethical and constitutes robbery. This solution looses all traits of compassion and mercy and imposes on the natural freedom to choose not to give. This solution seems to be most unethical.
Then how can
spetsnaz:There is a place for a central government
be justified?
Oh, and welcome to Mises!
spetsnaz: ... By a free and open society I mean a liberal society with a liberal state. A liberal state is where the community recognised the natural trait of man that he does not like to be told what to do by others...
... By a free and open society I mean a liberal society with a liberal state. A liberal state is where the community recognised the natural trait of man that he does not like to be told what to do by others...
How will that minimal liberal state be financed?
spetsnaz: However profiting from someone’s misfortune is not necessarily ‘bad’, at least from a materialistic point of view. It does not hurt the giver or the receiver but benefits both. The giver profits from his increased standing in the community. The receiver’s position is obviously helped out because of the hand out. This kind of an improvement where both parties benefit while no one is made worse off is called Pareto-improvement. However there is still the question of ethics. One may argue that it is always improper to profit from someone else’s misfortune and the state should concern itself to make the situation more ethical. One possibility is banning all charitable giving. This would be impossible to enforce. People would still find a way to give to others. More importantly a ban on charity would be unnatural as it interferes with a basic natural trait of man to show compassion and mercy. This solution seems to even more unethical (whatever that means) than the unethical situation it is trying to resolve. A more reasonable solution may lie in making all charitable giving secret. This would mean that the giver no longer has any selfish incentive to give to charity and all charity contributions would be genuine. However if the incentive is lost many people would stop contributing to charity and many needy would be worse off. It is also somewhat questionable if forcing people to make their contributions secret is in itself all that ethical. This solution may end up hurting the poor and the needy for the benefit of allowing few moralists to sleep easier. Another possibility may be to allow the state to take from the well off and give to the poor like Robin Hood did. But forcing people to give in such a way is hardly ethical and constitutes robbery. This solution looses all traits of compassion and mercy and imposes on the natural freedom to choose not to give. This solution seems to be most unethical. From a materialistic point of view it does benefit the poor the most because the state can rob the rich to a very large extent and make the poor as rich as it pleases. A theoretical solution may be to stop people from thinking selfishly or to make people stop regarding mercy and compassion as a virtue. This would require a vast social engineering project which of course would impose on individuals’ natural make up. This would be tyranny. It seems that there are no ethical solutions to the unethical situation where one profits from another’s misfortune but falsely calls it compassion. All the solutions seem to be even more unethical. It seems that the best thing to do is simply let people be people and let them make their own judgment what is ethical and unethical, what they should do and not do.
You looked at it from every angle except that of the poor suffering man. He is bleeding to death on the street, victim of a drive by. A doctor comes along and says "$1,000 and I'll give you a transfusion." Dying man nods yes.
The indignant crowd pushes the Doctor away. How dare he benefit from another's misfortune!
"OK OK I'll do it for free just this once," says the Doc. "No, you wicked man, that is still benefiting from another's misfortune."
"Yeah, the heartless b.", says the dying man with his last breath.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Daniel:How will that minimal liberal state be financed?
a liberal state is not anarchy. a liberal state is not absence of all taxes. there are very good arguments for some functions of a liberal government. many people over the years have pointed out this. lets take Hayek for example. i presume all of you have read constitution of liberty. look to chapter 19 where hayek talks about this provision of a minimum. what is important is that we are not perfectly unconcerned with fellow man so we provide a minimum for the needy. we also do so to protect society against acts of desperation as i have mentioned before. this provision is of course not arbitrary but is means tested and at every step of the way the individual is encouraged to help himself. for example the pension system should be funded and run through private competitive firms.
spetsnaz:a liberal state is not absence of all taxes.
So what you're saying is that you're ok with aggression so long as you get to choose how much and where it goes?
"It is anti-capitalistic to give money away" is not a myth, it is a self-contradictory statement.
