Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau Comparison Grid

[YvrzTrvly]

My fellow Anarchist breh

Self proclaimed anarchist as well but i also am a believer in moral relativism and realities unique to each individual so im not sure exactly why i should fall into the rousseauian bucket

So essentislly i am just caught up on the nature portion of the spectrum

Edit: wow this is an amazing thread keep it up ill have to continue later

 

[Shogun]

You are distorting these philosophies by incorrectly defining the modern conservative and liberal paradigms.

Conservatives since Nixon have become less economically liberal than liberal Democrats for example

Conservatives have become less liberal than liberals, you say?

 

[BaggerofTea]

Conservatives have become less liberal than liberals, you say?

You are running around with this notion that American conservatives are actually "pro economic liberalism"

pro big business is not pro economic liberalism

 

[BaggerofTea]

Self proclaimed anarchist as well but i also am a believer in moral relativism and realities unique to each individual so im not sure exactly why i should fall into the rousseauian bucket

So essentislly i am just caught up on the nature portion of the spectrum

Edit: wow this is an amazing thread keep it up ill have to continue later

I think Rousseau accounts for moral relativism here. I interpret it as a embracing of unique human perspectives and how they interact with the will of everyone else.

 

[YvrzTrvly]

I think Rousseau accounts for moral relativism here. I interpret it as a embracing of unique human perspectives and how they interact with the will of everyone else.

I see what you are saying...

Somewhat counter to that however you have to assume that every individual within a society gives up a piece of their uniqueness in order to function within the limits of said society...in turm marginalizing each individual free will

This is where i seem to be getting caught up. I do realize that my vision of optimal society longs for individual freedom to not be supressed but i guess, as i mentioned above, no scenario seems to allow for such results

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Hume

Hume is the GOAT but he was not an option

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Utilitarianism is the best though all things considered

 

[GnauzBookOfRhymes]

Marx did hit the nail on the head with class struggle as the driver behind most social/political upheaval. Still as relevant today as when it was originally written.

 

[Obreh Winfrey]

As the terms right and left become more muddled. I think we should go back to a more basic political test of where someone lies on the liberal-conservative spectrum.

Based on this chart, I am Locke-Rousseau thinker

Who are you?

I suppose you could call me Liberal/Moderate in line with Locke, but I don't really agree. On the state of nature it seems off to me. Men give up the chaos to security the advantages of civilized society? I don't buy that line of reasoning. I'll agree with his purpose of government, but I disagree with representation and impact on founders. What I'm about to get into is a bit abstract, but it's the only way I can explain my thoughts on it.

Here's how I see it. You can distill government down to basic building blocks, the smallest of which is the family unit. We'll start with one family (mother, father, a handful of children); although each member of the family theoretically could act on pure self interest to the detriment of other members of the family, it doesn't benefit them in the long run. The father is the hunter, the mother is the caregiver, the children handle trivial tasks which would detract from the mother and father's duties. For everyone to have a "pleasurable" existence, the proper way to channel their self-interest is to work together as a unit. Now, when we look back on society we see that the head of the unit has traditionally been the father. At times it has been the mother, but regardless the decisionmaking has been made by one individual. When we understand that, then we can make the statement that the basis of government can be seen as a system of representation.

Now lets add in a few more families, lets say 5 total. You have a population between around 5 and 25 people. Imagine having 5 tribes working for themselves with no unifying structure. Things could certainly devolve into chaos, which I'm sure we could agree would be bad. Thus, the family heads come together to form a larger unit of government. So when Locke's Impact on Founders is stated, "Governments must be designed to protect the people from the government," I see that as flawed. Governments are formed to benefit society. At the same time, I don't see that governments "must be designed to protect the people from themselves," as Hobbes says. The natural structure isn't to protect people, but to facilitate their survival. Back to Locke's point, I don't see anything being sacrificed or given up to reap the benefits.

I better stop before I get myself too excited . I'll take this and run a marathon with it... But if anyone wants to debate a specific point pull up

Spoiler

a chair and lets discuss.

 

[Mr Rager]

Locke>>>>>>>

Although I get Rousseau's perspective on the role of gov't

Side note: if you've read discourse on the arts and sciences, Rousseau seems a lil fruity....he gets real excited over the idea of a bunch of naked sweaty mens running around in nature