p.21 #4 · Best Alt Images, EVER! (before we all die)
dcjs wrote:
That is exactly what I'm rejecting, and Hobbes (wow, having learned what that peculiar user name of yours really means was worth the whole trouble all by itself! - Now does the reverse spelling mean that you reject his ideas, too? ) is the poster boy for how to not run things in my view. In fact, the blatant presumptuousness starts in the third word of your explanation of his theorey - people don't "agree". They are, quite simply, forced. If they all truly agreed, there would be no need for a state to force anyone, and we would have a voluntaristic society. ...Show more →
hah, the idea is that they "agree" that they can't trust everybody to behave justly without rule of law (not that they necessarily agree with every law imposed) and that it only works while the majority believes that government rule is benefiting them more than harming them through restriction of rights. this does, as you point out, force itself on the minority that believes the laws are harming them more than benefiting them. i suspect hobbes' response to your argument would be that without the social contract minorities (in opinion or race) tend to be dead.
as for my choice of avatars, i thought somebody who wrote about the need for the social contract was appropriate for internet fora since they seem to be a great place to model and test social contract design with real people rather than computer simulations. it's spelled backwards because hobbes was already taken. as for my beliefs, i think hobbes does a good job of setting up the basic problem (better than many later philosophers) but his logic falls apart a lot in his discussion of the solution and even more in discussion of the divine right of sovereignty. i'm told there are a number of scholars that believe these difficulties were purposeful because hobbes didn't really believe what he was saying but didn't want to incur the wrath of the sovereign (with whom he had entrusted to maintain the social contract ). assessing the actual beliefs of long dead philosophers versus their stated beliefs is not really something i concern myself much with though.
p.21 #11 · Best Alt Images, EVER! (before we all die)
"The difference between being on the bottom or the top
Is you fight for what you have, they fight for what you've got
And if what you have is what they want they'll make the laws then break them
They see money, they'll remake them, they don't understand--
We live on Indian land
We don't want this job creation it involves annihilation
Of history engraved in stone, the economics of Northeast coal
In parliament we praise, minorities in other countries
Who fight for their land and die for freedom
Here we lock them up and cut them down
Down, down, down
We took their land, dilute their nations
Force them on to reservations
Corporate interest won't stop there
Take the trees and leave this homeland bare-- oh no"
p.21 #12 · Best Alt Images, EVER! (before we all die)
cogitech wrote:
Oh really? Would that be the First Nations of Canada, or the Crown Corporation of Canada (TM)?
oh, my i forgot how complicated canada is... my point was simply that canadian law does in fact explicitly restrict citizens from committing certain acts and owning certain items despite the fact that committing those acts and owning those items will not necessarily harm others. this means that you have either willing given up the right to commit those acts/own those items or that you don't accept those aspects of canadian law.
p.21 #13 · Best Alt Images, EVER! (before we all die)
On topic - let this thread die. 12/21/12 is almost over and the world is still in one piece At best, this was just another thread of recycled alt images, mostly not the best. Mine included, but then they were mostly meant to ad a little fun to the subject. Now it gone to guns
p.21 #16 · Best Alt Images, EVER! (before we all die)
sebboh wrote:
oh, my i forgot how complicated canada is... my point was simply that canadian law does in fact explicitly restrict citizens from committing certain acts and owning certain items despite the fact that committing those acts and owning those items will not necessarily harm others. this means that you have either willing given up the right to commit those acts/own those items or that you don't accept those aspects of canadian law.
p.21 #18 · Best Alt Images, EVER! (before we all die)
pdmphoto wrote:
On topic - let this thread die. 12/21/12 is almost over and the world is still in one piece At best, this was just another thread of recycled alt images, mostly not the best. Mine included, but then they were mostly meant to ad a little fun to the subject. Now it gone to guns
I invited you specifically to the thread in an act of good faith.
Perhaps the gun issue needs to be put to rest, but there is no good reason for the thread to die, or for anyone to belittle the series of fantastic images posted so far.
This is exactly the type of animosity that I am puzzled by around here... It just wasn't like this before.
What happened to you Paul? And so many others? Why so negative?
I just don't get it. Is this community just too large now?
p.21 #19 · Best Alt Images, EVER! (before we all die)
dcjs wrote:
And now, in order to contribute something on-topic (), one of my most unusual images of the year (NEX 5n with C/Y 35-70/3.4, 35mm/5.6, as if that mattered).
I laughed at this picture a bit more than I should..
At best, this was just another thread of recycled alt images, mostly not the best. Mine included, but then they were mostly meant to ad a little fun to the subject. Now it gone to guns 
), one of my most unusual images of the year (NEX 5n with C/Y 35-70/3.4, 35mm/5.6, as if that mattered).