Capitalism refers to ownership. Whatever one owns, he may keep, trade, sell or give away -- or simply destroy. Any judgement, therefore, of someone else's disposition of his capital -- for example, by perjoratively referring the act as anti-capitalistic -- is a denial of the legitimaticy of capitalism. If one cannot dispose of an asset in any way one so pleases, then he by definition does not own it.
Self-interest refers to motivation. Every motivation is self-motivation. One cannot motivate another; he may, however, influence by word or deed another's motivation. Now, one can coerce another to do or not do or to do differently, but that is not motivation, it is the usurpation of another's ownership rights (sometimes referred to theft).
But one will never do anything voluntarily that does not serve one's self. That an action also serves another is a derivative of self-interest (a number of derivatives are mentioned in other responses above).
"Altruism does not exist in any other form than as than that of disguise" (Me)
"Charity is a morally corrupt and corrupting practice. If the giver is not corrupt in the innitiation of a charitable act, he will become so. If the receiver is not corrupt in accepting charity, he will become so. And corruption to both will escalate with repitition." (ibid)
That said, coming to the aid of someone in dire straits not of his own making (for example, giving or obtaining emergency medical aid to a robbed and beaten Samaritan) does not constitute charity, it constitutes doing for someone as one would like to have done to themselves -- self-interest, no?.
"Is it not a pity that the followers of Jesus act ever so much more like Judas than like Jesus?" (ibid)
NOTE: The quotes above have been made up as I went along.
Jess Porter: "It is anti-capitalistic to give money away" is not a myth, it is a self-contradictory statement. Capitalism refers to ownership. Whatever one owns, he may keep, trade, sell or give away -- or simply destroy. Any judgement, therefore, of someone else's disposition of his capital -- for example, by perjoratively referring the act as anti-capitalistic -- is a denial of the legitimaticy of capitalism. If one cannot dispose of an asset in any way one so pleases, then he by definition does not own it. Self-interest refers to motivation. Every motivation is self-motivation. One cannot motivate another; he may, however, influence by word or deed another's motivation. Now, one can coerce another to do or not do or to do differently, but that is not motivation, it is the usurpation of another's ownership rights (sometimes referred to theft). But one will never do anything voluntarily that does not serve one's self. That an action also serves another is a derivative of self-interest (a number of derivatives are mentioned in other responses above). "Altruism does not exist in any other form than as than that of disguise" (Me) "Charity is a morally corrupt and corrupting practice. If the giver is not corrupt in the innitiation of a charitable act, he will become so. If the receiver is not corrupt in accepting charity, he will become so. And corruption to both will escalate with repitition." (ibid) That said, coming to the aid of someone in dire straits not of his own making (for example, giving or obtaining emergency medical aid to a robbed and beaten Samaritan) does not constitute charity, it constitutes doing for someone as one would like to have done to themselves -- self-interest, no?. "Is it not a pity that the followers of Jesus act ever so much more like Judas than like Jesus?" (ibid) NOTE: The quotes above have been made up as I went along.
See my Wal-Mart example: http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/11297/259883.aspx#259883
Fluery:So what you're saying is that you're ok with aggression so long as you get to choose how much and where it goes?
it is utopian to think that it is possible to perfectly protect the personal private sphere of individuals and still live in a community. if one wants to be perfectly left alone one will need to be living alone on top of a mountain. to protect individuals from coercion does require some coercion in itself. classical liberal thinkers from locke, hume up to j s mill, hayek and mises all recognised this. what they mostly said was how to minimise and limit that coercion.
Jess Porter:That said, coming to the aid of someone in dire straits not of his own making (for example, giving or obtaining emergency medical aid to a robbed and beaten Samaritan) does not constitute charity, it constitutes doing for someone as one would like to have done to themselves -- self-interest, no?.
its not just "treat others how you want yourself to be treated" but also the fact that one gets personal satisfaction from helping others because one can then have a clear conscience. this however is still self interest.
