Thread replies: 9
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 1414200014129.jpg (103KB, 600x854px) Image search:
[Google]
103KB, 600x854px
>Be republican, though not neccessarily a democrat
>Oppose monarchies, aristrocacies and other social structures that place birth over merit
>Believe that there is such a thing as inherrent and inalienable rights a just state should intervene with as little as possible
but
>Reject the Lockesian and Rousseauvian views of the natural state of man as utopic folly
>Support the Hobbesian view of the natural state as being a war of all against all, which civilization ends through enforcing order
>Logically speaking, this should make me a monarchist, or at least a "whatever works" pragmatist
It appears my beliefs don't make logical sense. Wat do?
>>
>>8005147
sarry four de toppos
>>
>>8005144
read de Tocqueville
>>
One problem (ensuring order) has different solutions.
Aristocracy and tradition is effective for those who haven't tasted the fruit of capitalism, but after tasting the fruit, the only way to ensure order is through capital flow or regression to martial law. You are a "whatever works" pragmatist (in theory, it's not like you actually have the power to effect change) it's just that "whatever works" is invariably pumping capital in one form or another to solve disorder problems.
>>
>>8005147
>Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but ideally those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.
Considering this discussion specifically refers to the Contract thinkers and their works, it belongs on /lit/.
>>
>>8005144
Take it back to /pol/, dumbass.
>>
>>8005171
This, but read Montesquiue first.
>>
>>8005144
What inalienable rights do you believe in? How do you justify them?
Thread posts: 9
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1