4 ms·

Society is better because it offers you comfortable living in exchange for some work. In the state of nature you'd likely already be dead, so that's a huge impr

by badpun 3y ago

Society is better because it offers you comfortable living in exchange for some work. In the state of nature you'd likely already be dead, so that's a huge improvement. Also, how is the current scarcity artificial? Are we limiting the output somehow? Could we for example produce much more cheap food, but we don't, in order to keep the proles scared?

randomdata 3y ago
> Are we limiting the output somehow? He is saying that we limit his inputs. He wants to, for example, be able to produce his own food as to not have to rely on deals made with other people to acquire food, but notes that society carefully controls who has control of the land that is able to support that production, leaving nowhere for him to do so, and leaving him at the mercy of being able to reach agreements with others – others who may not want to make an agreement with him – in order to eat. He says that without a strong society he could push anyone standing in his way of the land aside (by brutal force, if necessary), but an entire society standing in his way is a force too great. As such, he believes that great force should provide suitable compensation for the restrictions it imposes (e.g. if you aren't permitted access to land to produce your own food, you should be guaranteed access to food by some other means).
- badpun 3y ago
  The assumption that, in a lawless society scenario, he'd essentially win the fight over the land (against other people who also want it) is very optimistic.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    He asserted a society, not necessarily a rule of law. Law formalizes a direction for society, but society can also function in a more ad-hoc manner. If an individual does not have any meaningful kind of society behind him, however, defending tens of thousands of acres like a farmer in a society can is likely impossible.

4 ms·

Society is better because it offers you comfortable living in exchange for some work. In the state of nature you'd likely already be dead, so that's a huge impr

by badpun 3y ago

randomdata 3y ago
> Are we limiting the output somehow? He is saying that we limit his inputs. He wants to, for example, be able to produce his own food as to not have to rely on deals made with other people to acquire food, but notes that society carefully controls who has control of the land that is able to support that production, leaving nowhere for him to do so, and leaving him at the mercy of being able to reach agreements with others – others who may not want to make an agreement with him – in order to eat. He says that without a strong society he could push anyone standing in his way of the land aside (by brutal force, if necessary), but an entire society standing in his way is a force too great. As such, he believes that great force should provide suitable compensation for the restrictions it imposes (e.g. if you aren't permitted access to land to produce your own food, you should be guaranteed access to food by some other means).
- badpun 3y ago
  The assumption that, in a lawless society scenario, he'd essentially win the fight over the land (against other people who also want it) is very optimistic.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    He asserted a society, not necessarily a rule of law. Law formalizes a direction for society, but society can also function in a more ad-hoc manner. If an individual does not have any meaningful kind of society behind him, however, defending tens of thousands of acres like a farmer in a society can is likely impossible.