I don't think it's a myth as much as it is a very effective tool that the opposition uses to make "us" (in a broad scope) look greedy and heartless. My personal belief is that it's none of my business what another does with his/her property. Personally when I give charity, no one notices it but myself, my wife, and the person that recieves it- that is based on the same belief- it isn't anyone else's business what I do with what is mine.
spetsnaz:it is utopian to think that it is possible to perfectly protect the personal private sphere of individuals and still live in a community.
But no one is claiming that. So once you remove the fallacy that anyone is striving for utopia with anarchy, then what are we left with as an analysis?
The monopoly state cannot protect any property, because it must have a higher claim to property than individuals in order to exist and limit competition.
spetsnaz:what they mostly said was how to minimise and limit that coercion.
You can limit coercion by eliminating the coercer. Monopoly government adds nothing that individuals cannot accomplish through cooperation.
There is no need to rely on aggression for social organization. Man can organize cooperatively, which renders the state unnecessary.
brooksh:Personally when I give charity, no one notices it but myself, my wife, and the person that recieves it- that is based on the same belief- it isn't anyone else's business what I do with what is mine.
That's good, and I would agree that when I engage in a charitable act, I don't like anyone to know. It attracts more people in need, some sincere, but many not.
However, it is a good thing that charity is recognized and lauded publicly. It says something about us, that generally charity (giving/sharing) is seen as a noble endeavour. The incentives are lined up the right way.
Ultimately, capitalism boils down to voluntary exchange. All people exchange things because of a perceived benefit they get from doing so. Charity occurs because one party gets a kind of psychological return when they give another party something that improves their life. That is why charity increased so much during the 1980s, when tax rates were cut from the 70s down to the high 20s.
Political Atheists Blog
GilesStratton: See, this is the probem I have with Objectivism, it's tautological. If you're using "selfish" in the sense that it fulfils ones values, then essentially every act will be selfish.
liberty student:The monopoly state cannot protect any property, because it must have a higher claim to property than individuals in order to exist and limit competition.
no. a liberal state does not have a higher claim to property. that is the whole point of a liberal state that is is not a monopoly. under proper rule of law government, other individuals or any other organisations has no claim or more right over an individual's property. without law, there is no liberty, because one's persoan l private sphere is left in the open for the strongest bully to take.
liberty student:You can limit coercion by eliminating the coercer. Monopoly government adds nothing that individuals cannot accomplish through cooperation.
how does one enforce contracts? what happens when someone robs you? national defence? liberals recognise that government has a role, very strong role to play. however this role is very limited and well defined. what you are proposing is anarchy. in anarchy there may exist some cooperation but the strongest will group together, subjugate the rest and there will be rule of men and not rule of law. even if there was perfect cooperation and direct democracy there would be the tyranny of the majority which is even worse.
it is strange how a moderator, an enforcer of rule of law in this forum, is suggesting anarchy. would you like it so anyone could post anything on this forum and do anything one pleases? or do you wish that people respected certain minimal negative rules which protect others and the community as a whole?
My conscience is clear when my motivation is pure: that is, when I am motivated by self-interest. I do not always know what is in my own interest, but I can live with a certain amount of experimentation. It is not only non- but anti- libertarian for me to experiment with what might be in someone else's interest.
spetsnaz:no. a liberal state does not have a higher claim to property.
So it has no taxes or tariffs? How is it funded?
spetsnaz:that is the whole point of a liberal state that is is not a monopoly.
So then we can have competing laws?
spetsnaz:without law, there is no liberty
You can have liberty in the absence of law. When you don't have liberty, is when there is coercion.
spetsnaz:however this role is very limited and well defined.
And is built on a utopian fallacy of limited and controlled government.
spetsnaz:what you are proposing is anarchy.
You figured me out. I am indeed saying a liberal society must be voluntary. That once it has coercion, it stops being liberal.
spetsnaz:in anarchy there may exist some cooperation but the strongest will group together, subjugate the rest and there will be rule of men and not rule of law.
