Corollary to my Definition of a Person

[DragonMasterAlex]

If your starting point is that the "majority" has a right to dispose of any rights they see fit, even those of an individual, then you have already abandoned any notion of "Justice."

Rights are by nature defined at an INDIVIDUAL level. Societies of people exist in order to aid each other in survival. This is accomplished through mutual, voluntary cooperation (Emphasis on VOLUNTARY, a nation of masters and slaves does NOT constitute a Just Society) and the establishment of respect for the rights of the individuals who make up the society. Progress is achieved enabling a system of voluntary trade using common standards (currency) to enable a wide variety of possible options for the free exchange of values. These values are produced and increased by individuals focusing on specialization (specialization that is chosen by the INDIVIDUAL, not the "Society"); the common means of exchange (currency) allows people a freedom to choose their work without fear that they won't be able to trade their products for those they will need to survive on a day to day basis.

Justice isn't achieved by allowing some to dictate the "Rights" of others; Rights exist in the state of nature, not in the state of favors and pull.

Jason

the guiding principle of society ? that the majority may select any rights to be protected or ceded as it sees fit as long as this selection falls within the bounds provided by ethical justice. If this body falls into corruption, then justice is lost to that society and corruption will consume all that they have and stand for.[/]

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I might point out that Government exists BECAUSE of Civil Society.

"We hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT: That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain UNALIENABLE rights; that to SECURE these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed."

We don't have Rights because we have Government, we have Government because we have Rights and we want to Protect those Rights!


Jason

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Lies lies and more myths. Civil society exists not because of government but inspite of government. Laws would not cease to exist in absence of government, this claim is in no way true a priori, and it is not even true historically.

On the contrary, society would simply adopt a system of law and insurnace based on mutual agreements. I suggest you pick up a copy of Chaos Theory to see more about this. Furthermore, not only is government not necessary for a civil society, government perpetuates a process of de-civilization. See the above link on time preference on how this process occurs.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Well, in that case you need to start reading up on what politics is really about. Starting with this book.

That's very interesting. There is also a book about COMMUNISM called "The God that Failed".

One of the troubles we have in America is that we always rattle the buzzwords. "Democracy! Democracy! Democracy!" and yet we fail to see some important truths. In the first place, we are not a Democracy in the true (or "Direct" I guess) sense of the word. We do not have a system based on "Majority rule." If we did, then there would be no reason why anyone except for WHITE people would have any rights whatsoever. We're EASILY the majority and if all that is required is to have majority status to be in charge, we should be able to do that.

However, our Founders, in particular Jefferson and Madison, understood that Rights belong to individuals, and that the setup of the government would be designed to protect the rights of INDIVIDUALS, even against the will of the majority. The majority can vote for whom to put in the oval office, but we CANNOT vote to, say, take away Bill Gates' money and kill him in the streets just because we feel like it, majority or not. If you really want to see something lead to Anarchy, turn "Majority Rule" into the law of the land and you'll find plenty of it, because the majority of people are uneducated, unintelligent, lazy hacks who are just trying to get through to the next paycheck, the next meal, the next episode of "Survivor."

Jason

 

[Gravity]

Originally posted by: Vic
Good post, Jason.

btw, the OP just got a week's vacation from the Mods less than a hour ago Scroll 3/4's down

Whoa!!!

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Ooh, I'm gonna second that "Whoa!!!"

Jason

Originally posted by: Gravity

Originally posted by: Vic
Good post, Jason.

btw, the OP just got a week's vacation from the Mods less than a hour ago Scroll 3/4's down

Whoa!!!

 

[piasabird]

Sounds like the Article is discussing the prevailing concept of an Immorral Majority bringing about the destruction of society from within.

One question we might ask ourselves is "Are we part of the Immoral Majority or the Moral minority?"

 

[cwjerome]

Dragonmasteralex, I have been tempted to post but you've beat me to the punch every time. I don't think I could have said it any better. If you believe in universals, that there are cross-cultural truths, then you believe as the Founding Fathers did: A person's rights are are derived from nature- HIS nature, the nature of man. Rights are a moral necessity to survive beyond that of an animal.

If you think your rights come from the government, or society, or some mob... then you really don't have any rights at all. Only a slave acts on permission.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
I might point out that Government exists BECAUSE of Civil Society.

"We hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT: That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain UNALIENABLE rights; that to SECURE these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed."

We don't have Rights because we have Government, we have Government because we have Rights and we want to Protect those Rights!


Jason

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Lies lies and more myths. Civil society exists not because of government but inspite of government. Laws would not cease to exist in absence of government, this claim is in no way true a priori, and it is not even true historically.

On the contrary, society would simply adopt a system of law and insurnace based on mutual agreements. I suggest you pick up a copy of Chaos Theory to see more about this. Furthermore, not only is government not necessary for a civil society, government perpetuates a process of de-civilization. See the above link on time preference on how this process occurs.

This is a non-sequitur. Man may have rights, but how does it follow that it is necessary to create a government to "protect" those rights? I get the feeling that you are someone who has an affinity for minarchy i.e. someone who believes in a government of a few functions, including protection and national defense.

