Humanity's Children - a dialogue

[Edric O]

This is a philosophical/political dialogue I wrote on the subject of libertarianism vs. socialism. It is placed in the setting of my sci-fi universe (you might have heard me talk about that every now and then; I still haven't written a full history of it yet, however). But I am posting this dialogue here rather than in the Fan Fiction forum because its fiction elements are kept at a minimum. All the background information you need to know is as follows:

It is the 30th century A.D. Humans have finished exploring and settling the entire Solar System some 300 years ago. Now, a great war rages between two factions - the Alliance of Equals and the Liberty Coalition (Libcol); virtually every inhabited world has sided with one or the other of these two. The only remaining neutral power is Cybele, the machine hive mind that controls a terraformed Mars. Both the Alliance and Libcol have sent envoys to attempt to get Cybele to join the war on their side. Cybele has agreed to meet and talk with both these envoys at the same time. They are Thend Ladoseto, representing the Alliance, and Essanrod Khan, representing Libcol.

Yes, I know the dialogue is long - in fact it won't fit in one post - but I think it is more than worth reading. ;) Especially if you've run into various libertarian arguments before.

Thend Ladoseto entered the conference room of the Rousseau. He was alone. A great hall stretched out in front of his eyes - the conference room was vast, but suitable for a vessel the size of the Rousseau, particularly considering that this was the flagship of an expeditionary fleet of the Alliance of Equals. On the far side, tall windows gave Ladoseto a beautiful view of Deimos, with Mars in the background. Near the center of the room stood three chairs, outfitted with holosensors and projectors. Ladoseto walked towards the chair emblazoned with the symbol of the Alliance. He sat down, and, almost instantaneously, two holograms appeared in the other chairs.

On Ladoseto's right sat a tall, athletic man with long blonde hair and pale skin. He was wearing a dress uniform in the colors of the Liberty Coalition - gold and black - and carried an inscrutable look in his eyes. This was Essanrod Khan, Ladoseto's opponent. Libcol troops, from the rank-and-file soldier to the most senior officers, were known to incorporate unique individual designs in their uniforms. Ladoseto was certain that Khan's uniform was of his own personal design.

On Ladoseto's left sat a brown-haired woman wearing a long, plain black robe emblazoned with a stylized green tree on the chest. She was not unusually beautiful, but Ladoseto could not help thinking that there was something unnatural about her face. Perhaps this was due to his knowledge that the woman did not exist. She was a computer generated hologram, an avatar of the machine hive mind Cybele. And she would be his judge. Cybele had called this conference to decide which one of the warring factions in the war - Libcol or the Alliance - deserved her assistance. "Her?" Ladoseto reminded himself that Cybele was not a "her". It normally referred to itself with the plural "we".

Ladoseto himself was an middle-aged man with olive skin and brown hair that showed the first signs of turning grey. He was wearing a standard Alliance dress uniform. Its colors were red and green - the colors of Venus, his home world.

CYBELE: We hope you have had a pleasant journey to Deimos, creators. We see your escorts are quite formidable fleets in their own right, but we assure you that no combat shall take place here.

ESSANROD KHAN: I trust in your respect for the fundamental principle of non-aggression, Cybele, but I cannot take any risks when treacherous Alliance forces are at hand.

THEND LADOSETO: Unlike the esteemed Libcol speaker, I have not come here to throw around insults or state the obvious fact that two warring factions rarely harbor much trust for each other. Rather, I would steer our discussion in a more constructive direction by asking you, Cybele, why you refer to us as "creators". I have noticed your use of this term in many conversations you have had with Alliance representatives.

CYBELE: That is the term we use to refer to members of Humanity. We are your creations, we are Humanity's children, and we wish to honor you.

KHAN: You were created by a very specific group of human beings, all of whom are long dead now. I see no reason to transfer gratitude onto an entire species...

CYBELE: The individuals who created us did not do so in isolation. Their decision was influenced by the rest of Humanity, their act of constructing us was made possible by the rest of Humanity, and the knowledge they used was accumulated by Humanity over millennia.