Then it will no longer be anarchy. It will be a state.
spetsnaz:it is strange how a moderator, an enforcer of rule of law in this forum, is suggesting anarchy.
lol, you have no idea my friend.
spetsnaz:would you like it so anyone could post anything on this forum and do anything one pleases?
But they cannot, because moderators act as agents over the property of the forum. And property rights dictate that the forum can publish what it chooses, and can discriminate when it selects members, and whether members remain in good standing.
spetsnaz:or do you wish that people respected certain minimal negative rules which protect others and the community as a whole?
Right, but this forum is not a monopoly. I don't claim the right to tell other forums how to operate. There is no single code of forum etiquette or posting guidelines.
You have confused law with property. Positive law, is a restriction on property. Legal norms can be used to defend property rights, however the fact that property rights exist, predates any law about property rights.
Kinsella had a piece called minarchy revisited. He showed that these kinds of organizations either did not constitute as governments or were in fact coercive and monopolistic.
What we are proposing is a type of anarchy. Establishing a state does not get us out of anarchic relationships, since even though the state resolves disputes between its citizens there is no higher authority to resolve conflicts between individuals and the state.
spetsnaz:in anarchy there may exist some cooperation but the strongest will group together, subjugate the rest and there will be rule of men and not rule of law
spetsnaz:it is strange how a moderator, an enforcer of rule of law in this forum, is suggesting anarchy
Spetsnaz. I would like to know how a piece of paper (constitution) was able to limit the size and scope of government power? It certainly hasn't, nor has it in any governments past.
What happens when you have limited government? A fast growing economy, is what.
What happens when you have a fast growing economy? More wealth for government officials to tax.
What is the saying? Absolute power corrupts absolutely?
spetsnaz: how does one enforce contracts? what happens when someone robs you? national defence? liberals recognise that government has a role, very strong role to play. however this role is very limited and well defined. what you are proposing is anarchy. in anarchy there may exist some cooperation but the strongest will group together, subjugate the rest and there will be rule of men and not rule of law. even if there was perfect cooperation and direct democracy there would be the tyranny of the majority which is even worse.
This says to me that you do not have the imagination to figure it out. If you've read any Anarchy books or articles, you'd find a variety of answers.
spetsnaz: it is strange how a moderator, an enforcer of rule of law in this forum, is suggesting anarchy. would you like it so anyone could post anything on this forum and do anything one pleases? or do you wish that people respected certain minimal negative rules which protect others and the community as a whole?
Considering this is a private forum, a private company has the right to set it's own rules. It is a voluntary interaction. This forum and a government have zero in common.
You observe, but you do not see.
Spetsnaz - I forgot to add: the "who will enforce contracts" bit says to me that you also have a dim view of your fellow man, in general. Considering, if you and I had a contract with each other, it is not a government coercion that is keeping me from honoring it. It's the benefits I will reap by sticking to it. Your own self-interest is what will lead you towards an honorable path in business dealings, those who refuse to honor their contracts will fail.
brooksh: I don't think it's a myth as much as it is a very effective tool that the opposition uses to make "us" (in a broad scope) look greedy and heartless...
I don't think it's a myth as much as it is a very effective tool that the opposition uses to make "us" (in a broad scope) look greedy and heartless...
It's a myth that college students believe in, but their professors use it as a tool as you mention. :D
krazy kaju: Ultimately, capitalism boils down to voluntary exchange. All people exchange things because of a perceived benefit they get from doing so. Charity occurs because one party gets a kind of psychological return when they give another party something that improves their life. That is why charity increased so much during the 1980s, when tax rates were cut from the 70s down to the high 20s.
Precisely!
I wouldn't be so hasty. It's an Aristotelian system and consequently dichotomises one's "rational self interest" (essential to achieving eudaemonia/flourishing in the Aristotelian system, a form of happiness where one's valuations are conditioned by practical reasoning, i.e. reasoning concerning action) and mere want-satiation. Agree with it or not it is not incoherent.
