Not only smart, but also who is more moral and makes better judgments: people in masses or individuals? Now first let me say that I don't have much academic knowledge of political theory and there may be a term for this but through my own daydreaming I find that there are 2 types of people: those who believe the government is more moral in judgment than individuals and those who believe individuals are more capable in judgment than the government. So on an even more basic scale I think it comes down to this: since the government (in some cases) is made up of masses of the people for the [supposed] common good of the people, it is a case of people vs. persons. With this theory comes many elements and some of us will probably point out different ones. What then are the pros and cons of each side? After reading the little that I have so far and taking theories from books like Freakonomics (experts have advantages over non-experts) and videos like The Century of Self (which blatantly speaks of the flaws of thinking in masses), my own belief is that it should be clear to any "intellectual" of the horrifying outcomes of leaving judgment up to "people". If that can be so clear, then why can't people see that government is not > individuals? Let's first do this, does anyone here believe that the government is greater in judgment than individuals? If so, do you recognize the fallacies of thinking in masses?
Collectively, people may be able to make better decisions, or some sorts of decisions can only be decided on a group basis. But I think the real question you want to ask might be, Should participating in the group/mass be voluntary, or is it mandatory and enforced by coercion? Because many people will tell you that they are for free will. They are against slavery, they are against discrimination, they are for freedom. But then on the other hand, they will irrationally support ideas that undermine personal liberty, alluding to justifications like "society", "the greater good", "everyone". This implies that coercively you must belong to a group, and follow what the group decides. It's one of the oldest philosophical questions. From where do our basic rights come from. Some might argue that society provides rights. But if that is true, then society must be able to take them away, and in the absence of a society, no rights can exist. This is in direct conflict with the notion of "natural law".
If an individual makes a choice for another individual, would the first individual be considered a government? If an individual's choice would have an effect on anyone other than that individual, should it be soley that individuals choice? How should a just society handle making decisions that will effect everyone?
I'd say yes, if the second individual recognizes the authority of the first individual making choices. Example? Need some examples for this one please.
Thanks Guerilla, What if you like to play your music every day all day at a deafening loud volume. That individual is doing what he chooses in his own home, yet making life miserable for his neighbors. Is it O.K.? In a society, the majority of people want basic laws, at least for protection. For example, laws against killing and rape. Some kind of rules of conduct, with consequences and enforcement. The penalty and enforcement of these laws would effect everyone.
That sounds like a property rights issue because it sound like noise pollution to me. If I don't have a right to dump toxic waste on your property, then I surely don't have a right to project aural waste on your property either. I gotta think about this. As you framed it, I'm not having an easy time answering.
people, when part of a large group, are complete idiots. You can see this during rioting. How many people would simply set fire to a car or throwing a brick at a policeman's face if they were alone? But when being a part of a large group it somehow becomes acceptable. I'm looking forward for your answer too
I've got no doubt that a large group will have a much more positive influence than a single individual. Just look at how dictatorships have gone in history and you will have your answer.
Glad we can agree for once. What inspired me to ask this question was a talk I had with my friend awhile back about the 2nd Amendment. He, like most people, thought the Constitution was out of date and kept saying, "oh so we should let everyone have nukes then?". Not only nukes, but firearms themselves, I wondered, who would make better judgment when having a firearm? Would you trust the government, or individuals? Of course basic laws should be made, I'm not an anarchist, but once those laws are made, you should RESPECT the moral judgment of individuals and realize they can do better for themselves than the masses deciding for them.
Yeah. Large groups have done particularly well when they are burning a man on a cross, or stringing him up from a tree. We're talking about a series of individuals versus grouping, not dictator vs. the citizenry. Sheesh.