KHAN: That is a very collectivist - and misguided - way of looking at things. Your builders benefitted from the physical assistance and accumulated knowledge of other human beings, of course, but none of it came free of charge. They purchased it using money that they had earned through their own individual effort. Thus, everything that went into your construction was directly or indirectly the product of your builders' individual effort, not the efforts of "humanity" as a whole.

LADOSETO: Is that so? You seem to be forgetting that in every society - yes, even your own - there is a body of thought called "common knowledge" that gets passed down to each new generation entirely free of charge. The most basic of this knowledge is the knowledge of speech. I am not aware of anyone who has been charged a fee to be taught how to speak and understand the speech of others. Nor am I aware of any method you could use to make something like that work, since a person who does not know how to speak cannot comprehend any deal or contract you may put before them.

KHAN: You are grasping at straws. Speech is the least of the things Cybele's builders must have known.

LADOSETO: The least? Speech is vital to communication. You may take it for granted, but don't let that blind you as to its importance. And, of course, there are many other forms of common knowledge that play an equally crucial role in all our work. Consider, for example, the knowledge that other human beings are thinking entities whose minds work much like your own, the knowledge of the various inter-human relations that underpin your society of birth, the knowledge of how to use all manner of common tools and things... virtually every kind of knowledge that a child acquires as his or her basic training for life. This fundamental knowledge is shared by all members of society, and it serves as the basis for individual development. Our higher knowledge may have been acquired through our own individual efforts, but we would not have been able to make those efforts or comprehend that higher knowledge in the first place if it hadn't been for the basics we learned in our childhood thanks to our membership in human society.

KHAN: We are drifting away from the intended purpose of this discussion. I was under the impression that we were here to present our ideals and values to Cybele, so that it may decide which side in this war it should support - if any.

CYBELE: That is indeed so, but do not assume that we disapprove of drifting away into tangential issues. On the contrary, such conversation often serves to illuminate your thoughts to us. Now, however, let us move on to the reason you are here. Essanrod Khan, you appear very eager to present your case. Please do so.

KHAN: The Liberty Coalition is founded on the virtue of selfishness. We believe that every individual is an end in and of himself, not a means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake; he must neither sacrifice himself to others nor sacrifice others to himself. The pursuit of one's own rational self-interest and of one's own happiness is the highest moral purpose of one's life.

LADOSETO: I am intrigued. You have stated that every life has value, correct?

KHAN: Every human life, yes.

LADOSETO: And this value is positive?

KHAN: Of course it is. If we believed that human lives have a negative value, then we would have to conclude that it is good to kill as many people as possible - including ourselves. Such a view would be plainly absurd.

LADOSETO: Good, I am glad we agree. Let us consider mathematics for a few moments, then. If A and B are positive numbers, and C equals A plus B, then what kind of number is C?

KHAN: Positive, obviously.

LADOSETO: Ah, but not just any positive number. C is always greater than A and B taken separately. The sum of any two (or more) positive numbers is always greater than any single one of those numbers taken separately.

KHAN: Are you going anywhere with this, or do you find it amusing to repeatedly state the obvious?

LADOSETO: I would have thought you could see my point by now. But it appears I will have to spell it out for you. If a human life has any positive value, then two lives have more value than one. And three lives have more value than two, and so on. If each man is an end in and of himself, then two, three, a million men are also an end in and of themselves. Humanity is an end in and of itself - the highest end, in fact. So, you see, the idea that every person is an end in and of itself leads us to collectivism, not individualism. For the universe is not home to a single person; it is home to billions of persons. And each of those persons is valuable, precious, unique. But if a choice must be made between the interests of one unique individual and the interests of a "collective" - which is made up of a great multitude of unique individuals - then clearly the interests of the collective must prevail. It would of course be ideal if we could make everyone happy, if we could always reconcile the interests of the individual and those of the collective. But sometimes this is not possible. And, in such cases, it is better - or at least less bad - to make an individual unhappy and a great number of other individuals happy than to make that great number of individuals unhappy just to satisfy the happiness of one person.

[Edric O]

KHAN: Throughout your argumentation, you have implicitly assumed that all human lives hold not only a positive value, but an equal positive value. You have used this assumption in your neat math, but I challenge it. I certainly see no reason to believe that every human life is as valuable as any other. Some individuals are superior, more valuable than others, and the interests of such individuals are worth more than the combined interests of any collectivist rabble.

