A statement I made tonight in a political discussion. Your feelings?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

"Why do we even HAVE society, if not to prevent personal excess"

On the Facespace.  Well?

[Antonio the Sixth]

We're going to need some context. Otherwise it borders on Captain Obvious territory.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The point of society is not to prevent excess, but to do things together we can't do separately (or can't do separately as wellas we can by working together).  A side effect of that often is the prevention of excess, but that isn't the point.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

We're going to need some context. Otherwise it borders on Captain Obvious territory.

Right.  Well, it was in a discussion about the excesses of capitalism, to which I compared income disparity to stealing/murdering/etc... more obvious forms of exploitation.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

We're going to need some context. Otherwise it borders on Captain Obvious territory.

Right.  Well, it was in a discussion about the excesses of capitalism, to which I compared income disparity to stealing/murdering/etc... more obvious forms of exploitation.

I don't think I say this enough, HockeyDude, but on most issues you're a massive FF.

[Deus Naturae]

"Society" is just the sum total of individuals interacting with one another. It has no "point" or "goal" at all because it isn't a conscious entity, just the sum total of the independent actions of many different conscious actors (individuals).

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

"Society" is just the sum total of individuals interacting with one another. It has no "point" or "goal" at all because it isn't a conscious entity, just the sum total of the independent actions of many different conscious actors (individuals).

You don't think societies have any kind of gestalt or emergent properties? Seriously? Well, I guess you are a libertarian with an H.L. Mencken quote in your signature...

[politicus]

"Society" is just the sum total of individuals interacting with one another. It has no "point" or "goal" at all because it isn't a conscious entity, just the sum total of the independent actions of many different conscious actors (individuals).

You don't think societies have any kind of gestalt or emergent properties? Seriously? Well, I guess you are a libertarian with an H.L. Mencken quote in your signature...

I disagree, but it is hardly an extreme or unusual position among right wingers:

"There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."

- Margaret Thatcher

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

"Society" is just the sum total of individuals interacting with one another. It has no "point" or "goal" at all because it isn't a conscious entity, just the sum total of the independent actions of many different conscious actors (individuals).

You don't think societies have any kind of gestalt or emergent properties? Seriously? Well, I guess you are a libertarian with an H.L. Mencken quote in your signature...

I disagree, but it is hardly an extreme or unusual position among right wingers:

"There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."

- Margaret Thatcher

I've read that Thatcher quote before. It being a common sentiment doesn't make it less bizarre-sounding to me.

[politicus]

"Society" is just the sum total of individuals interacting with one another. It has no "point" or "goal" at all because it isn't a conscious entity, just the sum total of the independent actions of many different conscious actors (individuals).

You don't think societies have any kind of gestalt or emergent properties? Seriously? Well, I guess you are a libertarian with an H.L. Mencken quote in your signature...

I disagree, but it is hardly an extreme or unusual position among right wingers:

"There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."

- Margaret Thatcher

I've read that Thatcher quote before. It being a common sentiment doesn't make it less bizarre-sounding to me.

Interestingly it is sometimes argued by conservative intellectuals in Continental Europe that this is the reason Thatcher can not be considered a Conservative, but was a right wing liberal (in the European sense, of course). No genuine Conservative could have such a view of society (but that would of course not apply to North American Conservatism).   

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

"Society" is just the sum total of individuals interacting with one another. It has no "point" or "goal" at all because it isn't a conscious entity, just the sum total of the independent actions of many different conscious actors (individuals).

You don't think societies have any kind of gestalt or emergent properties? Seriously? Well, I guess you are a libertarian with an H.L. Mencken quote in your signature...

I disagree, but it is hardly an extreme or unusual position among right wingers:

"There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."

- Margaret Thatcher

I've read that Thatcher quote before. It being a common sentiment doesn't make it less bizarre-sounding to me.

