PS #2

[Dale Eastman]

Literally, you should Google “classical liberalism representative government”, and start with the very basics.

➽ Literally, you should Google “classical liberalism representative government”, and start with the very basics.

What a good idea... "Starting with the basics."

Which existed first, Individual humans or the mental construct called government?

Dale: “which existed first....?”

Since human beings evolved as social animals, that question is nonsensical.

There was never a time in our evolution where we functioned alone, outside of a society.

Humans became an apex species by hunting in packs, running animals down until they simply wore out, and were easy to kill ( this is called “endurance predation”)

The packs were of families and clans, which *were* self-governance.

So the question of “which was first” is answered “neither”.

Scientifically, both evolved at the same time.

The libertarian fallacy is that there ever was a time in human development without government.

That has, simply, never existed.

It is not just our individual intellectual and athletic abilities which make us what we our, but our social behaviors.

There are different levels of social behavior, from asocial organisms which aren’t even really aware of each other as belonging to the same species, and eusocial organisms, like ants, which subject themselves to the community.

We are not eusocial, but we are, as a species, highly social.

It is the basis of everything humankind has achieved. We recognize the individual, but also recognize that we are a community.

The classical liberals understood this, and libertarians, who fundamentally don’t understand human nature, do not.

Liberty was understood to be a different kind of freedom from “license”, which was considered decadent, but is what the narcissistic, misanthropic libertarians promote.

License means “f you, come and take it, and I’ll kill you.”

That isn’t liberty. All animals have that freedom, the freedom to fight back. That’s not a “right”, it’s just an ability.

What makes us different is engendered in the concept of liberty - that we agree, socially, to protect the rights of others in exchange for them protecting ours.

That’s what the framers MEANT when they said men Institute governments to secure their liberty.

Libertarians missed that whole semester.

My question was very specific.

⇉Which existed first, Individual humans or the mental construct called government?⇇

➽ Since human beings evolved as social animals, that question is nonsensical.

Just because you posted your opinion, does not make your opinion into a fact.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Equates to:
What is asserted without reason may be denied without reason: If no grounds have been given for an assertion, then there are no grounds needed to reject it.
Your opinion that my question is "nonsensical" is itself, "nonsensical."
You are wrong.

➽ There was never a time in our evolution where we functioned alone, outside of a society.

I didn't ask you if humans or society existed first.

➽ Humans became an apex species by hunting in packs, running animals down until they simply wore out, and were easy to kill ( this is called “endurance predation”)

That's nice to know. It doesn't answer the question of which came first, Humans or Government.
Thus your response is a non sequitur; "A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it."
More specifically defined, your response had absolutely nothing to do with what it followed.
Because I am quite used to this type of behavior, I have coined the term "D⁵"
D⁵ - Distract, deflect, divert, disrupt, and/or derail.

➽ The packs were of families and clans, which *were* self-governance.

Assuming arguendo that a "family clan" had ten members, who specifically, made the governing rules?

Can you prove that the rules were not the "Do what you are told to do" type?

➽ So the question of “which was first” is answered “neither”.

D⁵

➽ Scientifically, both evolved at the same time.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Your 16:07 post is ignored for the D⁵ that it is.
Likewise your 16:13 post with the exception of the last three sentences which are merely topics to be addressed AFTER starting with the basics.

Knowing that you will D⁵ me at any chance, I'm going to continue to motivate this discussion to the absolute first basics.

First basic: YDOM.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale, no, me posting it doesn’t make it fact.

The fact that it’s fact makes it fact.

Your question was very simple.

I answered it factually.

It just doesn’t support your cardboard narrative.

Now you’re just trying to split hairs to find some bit of minutiae to hang on to, so that even though the argument you intended to make is clearly nonsense, you can crow over something completely inconsequential, lol.

Stuff like this, lol:

Assuming arguendo that a "family clan" had ten members, who specifically, made the governing rules?

I remember when it became fashionable for libertarians to argue the way that they do, about twelve years or so ago.

They developed a stable of logical fallacies and pseudo-socratic twenty questions which they convinced themselves were brilliant:

“They won’t be able to answer THIS!”

The problem is that, at bottom, libertarianism is based on a quasi-religious mythology, while they screech “but we don’t believe in god!!”

Libertarianism and ancappery are essentially the desperate pursuits for an intellectual justification for never growing up.

You are aware that I publicly archive discussions such as this one?
I anonymize you by removing your name and using your initials.

This archiving allows me to review the discussion quickly and easily, so that I can keep track of topics as sub-threads running through all the posts.

➽ Dale, no, me posting [my opinion] doesn’t make it fact.

➽ The fact that [my opinion is a] fact makes [my opinion a] fact.

The fact that you just opined your opinion is a fact is yet again, merely your opinion. So...
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

➽ Your question [⇉Which existed first, Individual humans or the mental construct called government?⇇] was very simple.

Agreed. I'm trying to keep things simple so that when you D⁵ everybody can see what you are doing.

➽ I answered it factually.

Humans HAD to exist first, else no human minds could make a mental construct called government.

I don't think "factually" was the correct word for you to use.

➽ Stuff like this, lol:

Assuming arguendo that a "family clan" had ten members, who specifically, made the governing rules?

To govern is to control. To govern is to rule. To govern is to make rules. The purpose of government is to govern. Humans HAD to come first.

The rest of your words that I ignored are D⁵.

Repeating:
Knowing that you will D⁵ me at any chance, I'm going to continue to motivate this discussion to the absolute first basics.

First basic: YDOM.

[Dale Eastman]

“Humans HAD to come first.”

No.

Evolution doesn’t work that way.

We are not homo erectus, or the Neandertal.

We are descendants of both.

They had governments.

So there were governments before there were homo sapiens.

And before there were organized clans, there were social instincts for cooperation, before our evolutionary ancestors had a word for governing.

It is THAT, in part, which created what we are.

And no, governing is not “ruling”.

Again, you missed the semester where they covered classical liberalism and the enlightenment.

I know that facts don’t fit your atomistic, linear narrative.

Unfortunately, reality wasn’t designed to support the simplistic formulations of libertarians.

➽ [...] governing is not “ruling”.

Does that mean government laws are not rules?