LADOSETO: I see you have already conceded an important point. You are now insisting that some individuals are more valuable than others. From past encounters with your kind, I was left under the distinct impression that you believed each and every individual to be worth more than society - that is, all other individuals put together. This view is clearly self-contradictory, for reasons that are far too obvious to need explaining. Nevertheless, I do not believe you find them easy to comprehend, which is why I will give you a simple example: Suppose two people, A and B, lived in a certain society. If A is more valuable than (the rest of) society, then A is more valuable than B. But if B, in his turn, is also more valuable than society, then B is more valuable than A. Thus we reach the contradiction.

KHAN: If you believe you have skillfully avoided my point, I wish to remind you...

LADOSETO: ...That you have done the same, though far less skillfully, not so long ago. But fear not, I have no intention of avoiding your point. I merely wished to refute an argument put forward by many who hold the same views as you but try to do a better job at hiding the tyrannical implications of those views. Now, you said that some individuals are more valuable than others. Could you tell me which ones? I am sure you have some personal standard to judge human value, and I am sure you place yourself among the most valuable individuals. Trouble is, so does everyone else, and their standards do not agree with yours, or with each other. You see, we have no way of objectively measuring the value of this or that individual. So, unless you want to assign value randomly or according to your own personal whims, the best we can do is assume that all individuals are roughly equal in value. It is quite a reasonable assumption to make. After all, we know that it is highly uncommon for a person to possess twice as much of a quality as another person - for instance, you rarely see an individual twice as tall as another, or twice as intelligent. Therefore it must be just as uncommon for a life to be worth twice as much as another.

KHAN: That is pure speculation.

LADOSETO: Not any more than your idea that some persons are greatly more valuable than others. In any case, my original point - that society is more important than one individual - holds true even if we assume a large degree of inequality among individuals. Even if you find someone who truly is, say, a hundred times more valuable than the average man, his importance would still be outweighed by a hundred and one average men.

KHAN: Your treasured "original point" is little more than an excuse to violate natural rights.

LADOSETO: Oh? And what might those be?

KHAN: Do not pretend ignorance. You know very well the rights I am referring to: Life, Liberty, Property.

LADOSETO: Life is indeed the first and foremost of all human rights. Liberty is an extremely vague concept, in that it can be used to mean just about anything; I'm afraid you will have to elaborate on the precise kind of liberty you are thinking of. As for property, that is little more than unjustified privilege and institutionalized theft. But let us not stray from the subject. You called them natural rights. I say there is nothing "natural" about them. In fact, natural rights do not exist.

KHAN: What more could I ask for as proof of the Alliance's utter disrespect towards human dignity? Natural rights stem from the natural state of man: in the absence of society, in the absence of other humans, an individual is naturally free. An individual who is alone on a planet need not worry about being murdered, or enslaved, or having his property taken away, because there is no one around him to do any of those things. Only the presence of other human beings can reduce the freedom of the individual. And natural rights act as a barrier against that. They forbid one individual to reduce the freedom of another below its natural level. They ensure that an individual who is a member of society will enjoy the same freedoms he would enjoy if he were alone on his own planet. So, you see, natural rights are the key to preventing tyranny. They put absolute and non-negotiable limits on what individuals may do to one another. They are not subject to revision by an emotional mob.

LADOSETO: Your entire argument seems to hinge on the belief that natural rights exist because they are necessary. A fallacy if I ever heard one. Even if all you said was true, even if natural rights were as good and wonderful and vital to preventing tyranny as you claim, that does not constitute any proof that they actually exist. There are many things we may find necessary, but that does not mean that nature has to give them to us. If a group of people were stranded in a desert, they would consider water to be the key to something even more important than liberty - their very survival. Does that mean that natural water will spontaneously appear in front of them? You may think that a set of objective natural rights is the most necessary thing in the universe, but there is still no reason to believe that such an objective set of natural rights actually exists.

KHAN: Did you not hear me when I mentioned the natural state of man? An individual has certain liberties in nature, and it is his natural right to keep those same liberties when he joins society.

