>>8562>Thats lies and rosy colored glasses.
Most would agree states exist to contradict some. Those with more Calvinistic views of humanity would say authority exists to keep most everyone's base impulses in check.
The state is seen as having a moral function -- "for the people." Social contract theory attempts to derive this moral function explicitly. I'm still trying to decide whether I consider this rationalization for an implicit truth -- faith in the state or at least faith in the habit of trusting state power, or an important work of logic. Locke leaves holes; Hobbes comes to an authoritarian perspective nobody can really stomach.>The Founders quoted Locke while owning slaves
Oh, yes. Jefferson slipped in 'happiness' to replace Locke's 'property,' knowing the scope of what property meant to early Americans. But Jefferson never moved in any but small ways to do much about his own Virginian holdings.
I believe if you take any moral idea -- rule of law, fairness, justice, non-violence, public safety, honesty, natural rights -- and apply it to state activity you will find discrepancies. Hobbes would say, tough luck, better than anarchy. Locke: maybe you rebel, and form a new state. Perhaps that's good. Otherwise iterate until you get to a state that tolerably respects your rights. Or the rights of whoever's left of you, anyway.>unless it is made true by the lives and conviction of every generation
What is meant here?>notice the planets approaching extinction event again
Some do, it has been called the anthropocene extinction.