The State Is a Natural Object

By -
"From these considerations it is evident that the state belongs to the class of things that exist by nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. He who is without a state, by reason of his own nature and not of some accident, is either a poor sort of being, or a being higher than man: he is like the man of whom Homer wrote in denunciation: 'Clanless and lawless and heartless is he.'" -- Aristotle, Politics, Book I, Section ii

Anarchists often like to point to the decline in character of various states over time as making a case against the state tout court. But Aristotle documents this sort of decline at great length: he would be unmoved. Claiming that because states, like all natural objects, are subject to decay and corruption, therefore we should eliminate them, is like saying that because our bodies decline with old age, they should be eliminated!

Comments

  1. Bobybuilder4:02 PM

    Not all of them Gene. I think Rothbardians only argue that we need to set the organs free from the supervisory constraints and dictates of "homeostatic regulation": centrally produced and regulated hormones. Let organs negotiate directly, free from intervention.

    Oh, and end fractional reserve gene expression.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more