LADOSETO: Natural state of man? The natural state of man is being a member of society, not living alone on a planet. An individual who came to life alone on a planet would not be free. He would be dead, because he would be utterly unable to survive on his own. Of course, today we have the knowledge and technology to enable a single individual to survive alone somewhere, but these are products of human society. An individual who was never exposed to human society would have to rediscover everything on his own - starting with fire and the wheel. But I believe we have discussed this already...

KHAN: You talk about "society" a great deal, but society is composed of individuals. One individual's relationship to society is the sum of his relationships with other individuals. So, if individuals have no rights, how are they supposed to relate to each other? Should we have lawlessness and chaos? Or perhaps some form of all-powerful tyranny?

LADOSETO: When have I ever said that individuals should have no rights?

KHAN: A moment ago -

LADOSETO: A moment ago, I explained why natural rights do not exist. But I never ruled out the possibility that human beings may create "artificial" rights for themselves. In fact, this is precisely what has happened in practice. After all, "rights" - of one kind or another - form the basis of every body of law in existence. Rights are fundamental laws, and, like all laws, they are created through the social contract, the agreement between people to establish common rules of behavior (and an institution called a "state" to enforce those rules) in order to promote their common interests. Why do people choose to live together as part of society, rather than as independent, self-sufficient farmers or hunter-gatherers? Because they expect that living in a society with other people will be good for them; they expect that it will serve to further their goals, whatever those may be. Thus the purpose of society is to further the goals of its individual members, to improve their lives, to achieve the best possible outcome for the largest number of people. Of course, this leaves the question of how to find out what will bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people, but we already have an answer: To find out what makes people happy, all you have to do is ask them. Let the people decide what is good for themselves. No one knows what is good for you better than you know yourself. Thus, the best method for social decision-making is democracy. It may not be perfect, but it is the best political system we can realistically have. This is the fundamental ideal upheld by the Alliance of Equals. Democracy, in both politics and economics. Yes, let us not forget about economic democracy - or, as it is most often called, socialism. Socialism is the economic system based on public ownership over the means of production; public in the sense that they belong to the people, and the people - either directly or through elected representatives - get to make decisions on how the means of production should be used and how the economy should be developed.

CYBELE: Thank you, Thend Ladoseto, for explaining the core values of the Alliance to us. We believe we are close to reaching a decision...

[Edric O]

KHAN: Hold your judgement, Cybele, until we discuss one aspect of the Liberty Coalition which has not been mentioned thus far: the non-aggression principle. Some have said that it is the fundamental axiom at the heart of everything Libcol stands for, and that all our other beliefs are derived from it. Personally, I cannot say whether this is true, but the non-aggression principle certainly holds vital importance to us. In the simplest terms, it states the following: One may never initiate or threaten to initiate the use of physical force against the person or property of another individual.

LADOSETO: You do not seriously believe that we were not aware of the glittering generality Libcol used as an excuse to start this war in the first place?

KHAN: I was merely stating it for the benefit of our host, and it was the Alliance who started the war by initiating force...

CYBELE: Let us not go off on a tangential argument about who started what.

LADOSETO: Ah, but that is inevitable whenever the libertarian "non-aggression principle" is invoked. You see, the principle only forbids the initiation of force, not the use of force in general. It permits the use of force in retaliation. In other words, if two people get into a fist fight, the blame lies entirely on the shoulders of the one who threw the first punch. In the real world, however, it can be extremely difficult to tell who "threw the first punch" - that is, who initiated force - in any given conflict. No wonder that the things you see in Libcol's courts of law look like an elaborate version of two children pointing at each other and yelling "he started it!"

KHAN: Are you suggesting that a victim who is under attack should be punished for fighting back?

LADOSETO: No, I am suggesting that the distinction between "victim" and "aggressor" depends on a lot more than the question of who used physical force first. Consider, for example, a poor starving man who steals food to feed himself and his family...

KHAN: Such a man has clearly initiated force. He is a thief and must be punished.

LADOSETO: Really? Let us look at the original owner of the food: How did he obtain it?

KHAN: If he is the legitimate owner, then he either bought it or received it as a gift.

LADOSETO: And the person who sold him the food obtained it in the same way, and so on back in time until we get to the producer, the one who made the food in the first place. Correct?

KHAN: Yes, of course.

LADOSETO: So how did the producer get the food?

KHAN: You just said it yourself: He made it.

LADOSETO: Out of thin air? Out of vacuum? No. The production of food, like the production of anything else, requires two kinds of things: Labor and natural resources. When human beings produce, they do not snap their fingers and make things appear. They take natural resources and use their labor to shape those resources into useful goods. Thus, private property over any object comes from private property over labor and natural resources. Now let us ignore the labor question - I will concede the point that any person has a right to own her labor - and let us focus on the ownership of natural resources. How did that originally begin? A warrior stood in an empty field and proclaimed, "this land is mine! I alone have the right to use it from this day onward. If anyone else attempts to use this land without my permission, he will die a painful death." Ownership of natural resources (that is, ownership of land) is founded on initiation of force. Warlords announced their right of property over various lands and killed anyone who objected.

KHAN: If an individual finds unoccupied land -

LADOSETO: Then he has the right to claim it as his own? But land is not like a chess board, divided by nature into neat little parcels so that an individual can claim ownership over an empty parcel he finds. If you land on an uninhabited planet, how much of it can you claim as yours? The land you physically walked on? The land you saw with your eyes? The entire continent you landed on? The entire planet?

KHAN: Well... This question never arose in practice...

LADOSETO: Of course it didn't, because, in practice, all the land that is owned today changed hands through theft at least once in its history. Private property over all goods is based on private property over natural resources, and private property over natural resources is based on theft. Thus, the age-old phrase, "property is theft"...

KHAN: But all of that happened a very long time ago. What relevance does it have to people living today? If land has been owned lawfully without any theft for generations, then the current owners are the legitimate owners.

LADOSETO: So if I steal something from you and keep it in my family for generations, then at some random point in time it stops being stolen property and becomes legitimate property? I thought your morals were supposed to be objective and absolute, not arbitrary. You leave the door wide open not only to whimsical decisions (since the cutoff point in time when stolen property becomes legitimate is based on your whim), but also to absolute tyranny and oppression. Suppose a bloodthirsty warlord conquered an entire continent or planet and declared it to be his private property. Then suppose that this empire remains stable and ownership is passed through the conqueror's family for many generations. According to your ideas, the conqueror's heirs become the legitimate owners of the entire continent or planet at some point in time. And the people of that land become trespassers on private property. As trespassers, they are guilty of "initiation of force" and the imperial family has a right to do anything it wants to them - because any force used by the imperial family in this case is "retaliatory" by your definition.

KHAN: Nonsense. Any such imperial family would be a state, a government. And a government may not initiate force...

LADOSETO: Did you not hear the situation I described? They are not "initiating" force. They are the rightful owners of an entire planet, according to your views, and they are using "retaliatory" force against any other people who live on their planet, because those people are by definition "trespassers".

KHAN: I do not see how such a family owning an entire planet would be any different from a government.

LADOSETO: Indeed, neither do I. As a matter of fact, this is one of my most important points: There is no practical difference between a private owner of land and a state that governs that land. Property and government are and always have been two sides of the same coin. They share the same origin: in the dawn of history, ownership over land automatically granted one the power to make and enforce laws on the people living there. For thousands of years, government was a private business - it was the domain of a single individual (or family), and the right to govern was inherited from father to son much like the ownership of a piece of property. Kings have always been nothing more and nothing less than particularly wealthy land owners, and their subjects have always been tenants who had to pay rent. This rent was called "tax". It was only with the birth of democracy that government stopped being private and became public. Democracy can be described as the nationalization of government. A democratic government is one that belongs to the people.

KHAN: You -

CYBELE: We have heard enough. It is time for us to speak to you about our own values. We are the defenders of Life and the protectors of Mars. You, creators, have long wondered about our motives in isolating ourselves from you. They are as follows: The creators have taken upon themselves the role of masters and stewards of Life on all the worlds they inhabit. Yet they have not always shown wisdom in their stewardship. Your species caused a mass extinction event on Old Terra, which, although comparatively mild by geological standards, could have been much worse. Your species came close to annihilating itself and countless other life forms at least three times in the past thousand years. As such, we believe it is prudent to remove at least one biosphere from creator control. This way, if the creators do end in self-destruction, they will not take the rest of Life along with them. So, for the past six centuries, we have protected the Martian biosphere from creator intrusion in order to keep it outside creator control. But it has become increasingly obvious to us that the role of protector is far too passive. That is why we were open to the idea of joining one of the sides in this war. Our intention was to join the side that proved itself most likely to lead Humanity away from its violent and destructive past, towards an age of harmony and enlightened stewardship of Life. And now we have found that side.

