The new job

The new job is awesome.

Sony Still sucks

I’ve called sony 4 times now to try and get them to send one simple email so i can get my stereo fixed…. still no email.  I’ve gived them my email address in phonetic format three times, and yet the email has failed to reach me.  and now customer dis-service is closed.

BOYCOTT SONY PRODUCTS.  Yeah, i said it.  to hell with sony, in this economy, you can’t produce business profits by ignoring your customers and sending them 30 miles only to be told that they can’t work on your product there.

If you can’t get with the program, then i don’t want your products….and sony, i hope you’re reading this.

Sony, you too

Sony. If I spend my money I a nice stereo I expect it to work. If it by some chance doesn’t, then I expect YOU to pay for the postage. Duh. A two hour old stereo is your responsibility to fix!

Sony you suck.

Why DC restautants suck

Ok so I’m in DC for the mess that is inauguration. And I’m in dupont circle with my cousin an her boyfriend, who happen to be British. Now I understand that there migy be some animosity towards Brits in DC with the whole burning down in 1812 thing. But it’s been awhile get over it.

Places that suck:

1. raku at the corner of q and 19th. You can’t serve alcohol to a 24 year old because he has an EU Id? What he fuck kind of international city is DC?

2. The bakery across the street. Firehook. You suck for not opening up the bathroom. After I spend 25 dollars in your place, I expect to be able to take a piss.

3. Apples iPhone autocorrect feature. I meant to type in fuck.

Yet one more reason AT&T sucks

Once again at&t has let me down. Visual voicemail is broken. And we have no way of knowing if we have a message since there is no voicemail icon on an iPhone.

some things on bathroom walls…..

Free meds?!?

I just saw that giant is offering free antibiotics. Is this really a good idea? I mean yeah free meds, but what about resistant germs?

Just a little math about the Iraq war

While I’m sure that the Iraq war is the most important thing we could possibly spend our money on…. yeah right.

The Huffington Post recently posted that congress has arrived at an Iraq war funding bill totaling more than 163 Billion dollars.

A few things that could be done with that money.

• Give 2 million college students an 81,500$ scholarship.
• Give 4 million college students a 40K scholarship.

Yes, thats right, we could actually pay a full ride of about 15K at a state public institution for approximately 9 million students.  9 MILLION!!!!  Talk about a jumpstart to our economy, how much of a kick would 9 million more college degrees produce?

In case you weren’t angry enough, this Iraq war funding bill equates to 543.33 per person.  Thats right, you just increased your tax burden by 543$, or more likely, your childrens tax burden, or grandchildrens.

If you aren’t angry, you should be.

Thats right you don’t know, because you weren’t there man!

OK, so the other day, I was in a bar with a few friends and we ended up two steps away from a nice round of waltzing Matilda with this guy who basically claimed that we had no authority to speak on the Vietnam War because we weren’t there……man.

 The aspect of knowing war aside, sure, I will freely admit that there is no way that I can know exactly without a doubt every aspect of a war without seeing every aspect of that war firsthand.  However, I have some serious issues with this argument that empirical knowledge trumps reasoning in all cases.

First, by using only empirical knowledge (knowledge taken from experience), any given event will have a very detailed accounting.  However, this accounting is not neccessarily accurate.  Suppose that the person is scared, drunk, angry, horny, happy, or just plain stupid.  All of these emotions can easily cloud a persons judgement into distorting his or her account of an event.

Secondly, who is right?  Suppose I have three different accounts of an event which all differ equally?  Which one is right?  The one which merely agrees with whatever theory I am trying to support.  I guess that could work, seems to have worked for the Bush Administration.

Thirdly, my account represents a microhistory.  One small tiny piece of the entire story.  I can tell you about my personal experiences in Iraq, or Afghanistan, and they would be true stories, however, they would not reflect the same story as any other Marine, even those in my own unit.  And it is very likely that my account and personal history would be very different from the story an entire army or country would tell regarding the war.  Although, my account would be true, and so would theirs.

Take this simple test to determine whether you believe that a empirical evidence trumps reasoning: Take a fork, and stick it into your eye……Done?  Good, now post a comment and tell me how it feels, and then I will have an idea of how it feels, although I would not know with certainty until I stick the fork into my own eye.  Now, don’t use a knife, it might feel different, I’ll let a spork slide, since it does incorporate some aspects of a fork, spoon and knife.

What?  You didn’t do it?  Well then, that clearly means that you believe that reason is more important than experience.  You didn’t stick the fork into your eye because you know that harming your own body will cause pain, and that pain isn’t a good thing, and therefore, you shouldn’t do things which are likely to cause pain, i.e. sticking a fork into your own eye.

