Hacker News Reader

Without law, is fear of a violent reprisal the only thing that would 'keep you in line'?

There are countless opportunities for me every day to engage in risk free petty theft, yet I don't. Why don't I? It isn't fear of the law, since I have no fear of being caught, and it isn't fear of reprisal since, again, I have no fear of being caught.

No, I think the reason why I don't steal, even when I could, probably has something to do with the same underlying basis of all those "don't steal" laws. I mean, is it a coincidence that I, and those long dead lawmakers, both think that I shouldn't steal? I don't think the existence of the law has created in me this aversion to stealing either. I could cite for you countless examples where the law and I agree to disagree. It's neither fear nor respect of the law that keeps me (and I suspect, most people) from stealing.

>>Without law, is fear of a violent reprisal the only thing that would 'keep you in line'?

well... yeah. If not born into a society with established laws, there would be nothing engraining this idea that you may not take something somebody else is "using".

I'd be interested to see solid evidence supporting this theory. Without it, I'm sort of inclined to believe that people wouldn't settle into anarchist madness without someone telling them not to do that.

Whether or not the esoteric idea of "property" exists as some sort of natural law seems irrelevant. Philosophy aside, a society just agrees that something should be a certain way, and then decides to enforce that idea. To me this is all what modern liberalism representative governments try to be. I reject the need for an idea to exist as some magical entity apart from a society. The idea of property was invented by people and is seen as good and is agreed upon. Same with government. Neither are natural laws of the universe. So to me this whole argument is arguing over nothing.

Aren't you agreeing with Hobbes?

Probably, but I am not sure. Actually the more I think about it, yes. But only according to one interpretation of what Hobbes says in the quoted passage. I agree that order can only exist when people agree on something. Hobbes calls it a "common power". However, one could interpret Hobbes as saying you need some kind of rigid construct to enforce order. Not really. People just have to agree. I was trying to say that that's the only reason property rights exist, because people agree on them, but that's also the only reason government exists. My point was that "property" and "government" are both just words, and whether or not "property" can exist without "government" depends on how you define them. So in my opinion the two people above me were arguing over nothing of consequence. I do not count philosophy among my strengths so sorry if this doesn't make any sense.

Said another way, if you define "government" as people agreeing on a rule, then no, property rights cannot exist outside of government. Or if they did, they would have no basis in reality so they're not worth thinking about. However, if you define "government" as a certain way of enforcement, or a way of codifying laws, or really any particular construct, then in that case property rights obviously do exist outside of government.

> I agree that order can only exist when people agree on something. Hobbes calls it a "common power". However, one could interpret Hobbes as saying you need some kind of rigid construct to enforce order. Not really. People just have to agree.

What Hobbes is saying is a bit more involved than that. He is saying that because people's nature (and self-interest in particular) mean that they will, in practice, not acheive universal agreement, you can't, in practice, have order without an entity which can enforce compliance with the general-but-not-universal agreement and punish defection from it, because otherwise even a general agreement will devolve into chaos. (He might have been more succinct and made reference to the "Tragedy of the Commons", except that that term wouldn't be coined for a little over three centuries after Hobbes wrote Leviathan, and even the historical events that motivated the term were still.)

> Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man.

As there is no global government or other power, we can observe the relationships between people that have no common power and prove his assertion false.

For example, there is no one common power that controls all American and British people. Yet Americans and British people travel to each other's homes, have relationships with each other, trade with each other, and sometimes even move from one country to another. All of this is done peacefully, with no common power that controls both sides of the equation. Same thing with relationships between Swiss people and Japanese people, or Chinese people and Egyptians, or Brazilians and Indians, or anybody else that you choose.

If Hobbes' idea was true, wouldn't the relationship between two average people that have no common power be rather warlike rather than the mutually beneficially peaceful relationships that we see every day?

As there is no global government or other power, we can observe the relationships between people that have no common power and prove his assertion false.

Or we can observe that though someone may travel abroad, at home they are subject to a power (their home country's laws) and abroad they are subject to a power (the laws of the country they're visiting).

And then we can observe that your analogy really works best with the countries themselves, and of course the history of international relations is full of countries respecting each others' territory, sovereignty, etc. without any need for some third party to exercise power and hold them in check. Right?

Right?

You're going to say that the way nation-states deal with each other proves some sort of inviolable human rights?

Have you read much history?

I have never read Hobbes but it sounds like his notion 'Common Power' could be more than a governing entity. Although trade is done peacefully without bloodshed I think that smaller societies realize that refusal to go along with larger societies' best interest would mean war, obviously this would not be good for the smaller society. So smaller societies co-operate and trade because they know they are better off doing so.

So might == right? I think most reject that argument, myself included.

So does Hobbes. Read carefully.

And yet most people approve of government, which is the embodiment of the idea that might makes right.

Not exactly. The government rules by consent of the governed.

Obviously not the consent of all the governed, all the time.

That's what democracy is all about. The majority rules, unless the majority is wrong, then the minority rules.

Exactly. Democracy, like all government, is about might makes right. That was my point.

Which is why I think that phrase in the Declaration of Independence is philosophically deceptive, and perhaps deliberately so. To someone who does consent to most or all other their government's actions, it will give them a warm fuzzy feeling. To someone who doesn't consent, even if they're in the minority, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What's the real philosophy there? Is it really just that, if 50% plus one person consents to the government, everything is cool, but if one less person consents, they are all obligated to alter or abolish it?