The government is itself allegedly contractually established in order that it may garner legitimacy... if people don't keep to their end of the bargain, how will this contractually formed government even get off the ground?
ok. i see we have a difference of opinion here. i am more steeped in classical liberalism and you all seem to be anarchists. that is interesting, but strange seeing as von mises was not an anarchist.
yes i do not think very highly of people. we are naturally very savage and brutish. in an anarchy we would all live in fear and a state of perpetual war as hobbes pointed out many centuries ago. we would live in a culture of honour. that is not the kind of life i would like to have. i am a strong believer that law is freedom, as everyone from adam smith to hayek have pointed out. sorry.
spetsnaz:in an anarchy we would all live in fear and a state of perpetual war as hobbes pointed out many centuries ago
spetsnaz:in an anarchy we would all live in fear and a state of perpetual war as hobbes pointed out many centuries ago.
And I'm not living in fear now, as my country engages in endless war on behalf of NATO and the UN?
The problem with the classic liberal position, is that it isn't consistent. You can't be free but tied to a monopoly legal system at the same time. You can't be free, and born into a social contract. You can't say man is inherently evil or violent, and then give some men absolute power.
Law is a means to resolve disputes, it is not a replacement for morality or property.
If you're interested spetsnaz, give this a read.
spetsnaz: ok. i see we have a difference of opinion here. i am more steeped in classical liberalism and you all seem to be anarchists. that is interesting, but strange seeing as von mises was not an anarchist. yes i do not think very highly of people. we are naturally very savage and brutish. in an anarchy we would all live in fear and a state of perpetual war as hobbes pointed out many centuries ago. we would live in a culture of honour. that is not the kind of life i would like to have. i am a strong believer that law is freedom, as everyone from adam smith to hayek have pointed out. sorry.
It's worth pointing out that Hobbes would have nothing Smith or Hayek's beliefs. Hobbes imagined a social contract in which rulers themselves are in a state of nature and cannot be challenged whatsoever by the people. Basically a double standard that prevents even a balance of powers. Hobbes was writing specifically during the time of the English civil war and various parties being in conflict and seeing no end to it. They must keep absolute rule. In order to have even a minarchist democracy you have to believe at the very least that the ability to reason, to have inalienable "rights" in order to delegate to a state to protect, and peaceful economy (in order to pay for the state) preceding not succeeding the state. As Locke and others believed.
Hobbes probably predicted the centralization of power into the executive and world governmental bodies (since they lessen state of nature of rulers themselves). But few would agree, today, that those things are good.
john ess: i do not of course believe in every idea hobbes had. but i do agree on with him on certain points, especially natural law and our natural state of being.
liberty student:monopoly legal system
so i may have a competing legal system which i can implement? how about a system where i think all blonde people must die, or that all Canadians may be robbed?
but then i hear you say "wait, property rights are fundamental". but you just said that there may exist alternative/competing law systems, why do you moralise about my system? do you by some chance look towards some key fundamental principles.
hmm, sounds like you want to have legal positivism but then decided to stick to fundamental principles of natural law (aka rule of law).
nothing good will come of breaking the rule of law.
spetsnaz:
“in anarchy there may exist some cooperation but the strongest will group together, subjugate the rest and there will be rule of men and not rule of law.”
This sounds an awful lot like the ideas with which Nietzche struggled (the will to power, beyond good and evil). I say 'struggled' advisedly for he truly wished that human beings were primarily independent, but was (at least nearly) convinced that within each individual was the Übermensch, that which drives us to either be, to develop, or to adopt a ruler over all of mankind.
"Even the body within which individuals treat each other as equals ... will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant—not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power." F. Nietzche
I believe that those who have the least control over themselves seek to exert the most control over others. Had Nietzche been totally sane (like me, for instance) he would have recognized this as the moral equivalent of the fifth law of thermodynamics in physics. In fact, early on in his battle against a god that does not exist, he actually thought he had newly discovered a fundimental law of nature -- which, indeed he had -- but later doubted himself.
We would have all benefitted were Nietzche alive and at his peak today. What would he have been able to accomplish in chaos theory!