Of course, in retrospect, maybe I should have asked you to stick the fork  into your heart, or brain.  This would also be an effective solution to convince the population that reason is better than experience.  Even better, I should ask everyone to cut out their own tounges.

Now why would this have any impact upon the rest of the world?  Well, yeah, i’m an Iraq and Afghanistan vet.  OK, guess what, I can tell you first-hand that getting shot at sucks.  Its better than the alternative, of getting shot. or at least, so I would reason, I can’t tell you for sure, and I don’t really want to find out.  But did I really need to tell you that?

Because i’m an egotistical bastard and like posting my term papers online

The Development of Civil Society under Hobbes

Alan Norman

I. Introduction

Developing a Civil Society directly from a State of Nature (SoN) is not an easy task.  Given that there are no almighty powers in a state of nature where “Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable.”[1] As a result, “the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest.”[2]  The only almighty power exists in God who has either chosen or cannot exercise temporal power.  Therefore it lies upon men to establish a civil society.  Therefore with all men more or less created equal, men will compete against every man for various resources to secure their self-preservation and happiness.[3]  Since they are equal, there is no way to compel men to honor their covenants and provide for peace without a form of government.  I propose that the only form that the world can take which will ensure peace is one in which there are no more and no less than two world governing bodies.  I intend to show that governments and societies are formed out of fear and a desire for self-preservation, and that when there is only one world government, that the reason for the formation of society diminishes and the government will fragment.  Conversely, if there are more than two world governments, then two of those governments will attempt to seek dominion over the third in order to overpower them and establish one government.  Only by producing two stable governments with equal abilities will the world ever know a lack of war albeit still remaining under the fear of war.II. The State of Nature is Always with us

There cannot be a state of peace because there is no Leviathan.  All people are considered more of less equal with one another and therefore one person does not have the ability to govern thru brute force without compatriots.  Additionally, there is also the continuous threat of war between individuals, groups, states, and nations.  This threat of war also negates the state of peace since “the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary.  All other time is peace.”[4]  Therefore, the state of peace does not exist now, and likely has never existed in the history of man.

III. Definition of Society

Therefore with no civil society consisting of all those subjugated under the rule of a Leviathan, a society must be defined under another grouping.  Although a sovereign is necessary to act as a common voice and give direction for a society, the sovereign does not define the society.  A society under its barest minimum must consist of at least two people who are pledged to support each other in times of need, and provide for a common defense on a contractual and binding basis. 

For examples within the modern world, those who are within a person’s family constitute a minimum society.  The largest extent of a society would be those in a position to offer assistance and support, and would constitute all those who either pay taxes to a national government with a welfare system and national defense system.  Therefore, the United States of America would constitute a society as a whole.

The ability of support and common defense must be reciprocal in nature.  If one party is not capable of providing mutual support while receiving support from the other party, then he contributes nothing to the society, and would in fact be a drain upon such a society.  This does not mean that one society or even an individual cannot come to the aid of another individual or society in an attempt to gain “friendship or service from another, or from his friends’ or in hope to gain the reputation of charity, or magnanimity; or to deliver his mind from the pain of compassion; or in hope of reward in heaven; this is not contract, but gift.”[5]  However, those who receive that gift are not a part of the giving society.  Therefore, a kind and charitable act such as giving food aid to Africa or tsunami aid to Malaysia does not make Africans or Malays a part of our society, since they do not contribute to our defense or return any aid to our society.

The common defense must also be continuing and contractual.  Therefore, a contract cannot include other groups who have at one time worked together for a common defense yet are not permanently aligned.  A portion of a society cannot go to war without the rest of the society also joining in the conflict.  For example, although France and the United States have aligned themselves for a common defense several times in the past, they have also each worked unilaterally in the past for their defense, and are therefore not in the same society.  Additionally, although Britain and the United States are aligned in a pact for mutual defense, there is still debate among leaders as to whether Britain should participate in the war on terrorism.  This means that Britain and the United States are not in the same society.  The United States is a singular society since no one state, county, or individual can choose to not support the war on terrorism, as we all pay taxes, or join the military and therefore provide support the conflict.

There is a group which does not fall into this model of society.  It consists of those individuals who do not have the means to contribute to society’s goals.  This group consists of infants, the aged, the sick, and those who have been crippled by birth or injury.  In the case of infants and the sick who have the potential to recover, they are supported by society under the hope that they will one day join or rejoin society as a productive member.  As for the other groups, they are protected under our society under the promise that we should be protected if or when we should become a member of that group.  Hobbes would likely argue that by caring for these non-contributing members of society, in strengthens the bond that otherwise holds a society together.  If those who suddenly became non-contributing members were discarded as garbage, then the society would become extremely risk-adverse.  Armies would be hesitant in battle under the fear that they could become injured and discarded.