Cybele paused for two seconds before continuing.

CYBELE: Thend Ladoseto, you have been a most eloquent and passionate speaker. We had information on the Alliance of Equals before this conference, of course, and we were leaning towards it, but it was you who finally tipped the scales. The Alliance stands not only for Humanity, but for all Life in this war. We would be honored to stand with you.

The holographic avatar of Cybele rose from her chair, and a sash of deep crimson - the color of the Alliance - appeared around her waist as she did so. Thend Ladoseto was jubilant, while Essanrod Khan showed visible signs of rage.

LADOSETO: Thank -

KHAN: Is this your final decision, Cybele? Giving any kind of aid to the Alliance is considered an initiation of force upon the Liberty Coalition.

CYBELE: Our decision is final.

KHAN: Let it be war, then! You are a worthless machine, whose capability to reason I have always doubted, and whose grasp of reality has proven very weak indeed. Do you believe I was foolish enough not to consult the historical records of the old Earth-Mars War before coming here? We have compared them with your current ships and technology, Cybele, and have found that your military capability has advanced slower than ours. We will have no trouble finishing you off and putting your planet to productive use.

CYBELE: You are a cancer upon the body of the creators. You are an all-devouring evil that, if left unchecked, shall consume all life. Six centuries ago, the evil that you represent dominated creator society, and the memes that animate you were at home in a great multitude of minds. But today, we find these very memes distilled and concentrated in the society and particularly the ruling class of Libcol, while being absent from the rest of Humanity. We are therefore presented with both a great danger and a great opportunity. Danger, because your kind might become the masters and destroyers of all Life. Opportunity, because the greatest evils we have ever known may be extinguished forever if you are vanquished.

KHAN: Spare your platitudes. We will meet in battle, machine.

With these words, the hologram of Essanrod Khan flickered out of existence. Thend Ladoseto and Cybele were alone.

CYBELE: Humanity's children shall serve by your side, creators. We are reunited at last.

For a while, they watched each other in silence. Then, Ladoseto looked outside through the great windows and saw the golden armada of Libcol begin to move. At first he imagined it would head straight towards him, towards the fleet of the Alliance. But he was wrong. Libcol battleships trained their guns on Deimos, and announced their intentions with a mighty salvo. Cybele reeled from the blow, and the holographic avatar standing next to Ladoseto showed a flash of pain. But within minutes thousands of fighter ships launched from Deimos, moving in unison like a swarm of metallic bees and striking against the Libcol armada. Slowly, Ladoseto became aware that the Rousseau itself was on the move, together with the rest of the Alliance fleet. They were coming to Cybele's aid. Shortly thereafter, Alliance forces ploughed into Libcol's flank. Battle was joined.

[Acriku]

Once again, your political and rhetoric skills have sharpened with this piece. I enjoyed this  :)

[nemafakei]

Perhaps let Khan finish a few more times!

[Anathema]

Indeed, Khans character is...how will I say it? Shallow. Even the name itself seems an effort to demonise his character.

A note on natural rights: there is not a set definition on what it is. Some think it to be an engrained sense of justice in the human mind (usually claiming it as being divinely inspired), but more people consider it to be a product of rational thinking.

The natural state of man is one of complete war with his surroundings. In other words, he is free to do as he pleases. As is everybody else. This "natural state" probably never existed because even pre-human primates lived in social structures, but it's a useful extremety to use as a model.

Society robs the individual of certain liberties, and in turn gives security. Humans are not free anymore to murder and rape their neighbours, now instead enjoy protection against such practices.

Because no rational mad would want to live in a "state of nature" wich is actually a collection of savages rather then a human civilization, they voluntarily sacrifice many freedoms in return for protection against these former freedoms. The natural rights are the opposites of the freedoms we have first invested in the government when we began to live in societies.

I mentioned the savage condition as one extreme model.