Well, I'm sorry to say but minarchy is a self-contradictory doctrine. The problem with minarchy is that it claims that man has rights, esepecially with regards to private property. THEN it turns around and says that man must cede ultimate decison making and protection regarding that property to a monopolistic and compulsory organization (the government), but also keep in mind that not only is the government the ultimate decision maker when it comes to conflicts between private property owners, it also becomes the ultimate decision maker involving all conflicts that include itself. On top of all that, the minarchist also believes that the government unilaterally should be allowed to determine what price it is going to charge for these "services."

This is just one of numerous absurdities that arise from the minarchist doctrine. John Locke and other minarchists attempted to justify the above by coming up with some theory of "tacit" consent, which is basically the creation of another absurdity in order to justify the original absurdity.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Well, in that case you need to start reading up on what politics is really about. Starting with this book.

That's very interesting. There is also a book about COMMUNISM called "The God that Failed".

One of the troubles we have in America is that we always rattle the buzzwords. "Democracy! Democracy! Democracy!" and yet we fail to see some important truths. In the first place, we are not a Democracy in the true (or "Direct" I guess) sense of the word. We do not have a system based on "Majority rule." If we did, then there would be no reason why anyone except for WHITE people would have any rights whatsoever. We're EASILY the majority and if all that is required is to have majority status to be in charge, we should be able to do that.

However, our Founders, in particular Jefferson and Madison, understood that Rights belong to individuals, and that the setup of the government would be designed to protect the rights of INDIVIDUALS, even against the will of the majority. The majority can vote for whom to put in the oval office, but we CANNOT vote to, say, take away Bill Gates' money and kill him in the streets just because we feel like it, majority or not. If you really want to see something lead to Anarchy, turn "Majority Rule" into the law of the land and you'll find plenty of it, because the majority of people are uneducated, unintelligent, lazy hacks who are just trying to get through to the next paycheck, the next meal, the next episode of "Survivor."

Jason

Yes, hence the title of the book is a spinoff of that title. It was meant as a semi-parody, but the book is absolutely serious about democracy being an illegitimate institution.

Democracy today is absolutely a majority rule, and that is what is messed up with it. Government has literally become perceived as an extension of man's means to attain ends. In this regard, whatever man cannot achieve in his private life, or whatever he desires to acquire but cannot through voluntary transactions, he seeks to achieve and acquire through government.

HuH?? But people have voted to take Bill Gates' money. In fact, he is probably one of the biggest taxpayers in history. The founding fathers were wrong, they believed in a limited government (a minarchy), and they believed that they could create a system that insured the government remained limited in nature. They achived limited government, by and large, during their lifetimes, but they created a monster, that just grew and grew and grew. Now we have a federal government, that has a federal code that is something like 15 volumes large that literally has supplemental books for new changes everyday, and a tax code that has over 1 million words in it.

The government would not cause anarchy, because that would mean that it would eliminate itself. No, the government actually perpetuates chaos. Let me explain. Suppose man decided that no one really owned anything at all, everything in the world was virtually "up for grabs." You could go around and literally grab any piece of property that you wanted without the consent of anyone else. For instance, I could grab some kid's bike who was riding down the street and ride away, whereupon a thug could shoot me, and take the bike from me so on and so forth.

Most of us would say that this society was in chaos. It was a chaotic society, in which people were literally just madly looting everything in sight. Well, if you look at democracy, and you realize what it really is, it is really an institution that perpetuates exactly this! People in government are literally granted the privilege of expropriating as much property that they want via taxation. In this sense they become mad looters. What democracy does though, is it allows equal access into government, which means that anyone can become a potential looter. The only thing that keeps society from becoming total chaos (the above scenario) is the fact that there are merely a limited number of offices available to run for. Not everyone can be in government, so not everyone can become mad looters. So the government has essentially instituted a system of chaos, but by limiting the number of entry points into the government, it has merely made sure that not everyone can have the privilege of being allowed to loot at the same time. If this were not the case, and everyone was allowed to go into government at the same time, the government would have to start looting from itself, for there would be no one else barred from this activity.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Dragonmasteralex, I have been tempted to post but you've beat me to the punch every time. I don't think I could have said it any better. If you believe in universals, that there are cross-cultural truths, then you believe as the Founding Fathers did: A person's rights are are derived from nature- HIS nature, the nature of man. Rights are a moral necessity to survive beyond that of an animal.

If you think your rights come from the government, or society, or some mob... then you really don't have any rights at all. Only a slave acts on permission.

Agreed. The purpose of our government is to limit certain rights in order to maintain the security of others. Thus, the very purpose of government as we know it is to limit the choices that we can make as they would infringe on the rights of others. Tradeoffs must be made if you want to live in a society - complete autonomy (the ability to do anything you want with complete disregard for the effect of your actions on others) only works if you can accept that others have the same rights and are willing to accept the scheme of complete moral relativism that must exist in such anarchy.