A causal argument for statism from a philosophy point of view

References and Further Reading 1. It progressively came to be extended to include not just extreme utopian dictatorships of the far right, but also Communist regimes, especially that of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Although a distinctly modern problem, proto-totalitarian notions may be found in a variety of philosophical and political systems. In the seventeenth century, absolutists and royalists such as Thomas Hobbes and Jacques Bossuet advocated, in various ways, a strong centralized state as a guarantor against chaos in conformity with natural law and biblical precedent.

A causal argument for statism from a philosophy point of view

It is our job to see that it stays there. The political principle at stake is quite simple: This should perhaps be stated in the obverse: The history of arguments and struggles over this principle, throughout the world, is long and clear.

The question of gun rights is a political question, in the broad sense that it touches on the distribution of power in a polity. For me, and for most supporters of gun rights, however inartfully they may put it, this is the core issue.

Do you hold that the right to possess firearms is a fundamental political right? It is my perception, based on public evidence, as well as countless conversations on the subject, that the latter position is that of most self-identified American liberals.

However they may occasionally, tactically, craft their discourse to pretend, for an audience that does value the right of citizens to arm themselves, that they too value that right, most American liberals just do not. They do not even understand why it should be considered a right at all, in the sense elaborated above.

They would love to restrict it as much as possible, and they would just as soon be done with the American constitutional guarantee of that right, the Second Amendment, which they see as some kind of embarrassing anachronism.

I think we should have this discussion honestly. If the latter is your position, say it.

John Hospers’ Betrayal of Ayn Rand

If you want to eliminate the Second Amendment right, mount a forthright political campaign to do so. When your discourse reeks with intellectual and moral disdain for gun-rights and gun-rights advocates, when it never endorses, and indeed at best studiously avoids, the issue of gun ownership as a fundamental political right, it shows.

I would have done it. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. How persuasive is this performance by pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-hands Joe?

The Dark Enlightenment, by Nick Land

Those who understand gun ownership as a fundamental political right correctly perceive, and are right to resist, the intended threat of its incremental elimination in gun-control laws that will have little to no practical effect, other than to demand more acts of compliance and submission to the armed authority of the state.

This is not about whether anybody likes or dislikes guns, and certainly nobody should fetishize them. It is unfortunate that, as with many debates in this country, the gun-rights debate is cast in the media as a clash between two extremely silly camps — those who fetishize guns positively, and those who fetishize them negatively.

For there to be a serious political debate, both of these attitudes really have to be recognized, and dropped, by those who inhabit them. I think there should be fewer guns.

I definitely think that the cultural representation of armed violence as a quick, effective, and attractive solution for all kinds of personal and social problems, which is ubiquitous in America, is ridiculous and pernicious.

The answer to that is to do a lot of determined political and cultural work, not to pass a law and call in the armed police, the courts, and the penal system to enforce it on people who have done nothing wrong. Guns are neither magic talismans against tyranny nor anathematic objects that cause crime and violence.

Guns — certainly the personal firearms that are in question — carry a limited but real measure of inherent power, and therefore danger, that everyone should respect. Indeed it is because they are powerful and dangerous that they are the nexus of an important political right. But guns are not agents of history.

They are not, per se, going to free a polity from oppression or generate unrestrained social violence.

When the Left complains about being "silenced," it is not because they are actually prevented from speaking, but only because they are schwenkreis.com their Orwellian, or Marcusan, universe, "Free speech" is when the Right is silenced. The question of gun rights is a political question, in the broad sense that it touches on the distribution of power in a polity. Thus, although it incorporates all these perfectly legitimate “sub-political” activities, it is not fundamentally about hunting, or collecting, or target practice; it is about empowering the citizen relative to the state. People are unaccountably convinced that there is an upward trend in severe weather events due to global warming. But there is no upward trend in the data on either the frequency or severity of those events.

Within an insurgent political movement, they can at certain moments be useful, even crucial, for the former outcome; and, within a context of social decay brought on by other factors, they can seriously exacerbate the latter.

Their overall positive or negative effect is only determined by the political and social context in which they are used, and the character of the agents who use them.Adding the new variable is justified from a methodological point of view as a means of improving the model by reducing what is referred to as “omitted variable bias.” The critique then draws the inference that because the inclusion of this additional variable (or variables) renders the democracy variable statistically insignificant, the.

Oct 21,  · absolutism – the position that in a particular domain of thought, all statements in that domain are either absolutely true or absolutely false: none is true for some cultures or eras while false for other cultures or eras.

These statements are called absolute truths. A common reaction by those. DEEP ANARCHY An Eliminativist View of "The State" by Max T. O'Connor [Editor: This article is reprinted from Extropy #5, Winter/ Extropy is published by The Extropy Institute, Extropy is the opposite of entropy.

Founded in , Princeton University Press is an independent publisher with close connections, both formal and informal, to Princeton University. Of course.

A causal argument for statism from a philosophy point of view

But to be fair, the clear superiority of living in states is a fairly recent phenomenon. Unless you happened to be one of the elite of a state-having society, the living standard gap between yourself and a hill tribe member was not that big and in many cases was better for the average anarchist.

[The following is a transcription of Igor Shafarevich's The Socialist schwenkreis.com work was originally published in Russian in France under the title Sotsializm kak iavlenie mirovoi istorii in , by YMCA Press. An English translation was subsequently published in by Harper & Row.

The Polemicist: The Rifle on the Wall: A Left Argument for Gun Rights