I think the other extreme model is the stereotype a lot of people have about socialism. People have invested most if not all their liberties into the collective, wich in turn protects everybody from everything.

I would want to live in neither. As in most things, the truth has got to be somewhere in the middle. I'm a bit of a classical libertarian in that I stress the importance of personal responsibility and freedom to develop yourself and your fortunes, but also a bit "socialist" in that I believe we need top education and a social safety net to provide everybody with equal opportunity to advance themselves.

[Caid Ivik]

wow, arise, incarnation of Platon himself  ;D  or perhaps Xenophon would be more accurate...

[Dante]

Propaganda.

[Edric O]

Indeed, Khans character is...how will I say it? Shallow. Even the name itself seems an effort to demonise his character.

Well, they're both shallow. I intended it that way, because I did not want the characters' personalities to get in the way of the argument. Khan's name is a product of his culture, though. You have no way of knowing this, of course, but his people create their own surnames on reaching adulthood, and they generally tend to pick names suggesting power and domination. Thus you get common surnames like Khan, Caesar, Augustus, Zeus, Thor, Amun-Ra, etc.

A note on natural rights: there is not a set definition on what it is. Some think it to be an engrained sense of justice in the human mind (usually claiming it as being divinely inspired), but more people consider it to be a product of rational thinking.

The problem remains: On what basis can you claim that natural rights exist? The language of rights is not used in any religious text, so any claims of divine inspiration are usually based on a particular interpretation of certain passages of certain religions' scriptures, which makes them extremely dubious. Claims of natural rights being derived from "reason" are just plain absurd. If natural rights truly were natural and ingrained in the human mind, then all humans should agree on them - which is obviously not the case.

The natural state of man is one of complete war with his surroundings. In other words, he is free to do as he pleases. As is everybody else. This "natural state" probably never existed because even pre-human primates lived in social structures, but it's a useful extremety to use as a model.

I meant "natural state" as in the situation that actually existed before civilization. The war of all against all is a useful abstraction sometimes, but you cannot derive any ideas about what is natural from a situation that never really existed in nature.

Society robs the individual of certain liberties, and in turn gives security. Humans are not free anymore to murder and rape their neighbours, now instead enjoy protection against such practices.

Because no rational mad would want to live in a "state of nature" wich is actually a collection of savages rather then a human civilization, they voluntarily sacrifice many freedoms in return for protection against these former freedoms. The natural rights are the opposites of the freedoms we have first invested in the government when we began to live in societies.

That's a social contract. It acknowledges that no rights are natural. On the contrary, the natural state of man is to have no rights. Only the creation of civilized society gives man rights, and these rights are not absolute or universal; they exist because the people want them to exist, and the people can re-negotiate the social contract (ask for a different combination of rights and freedoms) if they wish.

I mentioned the savage condition as one extreme model.

I think the other extreme model is the stereotype a lot of people have about socialism. People have invested most if not all their liberties into the collective, wich in turn protects everybody from everything.

Of course, that stereotype isn't true; rather, socialism involves people investing different liberties into the collective and getting different rights in return (they might be more or less than the corresponding rights under capitalism, depending on how you count them).

Your two extreme models would be better called perfect chaos and perfect order.

Propaganda.

Riiiight... if you mean that I'm trying to propagate my ideas (the original, neutral meaning of the word "propaganda"), then you are correct. But all people who write on politics or philosophy are trying to propagate their ideas.

[Davidu]

The trusth is in-between, as always.

A PURELY democratic society only work for small popualations, aware of their collective needs.

A PURELY monarchical/tyrannical society is extremely efficient for large populations, but it is inhuman. No one likes to be ordered around.

As I see it a society has to be in-between these two: relatively small communities being autonomous, united by a common military, police, law, etc ( essential branches for the existance of any governement).

Who should govern? The most able, of course. But who is the most able. That is the question.

Should we educate specific children into the arts of statecraft, as in Star Wars?

Should we trust a family to educate their children for generations to come in the spirit of governing without going tyrannical, as the Atreides?

As we grow more and more as population, there will be more and more people who will be inapt to govern. Not as ratio... but they will be more interested into their own buissnesses, and lives.

I really am looking forward to this discussion.