|
egern -> RE: Anarchy & Hegemony: A defense of American Imperialism (4/28/2013 9:31:55 AM)
|
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
It seem based on the idea that humans cannot live without having some sort of tough rule over them, if not, they will - what?? Tear each other to pieces? And that only violence from one quarter can stop the inter violence that would otherwise arise.
quote:
Not violence necessarily but the threat of force.
I sincerely doubt that that would be enough, people generally do not like to be colonized.
quote:
It is an extention to realpolitik on a geopolitical scale from Thomas Hobbes mind experiment in Leviathan in which he imagined that without a central authority man lived in a "state of nature." In that state all would be engaged in a war against all.
I do not believe this to be the case. Being a bit too general, I think that it is the attempts at domination that makes the trouble, more than the problems smaller units between.
I think the people who want power and who are really greedy are maybe about 15% of the all, most people simply want to be left in peace! But the troublemakers are the ones with power.
quote:
Hobbes decried the absence of sovereignty this way:
"In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
He clams that only a dominating power can produce real new inventions - so are all the modern democracies standing still in this respect? Only a dominating power can give people in general good lives - like the poor of the cities in his time?
quote:
I do not believe that empires are a good idea, all it means it strife on a bigger scale.
quote:
It says nothing about good or bad. Only what is practical for stability as against anarchy.
But if anarchy, however that is defined here, is so bad, then everything else must be good, yes?
But what is anarchy in this connection?
And what is the argument for domination being the opposite of anarchy, as opposed to for example democracy or confederations?
quote:
I do not believe that people cannot rule themselves, I think we started as tribes and still can rule ourselves in smaller units, decentralization is better than centralization.
quote:
Modern communications and transportations that spread cultural memes around the world in a flash have placed the tribal system on the endangered species list.
I think you are wrong here. Most people around the world still do not have computers, as far as I know, and even if so, there are still societies. Societies do not fall apart even if on-line societies and transport is available, and people still do organize themselves around clans and families and neighbors. To the best of my knowledge that is still the way most people live, worldwide.
I lack the arguments why that is 'anarchy'.
|
|
|
|
