Carrol Cox
Charles Brown wrote:
>
>
> So, there is nothing in our nature that prevents us from living without
> states or imperial states.
It seems to me that arguments from "our nature" are always inadvisable even when the conclusion argued is valid. So, there is nothing in our nature that prevents us from living WITH states or imperial states FOR THE REST OF HISTORY.
^^^^^^^ CB: Well, lets see...so what ? The issue here is we want to know if we can live without states/hierachy, or whether our nature forces us to have states/hierachy. The long term historical evidence suggests that our nature doesn't require that we have states/hierarchy. So, your claim that our nature does not prevent us from living WITH states/hierarchy is irrelevant to the issue in question.
But is your claim, that we can live with states, valid ?
Might not be valid, given that states have now gotten to the point where weapons are capable of exterminating our species, i.e. that states are approaching the point where they literally may destroy our natural existence or are in _conflict_ with our nature.
^^^^^^
Arguments from nature are always double edged.
Carrol
^^^^^
CB: As far as I can see the above argument "from" nature is not doouble-edged , so it's a counterexample to your second claim. The only "edge" to the above is that we don't need states.