We’re not just talking about individuals making errors here, we’re talking about entire civilizations. Sure, Hitler was a bad apple. And I don’t know that we would’ve gotten Nazi Germany the way we did without him. But the man was elected. That means that a lot of people supported him.
Obama is one man. And he has a huge effect on the path America is treading. But he has enormous support, even now. This isn’t about individuals, this is about large groups of people.
Not to be rude but I won’t accept the argument that civilizations, or society, can error. A civilization who votes for a man does not agree to genocide. Further more whats the difference between a civilization and the individual?
Excellent post Wilderness. Thank you for sharing.
This reminded me of a thought I had the other day while talking to my dad. I was trying to point out to him that there was a “gun in the room.” He was basically agreeing with me that there was in fact a gun, however he said, we needed to have an organization that would grab the gun and be the first to use it.
This to me is exactly what you were saying about not looking at the state from a logical point of view, but instead making excuses for its “lower” behavior being needed.
This seems to me to be intellectually lazy. I have a few more dots about to be connected in my head, but they’re moving slowly… maybe later.
Actually let me rephrase because I think you mis-understood my point and I may not have stated it very well.
What if did not have society and civilization. What if we only had individuals among individuals? Why couldn’t we isolate individual error to the individuals who error. Rather then blanket an accident over all individuals or perpetuate known existing accidents indefinitely?
If you can’t see that entire cultures, societies or civilizations can make errors, then we can’t keep talking about this. Our viewpoints are too far apart.
Not to mention the fact that there is an implication that the individuals who make errors are just anomalies that do not, in any way, reflect something about the cultures, civilizations or societies or times that they occurred in. Which I can’t agree with.
Hitler and Stalin didn’t happen in a vacuum.
You’re making a philosophical distinction. And I understand that. But I think that Hitler represents a face of humanity. And for me to see that, I have to see people as groups as well as individuals. So our philosophies don’t mesh here.
And what if you removed the framework that fostered that group of people?
I’m not sure that I understand what you mean here, could you clarify for me please?
The problem with your point is that it is extremely non-sequitur and undermines the voices of people who may have been opposed to Hitler and opposed to the Holocaust at the time. You charge them as guilty as being a part of that civilization. A kind of guilty by association.
It does not follow that if a majority(not society) votes for a man they do not necessarily agree to the actions he takes afterwords.
This comes back to the fundamental point I brought up which you may have missed. You wrote…
I would argue to you that Societies cannot make errors. We could not coherently contend that a collective of individuals unanimously agreed to genocide? We’d have to contend that even the individuals being killed were also in agreement. Society is incapable of making errors, just as it is impossible to move the right hand of society and impossible for society to have a single coherent thought. Only individuals can error, as as only individuals can think, and move. In some cases larger numbers of individuals than others error. Why can’t those larger groups of individuals pay for their errors as opposed to making all individuals pay for those errors?
Bloom what do you make of Hayek’s point?
This statement seems to imply that we should make no effort in ‘improving’ the framework of society to foster an environment which promotes life and wellbeing?
If we were to take this hopeless statement seriously posting on this forum would be entirely done in vain. To be honest, making this comment here on this forum seems self defeating? Obviously you think there is hope, otherwise you wouldn’t be here.
Ok, there will always be dissenters. But if a majority of people are for tyranny, genocide, etc, how can we not say that they are just as much a reflection of humanity as the people who opposed these things?
Sure, maybe not everyone that supported Hitler was also in support of the Holocaust. But I’m sure quite a good bit of them were.
These incidents aren’t just isolated incidents. They’re political/social/economic/cultural phenomena that have a tendency to repeat themselves.
Why? Is it really because of government? Or is it because of humanity? The OP was exploring the foundations of the desire for government in what he calls the “base level” of human psychology.
Government isn’t the problem, people are the problem.
In response to Hayek’s point, I think that you will uniform beliefs within both intellectual and non-intellectual spheres. The incentive for uniformity is not unique to people of lesser intelligence.
These are functions of a state not functions of a human being.
Humans create states. Human beings do this stuff. States are just the means by which they do them.
Its the other way around. How can you call a society murderers because 1 man or 1 government participated in genocide? Going down this road eventually brings us to various forms of xenophobia. By voting for Hitler did the majority agree to genocide? Do you see the disconnect? WOuld it be a fair assessment to call all Germans murderers?
People simply voted as best they could with the information provided to them. This is a fundamental problem with democracy, rational ignorance.
Exactly. So why do we create a social apparatus of coercion for bad people to be employed in? What better spot for a murderer to place himself in other than government? I’m not saying Hitler wouldn’t exist in the absence of a state. I’m asking you if Hitler could have done that scale of harm had he not been in that position of power?
Again from the same book, you should read it
The Road to Serfdom.
Hope? Not that people will get better. I think there is the opportunity to minimize and sometimes reverse damage, which is why I’m here. In other words, we can’t stop the degeneration, but we might be able to slow it down for a time, or even pull it back, but it requires things to get bad enough to motivate people that change is needed.
Alright, I can’t continue this conversation, we’re not speaking the same language. Which is fine.
Humans also murder, kill, and plunder. If you beleive we should support this than why continue posting here on this forum? Why not admit defeat and retreat back to the shadows, nooks and crannies. I won’t be joining you but your stance on this matter bloggles me, because yet you are still here posting. Had you truely been in a state of hopelessness I doubt you would be here.
Your actions seem to contradict what your writing.
Again, you’re misunderstanding me, this conversation cannot continue, we’re speaking different languages.
Arn’t we saying the same thing? I was confused by your prior statement where you stated that no ‘Archy’ would be beneficial for us. You seem to indicate that altering or introducing new systems would be useless. Your second statement seems more along the lines of what I was getting at.