Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Civil associations depend on good faith (fides) — Carmelics
    Home/Democracy & Governance
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Regulating speech is foolish and counterproductive for civil society

    Civil associations depend on good faith (fides)

    Democracy & GovernanceSocial Contract
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Democracy & GovernanceSocial Contract

    Connections

    1 topic

    Rights & Liberty3 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Democracy & Governance
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Regulating speech causes men to think one thing and say anotherRegulating speech is foolish and counterproductive for civil societySpeech regulation erodes the good faith on which civil associations depend

    Similar

    Speech regulation erodes the good faith on which civil associations de...74%Collective associations must be able to determine their own membership...73%For a devotional community, recreational club, business club, union, o...72%These rights presuppose membership in at least one association68%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: spinoza-political
    View source passageHide passage
    Next, the argument shifts from considering what the sovereign can do to what it would be practical or prudent for a sovereign to do. Spinoza offers a battery of pragmatic reasons in defense of non-interference. For instance, he argues that “a state can never succeed very far in attempting to force people to speak as the sovereign power commands” (TTP 20, 251). Men are naturally inclined to express what they believe (ibid.), and so just as attempts to regulate beliefs fail, so do attempts to regu

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective