|
Real0ne -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/28/2013 4:00:24 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
hobbes disregarded law as the basis to resolve matters and as I said earlier the solution based on the laws of nature would be the formation of a civilian posse in the event of a hienious INJURY or trespass, to enforce the law, much like serving jury duty today, and without the standing army (police) that we have today.
Not at all. Hobbes held that Law was valid only so long as there was a Sovereign to enforce it.
quote:
and show what ways the "state of nature" is harmful to anyone
You will have to read Hobbes. It is his thought experiment. He defends it well.
quote:
the article defines anarchy as chaos and I shot that down many posts ago and it was not rebutted so it stands that anarchy is not chaos but life without overlord rulers
Hobbes defines it as the lack of security or assurance with every man at war with all. Sorta like Deadwood. [:D]
meh no problem with hobbes. yeh read his shit yeas ago. for the point you want to make however I can rebut it far better than he can defend it.
Now I posted the validation for this umpteen times, so I will forgo it for now.
a sovereign is a king, the king represents the united e-states, which presumably are the pledged tenants, same as it is here, except our state is a fucking piece of paper.
What makes law valid is its recognition by the community as such.
if someone chops your head off the rest of us recognize that as wrong and against what we all agree is the law so we then in turn chop his head off. super simple stuff.
Is a sovereign more powerful than a million man army putting his head on the block? No.
So the statement that it requires a sovereign is patently false, the statement that I made that it requires recognition is a "BULLSEYE".
So we in the US have sovereign states that is a kingdom the state as a king and an overlord. Just like england. We live in a feudal construct and simply retitled it, which is what reconstruction does.
You know United Colonies of America directly under the king, his e-states managed by manor lords, was then reconstructed into the sub sovereign, titled the United States of America with authority to govern, then reconstructed again with the creation of another subsovereign titled the United States, which was divided into more subsovereigns titled states, then counties and the local corporate bodies known as bouroughs and municipalities.
Since a group of men chopped the kings head off it is self evident that it does NOT require a sovereign to create the law because the king does not have the biggest guns, that is in reality what creates the law.
Anarchy is much more civilized and brings the law to the table on an individual basis rather mob rule where the mob decides and everyones feet are forced into one size one color one style shoe.
Since you apparently feel you know something about law, then what elements would you think is are required to determine good law for the adjudication of controversies to replace the judge dredd feudal overlord system?
quote:
Hobbes defines it as the lack of security or assurance with every man at war with all.
That is nonsensical in terms of having law without overlords. Remember hobbes and blackstone were buts that had they fallen too far from the tree would have been beheaded in those days.
so back to this:
So the statement that it requires a sovereign is patently false, the statement that I made that it requires recognition is a "BULLSEYE".
that is in regard to ALL possible methods available, it is patently false. However in the feudal system we are presently in, here in the us, which imo is not arguable, and no one can or has produced a substantial argument, it is true, we would need a sovereign but not by necessity but by design. Unless we do another reconstruction.
So defend hobbes if you can[8D]
|
|
|
|