Interestingly it is sometimes argued by conservative intellectuals in Continental Europe that this is the reason Thatcher can not be considered a Conservative, but was a right wing liberal (in the European sense, of course). No genuine Conservative could have such a view of society (but that would of course not apply to North American Conservatism).   

I'd have to say I agree with that, and hence would also contend that 'North American conservatism' as such is itself something of a misnomer, a few outliers such as George P. Grant and his ilk excepted.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Society" is just the sum total of individuals interacting with one another. It has no "point" or "goal" at all because it isn't a conscious entity, just the sum total of the independent actions of many different conscious actors (individuals).

You don't think societies have any kind of gestalt or emergent properties? Seriously? Well, I guess you are a libertarian with an H.L. Mencken quote in your signature...

I disagree, but it is hardly an extreme or unusual position among right wingers:

"There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."

- Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher was extreme and unusual.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

"Society" is just the sum total of individuals interacting with one another. It has no "point" or "goal" at all because it isn't a conscious entity, just the sum total of the independent actions of many different conscious actors (individuals).

You don't think that people band together and form goverments, societies, and hierarchies to advance some sort of goal or in hope to achieve something?  When you say "sum total of independent actions" it's quite indicitive of your ideology, because the way you say it is almost in assumption that everything is done for completely selfish motivations and that it couldn't possibly be any other way.  Tell me then; and going back to the famous "state of nature", why did the first laws against stealing and killing others arise from our animalistic beginnings?  Hell, why have we ever had any laws?  Conservatives would never argue that murder or theft should be made legal, but that the modern "wilderness" (that is, economic competition) where it is determined who prospers and who dies should be subject to extreme limitations on how much can be regulated.  If the most basic of laws are a reaction to the brutal nature of reality at the beginning of human civilization, is it not true that our economic regulations and society safety nets are merely a modern extension of that?  This is why I can't understand the conservative argument on its most philosophical of levels.  The idea of protecting people from physical harm is incredibly obvious, but protecting people from economic harm is so unconscionable.  They are the same damn thing. 

[Deus Naturae]

"Society" is just the sum total of individuals interacting with one another. It has no "point" or "goal" at all because it isn't a conscious entity, just the sum total of the independent actions of many different conscious actors (individuals).

You don't think societies have any kind of gestalt or emergent properties? Seriously? Well, I guess you are a libertarian with an H.L. Mencken quote in your signature...

Societies do exist and they can be described. But, my point is that they don't have any conscious "goal", they are just the spontaneous result of many independent actors pursuing different goals.

[Deus Naturae]

You don't think that people band together and form goverments, societies, and hierarchies to advance some sort of goal or in hope to achieve something?

People band together to do things all of the time. Society is not one of those things. No group of people ever got together and said "let's form society!" As stated above in my reply to Madeline (sorry if this is misspelled), society is the spontaneous result of independent actors interacting with one another in various ways, not a something that people consciously decided to bring about for X purpose.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that's not what I said. Independent actions can (and, indeed, many do) have non-selfish reasons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because rulers established codes of law which prohibited those things. The reasoning behind this was to avoid violent conflict.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because governments have imposed them on societies. The results have been mixed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

At this point we're getting into a utilitarian discussion, not a philosophical one. Most opponents of the things you support on the basis of protecting against economic harm don't oppose those things because they support economic harm, but because they don't view things as being helpful. You may disagree, but that doesn't mean that those you disagree with are just evil. Some may be, but not all. I'm not, at least.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

"Society" is just the sum total of individuals interacting with one another. It has no "point" or "goal" at all because it isn't a conscious entity, just the sum total of the independent actions of many different conscious actors (individuals).

You don't think societies have any kind of gestalt or emergent properties? Seriously? Well, I guess you are a libertarian with an H.L. Mencken quote in your signature...

Societies do exist and they can be described. But, my point is that they don't have any conscious "goal", they are just the spontaneous result of many independent actors pursuing different goals.

Even assuming the last part is true, being a spontaneous result of something and developing a purpose and character and yes, goals of one's own are hardly mutually exclusive.