Hobbes triggers Stage Green people

[Basman]

Because it is about conflict and Stage Green people hate conflict. I see them constantly arguing and debating Hobbes's philosophy because they see it as psychotic and dehumanizing.

What they miss is that Hobbes is reacting against the existential problem of violence in my opinion, what he calls the natural condition. The natural condition is problematic because it undermines society, the ability for millions of strangers with no direct trust to cooperate (otherwise you could only trust your closest friends and family, like how animals do). The only solution to violence existentially is to monopolize violence so you can regulate it. Then we can have nice things like an economy instead of having to bludgeon each other to get what we want. Its basic shit and I think a lot of people who react against Hobbes miss that.

A common criticism is that Hobbes doesn't differentiate between the quality of a sovereign power (the US VS China for example) but that is in my opinion begging the question. Hobbes is more fundamental than that. He is merely arguing that there is no viable alternative for humanity than to have a sovereign power that monopolizes violence. We can always argue what kind of sovereign power we want but that is a question that build on first solving the problem of the natural condition first. Civilization started with conquering your neighboring tribes through brutal violence, growing bigger and bigger as a group with no consideration for fairness. Notice that social justice assumes that there already is a society to react against.

Green people don't appreciate what the natural condition truly entails since Stage Green tends to flourish in a society that is already long been successful and is free from abject poverty, rampant crime and political instability. Hobbes philosophy is purely about survival and they are too spoiled and idealistic to appreciate that. Hobbes is a product of his time as he wrote Leviathan during a civil war, which is a historical context that you have to consider. Hobbes is essentially reacting against stage red/purple and making a case to contain it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Fun fact: apparently about 1/4th of all people who died during the Stone Ages died due to homicide. They where killed by another human being. Of course, because hunter-gatherers don't have direct control over their resources while those resources that do exist are scarce. Humans are therefor incentivized to kill and steal from each other under such conditions. It makes logical sense from a survival perspective. That is the natural condition.

You can observe the natural condition in motion by studying geopolitics as nation states are not subject to a sovereign power. Every time a country gets invaded, like Russia or Israel invading its neighbors, that only happens because relatively speaking those countries lack the material power to deter violence from a foreign adversary. They haven't successfully monopolized violence within their territory and are therefor subject to the violence of others. In contrast, nobody is going to invade the US. Its monopoly of violence over its territory is absolute as the biggest military in the world. Its not even a question. They are so powerful that they can deter China from invading Taiwan, a tiny island right of the Chinese coast millions of miles away from the US.

[Ero]

Very much agree with this observation. Current embodiments in Green seem to have large Red/Blue shadows due to a fundamentally entitled life.

 I would imagine that, for example, the Civil Rights movement in the sixties is a better of example of a fundamentally humanist movement, regardless of nationality, that also had strong roots and understanding of the unique difficulties they faced.

 

Also, your geopolitical observations are superb. I have made similar statements in the forum before, coming from one of those countries “at a crossroads” between superpowers. The only thing I want to add is that for us and many other nations, while military strength is of the utmost importance, we have never had the demography or size to compete with superpower, which is why we have had to fundamentally learn to surf the waves instead if crash into them. As such, throughout our millenia-old history, we have outlasted all empires. 

Edited October 7 by Ero

[Basman]

10 minutes ago, Ero said:

Also, your geopolitical observations are superb. I have made similar statements in the forum before, coming from one of those countries “at a crossroads” between superpowers. The only thing I want to add is that for us and many other nations, while military strength is of the utmost importance, we have never had the demography or size to compete with superpower, which is why we have had to fundamentally learn to surf the waves instead if crash into them. As such, throughout our millenia-old history, we have outlasted all empires. 

Geography is a major factor too. All of the most successful regions, Western-Europe and the US have superb geography, rich in resources, witch access to the ocean whereas the most backwards and war-torn countries are arid deserts where the quantity of land is the only measure of quality, thus territory conflict.

[Ero]

On 10/7/2024 at 8:19 AM, Basman said:

Geography is a major factor too. All of the most successful regions, Western-Europe and the US have superb geography, rich in resources, witch access to the ocean whereas the most backwards and war-torn countries are arid deserts where the quantity of land is the only measure of quality, thus territory conflict.

Absolutely, Hence the name "Geopolitics".

[Basman]

1 hour ago, Ero said:

Absolutely, Hence the name "Geopolitics".

OHH SHID