You guys don't agree with this one, do you?

* * *

Clausewitz is right about war and politics, but I think he has it conceptually backwards.

War is the natural state of man. Civil society is a contractual attempt to avoid war. War and civil "politics" serve the same purposes and fundamentally are the same thing -- methods of dispute resolution. But before there were civilized methods of dispute resolution (such as my trade), there was constant war and unpleasantness. You know, the life of man was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short or something like that. :cool:

I'm confused by this statement consular. Exactly which year are you referring to when you assert we were not at war or engaged in unpleasantness business?

TS

I'm speaking in a much broader sense. If I get into a car accident with you, in this country I would be reasonably confident that you would not shoot me and take my money to pay for the damage. You'd use other methods. Without civil government, you would be more likely to take matters into your own hands.

I'm talking about internal civil conflict at all levels, not peace among nations.

I knew what you meant; I was just making it clear that global conflict has yet to be adverted just because we’ve become “civilized.� As far as I know we’ve yet to raise a generation unfamiliar with war.

TS

I don't think so counselor. Conflict may be a natural state of man (other men, the environment) but not war.

Let's take two cavemen fighting over a cavewoman. Being as there was no arbitration, you would be less likely to attempt to take my woman because you know what the result would be and it would be immediate.

I think on a lot of levels, this more civilized method of conflict resolution has actually increased the number of conflicts.

If, as in your example, you did not have that reasonable expectation that I would not shoot you and take your money to fix my car, you would have been more careful not to enter into the conflict in the first place.

That's one of the reasons you very rarely see two SF guys actually fight (although it does happen), the winner will likely be lying in the bed next to the loser. And there is not much chancfe somebody will break it up and "mediate" the conflict. LOL

Fair point.

Distinguish "war" and "conflict," please.

LOL, that was funny.....

Are you running away? LOL

What did you mean when you used those terms?

war - open and stated hostility between security communities, nation states, etc. Involves mobilization of the civilian sector, either through political participation, industrial, etc.

conflict - could be a simple difference of opinion or up to and including used as the catch all for undeclared war.

combat - actually being under or threat of being under enemy fire

fight - conflict between two people (usually) escalated to the level of violence.

argument - conflict between two or more people on a verbal level. One side is usually unwilling to change

discussion - conflict between two or more people on a verbal level and open to change of position.

Oh and feel free to pick it apart. Just off the top of my head and the way I tend to think.:D

OK, I understand now. Sorry, but sometimes I am a bit slow on the uptake.

Interesting point. There are studies showing that when people commonly carry firearms, there are fewer conflicts because of deterrence. I think that's essentially the point you are making, and I agree.

I am not talking about conflicts. I am talking about violence of any kind. War is the ultimate (or at least a very advanced) form of violence. Civil society reduces violence by creating non-violent means of conflict resolution.

To follow your point, it also may result in more conflicts being resolved. If TR is constantly coming to my door with M4 in hand, confiscating my single-barrel bourbon because he can, I might not challenge that conduct if my only remedy is to fight him. (Notice the term is might -- I'd probably try to get him while he is sleeping or something, but perhaps I am dreaming. LOL) In civil society, I have civil and other remedies that allow the conflict to be resolved peaceably. Also, the fact that people outside civil society may not have the ability to do anything about conflicts -- and therefore let them go -- doesn't establish that anarchy is better. Just that an equilibrium might be reached in which many people are very unhappy.

>

The social contract. You give up some of your individual rights for the greater good. Such as the right to settle your conflicts as you see fit, right of the strongest, etc.

I agree anarchy is not good for the average man nor is it good for society. In fact, to me this is the very concept of having a society in the first place.

However, it is an idea, not a reality, for some folks and in some places.

"It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion."
-- William Randolph Inge

I didn't sign the social contract. Every conflict I am involved in has the potential to escalate to violence. If I chose not to do so, then it was because I shose, not because of the social contract. Remember the Standard 7th Group response?

In you scenario involving TR, at the end of the day, you will either continue to give him your whiskey or you will choose another course of action. But it will be your choice.

TR doesn't sleep. Not soundly enough for you to gain an advantage anyway.