I had a good answer for this, forgot how I had it phrased, but will give it a shot now anyways. In a (sic) society, I believe the majority of people want rules placed on others, not on themselves. I'm not implying that killers want laws to necessarily punish others and not themselves, but rather that people who feel blacks are inferior might want greater restrictions or less freedoms on blacks. The hyper moral may wish to regulate the libertine. And likewise, if the proportion or strength of one group overrides another, there is a natural tendency to push an agenda. Religious, moral, financial, But what laws/rules could we start with, ones which would be universally acceptable to rational minds? I'd say a principle of non-aggression. That no person has a right to cause another person harm, except in self-defense. I think we can all (rationally) agree upon the right to personal safety from violence. But let's take it a step further. If I have no right to cause you harm, I can't use violence to force you to share your food, or to make you stop smoking marijuana. I might not like marijuana, I might be starving and desire your food, but I have no right to beat you for the food, or to beat you for smoking marijuana. No matter what my personal moral values may be, I can't impose them on you against your will. And I think many people would agree that the right to self-determination, the right to self-rule is another fundamental right. Because you can't be free if you can't make your own choices, and you can't be free if you make choices under threat of violence. Let's be clear. Laws are not enforcement. They also probably aren't very good deterrents. I don't think rapists decide not to rape because it is illegal. A good example of this is recreational drug use and alcohol prohibition. Prohibition didn't sober everyone up, it created violence and criminality. As does the War on Drugs. But back to universal rights. This is your foundation. Maybe the right to own property as well. So you have the right to free will, to be free from violence and the right to own property. Again, I think that most people regardless of race, religion or background could acknowledge that these are fundamental human rights. And not too many other laws are needed. The right to property safeguards against theft or vandalism. The right to be free of violence handles all forms of violence (coercive force) and the right to free will preserves the ability to make decisions about your relationships, health, habits etc. I think a big problem with thinking today, is that our rights in the Bill of Rights are defined as negative rights. But today, with the size of government, and the awesomeness of it's violent and coercive power, we are thinking in terms of positive rights. Negative rights are like this. No one shall attack Rebecca. No one shall prevent Rebecca from speaking. Positive rights are like this. Rebecca has a right to be free from attack. Rebecca has a right to free speech. The difference is that negative rights restrain the government from creating a law that undermines the right. Positive rights require the government to make law and to enforce rights. Negative means the government has no power over that right. Positive means that the right only exists because the government creates it (and hence, could take it away). I don't know if I answered this a little or at all. I'm starting to ramble. Btw, did you know the Constitution only covers 3 crimes? Guess what they are...
To be specific, isn't it piracy on the high seas? Actually, you should still give me credit for slavery. Slavery is considered a crime in the constitution, right?
Forgive me for jumping in, Rebecca, and you may know all this, but not according to Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, where a slave (wasn't) even given the status of a person, but rather, "3/5 of a person." One of the reasons I can't understand how anyone can argue the document was, and is, perfect, complete, a blueprint for prescriptive governance, without any need for human interpretation. The constitution is also an incredible exercise in compromise, which as I've said on the forum, I don't necessarily see as a bad thing. It was framed by folks widely disparate in their views. There is no one "original intent" of the Founders, but rather an agreed upon compromise among them, a living document providing a workable system of governance. All requiring the Supreme Court to do its job, interpreting the Constitution: Anyway, it's always been a work in progress, as the Amendments themselves show. Even the 14th Amendment, intended to redress the wrongs of slavery, specifically excluded a woman as a legal "person," much like the "3/5ths" distinction of Article 2: You probably know this. Just seems to me that if there are amendments, and the need for amendments, there wasn't, and possibly isn't, a perfect construction. More generally, responsive, for now, to the notion of "the right to property," I'd just like to say: difficult as it is to say it, there is no universal "right" to property. This was a metaphysical construction by Locke, followed to some extent by other social contract theorists, and applied in slightly altered form in the Declaration of Independence - "the right to life, liberty and property" being Locke's line. To ascribe some universal, inherent, immutable value to something like property rights ignores the fact this concept was just that - a concept, not some immanency in nature. It certainly didn't apply, for example, when we, in the search for our liberty, robbed the native peoples of the continent blind in taking their lands by force and thievery. Basically, with Edmund Burke, I have a problem with imputing the notion of a "natural" law of social interactions, creating "universal rights" that are immutable. Burke called these "metaphysical abstractions," although he was taking to task much of the worst abuses of the French Revolution, which he initially supported. Anyway, Rebecca, sorry for intruding on your conversation. More thoughts otherwise later.
According to our constitution, at this time, slavery is not legal and it would be a crime to own slaves. Amendment 13: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. I know, Paul, that this was not always true. The original constitution was mostly concerned with life and liberty of white males, excluding others.
I knew you know all this, Rebecca. I should clarify that I was seeking to address the question in some people's minds as to what constitutes "the Constitution." I obviously cannot agree that the Constitution, as originally published, was a prescriptive blueprint, to be strictly applied, with no need for interpretation, especially by a Supreme Court (whose job it specifically is). The fact its wrongs have been redressed by Amendment speaks to the notion that it requires interpretation, even overturning as needs be (13 and 14 overturning Art. 2, for instance). Basically, I stand with Jefferson, who near the latter part of his life had this to say: I think your question on the nature of law is valid, and appropos. Laws exist, in my opinion, for us all to have rules we can agree to go by; it's the definition of society, our choice to live amongst each other in a social construct.
Many courageous people before us. I'm glad they had the courage to found our country, and to work to change our country to make it a better place. Such a short time, 225+ years - hard for me to imagine from this vista a time when you couldn't vote, or didn't count as legal "person." Great discussion. Thanks, Rebecca.
Here's it for me, in gross brief, Nate. Government sucks. But it beats a state of nature. Once we agree there is a benefit to society, to a social construct, over living as individuals in a state of anarchy, we agree to laws, a set of rules we can work with. To enforce those laws, we agree to cede some personal sovereignty over our lives - to not enforce law on another individual - to the state. We do this because again it beats 303,868,496 people living under 303,868,496 codes of behavior, many of them in absolute conflict.