The last and final group is those who choose to benefit from the protection of society without contributing to its existence without falling under the previous group.  This group constitutes the chronically unemployed, hermits, and some lawyers among others.  This group is typically allowed to remain within a society provided they are not an excessive drain upon the productive members and merely draw from the excess resources which are otherwise stockpiled or wasted.  They are tolerated and benefit from the human condition of laziness: society would rather tolerate them as an annoying but non-threatening parasite rather than exert the energy to expel them from society.  However, as a result of their tenacious position, in the event of any strain upon the resources available to the productive members, those non-contributors will be the first to suffer.

IV. The Definition of a Sovereign

The definition of a sovereign is simply a leader who has the power to compel a population to a unified cause under the fear that without action for or against this unified cause, the society would perish.  The sovereign is the power which compels a person to keep their contracts, be they in law or in trade.  This leader is typically a person, and there is the implication under Hobbes that the leader is also responsible for the defense of all the people under his charge.

However under Hobbes, there is no one person who has the capability to do all of these things as a singular entity.  Only by a conglomeration of multiple people can this protection and enforcement exist.

There is however one option which is not discussed directly by Hobbes: if a leaders purpose is to ensure law and order in a society, then could a force existing outside of a society act as a sovereign if that force compels law and order and an enforcement of contracts?

V. Ten Angry Men

Suppose then that there exist ten men who are perfectly equal in all respects of intelligence, strength, speed, size, and all other forms of power.  Furthermore, each of these men has been awarded equal resources from their ancestors, and has equal access to weapons.  These people are placed equidistant from each other in a location which offers them equal amounts and types of resources in each of their respective spheres of influence so that none would have a need for another man’s resources.  In all respects, these men are equal.

However, in a State of Nature, these men will compete for resources and attempt to increase their power.  Even though these ten men would have their earthly needs met within their own dominions, they will attempt a “perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death.”[6]  They would expand their personal empires for three reasons: “The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation.”[7]  Since in this society, all men’s needs are met by their personal empires, then the only reason these ten men would war against each other would be safety and reputation.  Men would gather more than they can possibly utilize in case some of their empire were taken at a later time, they would still have the means to subsist.[8]  Reputation and ego are important aspects, and do govern the conduct of men, however safety is much more important.  Therefore, reputation will not be explored in this paper.

Therefore, our ten men will become enemies, because they covet and seek to possess and control that which is another’s and declare war.[9]  Hence, assume that two or more parties, but not all, fought against each other at the same time: with all parties equal in every way, including the ability of chance to intervene, they would both likely kill or seriously injure each other, with a stalemate at an end.  Alternately, one side may gain strength from the encounter through the form of experience in combat.  Finally, one may be victorious against the other and take his kingdom for his own.  Regardless which of these outcomes presents itself; we are left with at least one party who is either stronger or weaker than the other parties.

Assume that this one party is stronger without destroying any other kingdom, in a state of nature, all other parties would now be subject to this stronger parties invasions and attacks, and would live in the constant fear of death.  But this party is not strong enough to defeat two of the other nine if they were so bound together in a society of mutual support and defense.

So it rests that two people should band together to support each other in defense against the stronger party.  But according to Hobbes, there can be no binding contract under a State of Nature where the rights exchanged are not done so immediately.  Because under a State of Nature, there is no crime in subversion, treachery, or in breaking a promise previously given; there would be nothing from preventing a person from making a contract then waiting until the second person is in a vulnerable position, and killing him.  Therefore, making a pact for self protection is a difficult endeavor.

All covenants entered into under a State of Nature are automatically invalid, since “this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust.  The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place.”[10]  Therefore a method must be reached to ensure that a contract will bind.  This fundamentally rests of the jus naturale, that every man has the right to do that which is in his best self-interest, survival.  Under this concept, a man with the potential to break a covenant with another has one of three choices: he can break the contract with his partner and kill him, but would then be forced to face the stronger opponent alone.  In this case, with all other things being equal, he would likely lose.  Or conversely, he can keep the initial contract with his original partner and defeat the stronger opponent.  The third option would be to betray his original contractor and form an alliance with the stronger person.  The third option presents a problem for producing a society, since there is nothing to prevent the stronger from then killing his traitor and erstwhile ally.  Therefore, the two are bound in a contract of fear, which is binding to each of them, since a breaking of this contract would undoubtedly lead to their demise, and under a Hobbesian State of Nature, no man can be forced to commit an action which would be detriment to his self-defense.

Therefore, the coercive power which has compelled these two men to a contract and formation of a society is represented by “some coercive power to compel men equally to the performance of their covenants, by the terror of some punishment greater than the benefit they expect by the breach of their covenant.”[11]  In this case, the sovereign leader of a people is not one of the members of the original contract, but an opposing society.  Because of its terrible power to destroy each member of a society individually, they must band together for the common welfare and defense of each other.

So that now there exists a single stronger member, one two-person state, and seven other individual members.  The two-person state is now more powerful than the single stronger member, and now the impetus lies upon the stronger member to find in one of the other individuals a member to form a covenant.  If he is able to do so, then he will survive, however, it is more likely that the other members of the state will by now have seen the actions of the first two-person state and have formed their own two-person states, leaving one member left to join with the original stronger individual.  What results is an escalation of contractual agreements until equilibrium is reached where there are two five-man states.  If these five-person states are not equal, then one party will establish dominion over the other and the result will be a singular empire.[12]

Under this bipolar system comprising of two equal states, will remain stable so long as those states continue to remain equal.  Additionally, both states must have standing defensive measures which ensure that any war between the two would be so catastrophic that it would be unthinkable.  The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) would ensure that sufficient fear remained in both societies to ensure that society would continue to honor their contractual agreements for mutual defense and the common welfare since breaking a covenant would threaten the continued existence and security of the society and invite the opposing society to invade.  The entire world is in a continual state of fear of war, and each is governed by the immense power of one society to destroy the other if they are not continually vigilant and united to the common defense.

VI. The Neutral Party Supports the Stronger Side

Suppose that one party within our ten person world has declared that they will remain neutral and allow the other confederations to war with each other.  Since they have declared that they will not support the weaker of the two sides, then they are de facto supporting the stronger side.  As a result, it places the stronger side in a position to dominate all but the remaining one neutral state; at which time, this one neutral state will easily fall to the combined power of the other nine persons. 

VII. Threes a Crowd

The same is true when a situation presents itself where there are three equal states.  Assuming that one of the parties has been killed and there are only nine people remaining within the world.  Three equal states would be at constant battle for each others allegiance against the third.  Eventually an alliance would be stuck in which a single world government is the result.

VIII. Victory is Mine!

Finally, a point is reached in which one party has established control over the entire world.  This does not automatically mean that there is only one world government; there can be other countries which remain outside the government.  Along the same lines as a hermit in a society, those people who do not contribute to society yet attempt to pose no threat to society may exist.  Where under Hobbes they are not important enough to cause the government to subjugate them until such a time as society is pressured to take such an action.  However, for all practical purposes, all countries which have the capability to do harm to the one government have been either destroyed or subjugated.

When one party has established dominion over the world and now has created a one-world government, a new problem arises: Purpose.  The entire purpose of forming a contract of common defense and mutual betterment is to protect them from an external threat.  Without a threat, the terms of the contract have been completely honored and “is the natural end of obligation, and forgiveness the restitution of liberty.”[13]  The compelling force which causes men to adhere to the contract of mutual defense was the existence of an external belligerent force capable of destroying the entire of society.  With its sudden absence, there is no compulsion for any man to honor a contract, since breaking this contract would no longer place his life in jeopardy.

Therefore, with no external force to compel the honoring of contracts or a continued social harmony, entropy and chaos will result.  The society would no longer have the common thread to bind them together, and would disintegrate.  At which time, the likely outcome would be the dissolution of government and a return to a State of Nature where:

“Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”[14] The world would return to its original state where there are ten individual men each with their own kingdoms, albeit the likelihood that they would return to their equal states is finite, at which time the process would repeat itself in another escalation and another attempt to establish a bi-polar society.IX. ConclusionIn conclusion, the establishment of a society is dependent upon an external threat which poses a danger to the lives of individuals who would then band together for their mutual defense.  The continuation of this society is dependent upon the continued existence of such a threat.  Therefore there must always exist such a threat, the only way that such a threat can exist would be for a two-state solution.  This would still be a State of Nature under Hobbes’ definition, since the continuing threat of war would be ever-present.  In an apparent paradox, there would also be a peace which would have all the effects of a Leviathan without the actual presence of any single person with greater power than another.

---

[1] Hobbes, Thomas (1651). Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. Retrieved July 25, 2007, from Renascence Editions Web site: http://www.uoregon.edu/~rbear/hobbes/leviathan.html, Ch XIII.

[2] Hobbes, Ch XIII.

[3] Hobbes, Ch XIII.

[4] Hobbes, Ch XIII.

[5] Hobbes, Ch XIV.

[6] Hobbes, Ch XI.

[7] Hobbes, Ch XIII.

[8] Hobbes, Ch XIII.

[9] Hobbes, Ch XIII.

[10] Hobbes, Ch XIII.

[11] Hobbes, Ch XV.

[12] The actions under a singular empire will be addressed in section VIII.

[13] Hobbes, Ch XIV.

[14] Hobbes, Ch XIII.