Quote:
Originally Posted by Shatnerpossum
According to Hobbes, in the state of nature everyone has a right to anything. That includes the right to take life, and worse. If he's right then anarchy is even more impossible. Because his state of nature IS no society, it goes to show why your definition of anarchy is the worst possible system.
We need government or society in order to resolve disputes. Ask any of the great thinkers.
|
I don't need a government to solve disputes I have with somebody else , besides if there wouldn't be governments and states who fueled their peoples hearts with hate against each other , there wouldn't be no reason for any disputes .
So if Anarchy is the worst possible "system" (it actually is not a system , it's the abstinence of any kind of system, which includes systems that oppress and control their people) , what would your advice be referring to a system that is fair and offers freedom to it's people ? Or better said , is that even possible , now that we can't go back from the idea of having a government/state ?
__________________
"In the beginning there was man , and for a time it was good , but humanities so called civil societies soon fell victim to vanity and corruption , then man made the machine in his own likeness , thus would man become the arcitect of his own demise , but for a time it was good"