NationStates Jolt Archive

How do you ethically legitimize putting the state ahead of the individual?

I would like to hear some decent arguments on this, and I am sure more questions will follow.

i am not saying anything of intelligence on here, brad. just because.

i am not saying anything of intelligence on here, brad. just because.

I wasn't worried about that in the first place. ;)

you are so dead. consider yourself killed dead. you are probally ticklish, so i should have an easy time.

you are so dead. consider yourself killed dead. you are probally ticklish, so i should have an easy time.

I have a suspended animation mechanism that I enter into whenever I am tickled. I pass out, then wake up two days later with no clue of what happened.

You can't. Unless you want to be a slave to the state, and very few people would choose slavery if it weren't wearing the veil of super nationalism.

I don't know if this will be an intelligent post... but while I would never support a system that holds the "government" or a small group of a society above individual rights, I can see an argument made for the suppression of certain individual rights in the context of protecting the society as a whole.

My personal view is that all laws can (and probably should) be judged by the maxim: I should be allowed to do whatever I want to do as long as that doesn't interfere with someone else's same right.

For example... I can understand making it illegal to use narcotics while behind the wheel of a car. Even further I can see a case for saying that no parent should be allowed to use narcotics while performing parental duties.... What I don't like (even though I don't use drugs myself) is an arbitrary law that says some single guy can't sit around inside his home in his underwear stoned out of his guord watching Start Trek reruns.... Unless you can show me how that might interfere with any one else's rights.

any way my 1.5 cents worth

I have a suspended animation mechanism that I enter into whenever I am tickled. I pass out, then wake up two days later with no clue of what happened.
but i will video tape it. you , giggling like a school girl.

How do you ethically legitimize putting the state ahead of the individual?

I would like to hear some decent arguments on this, and I am sure more questions will follow.

Read Benthams Act Utalitrainism, that justifies it in a flash. Ill go serch up the book title if you want, or even explain it (egotistical mood tonight)

I don't know if this will be an intelligent post... but while I would never support a system that holds the "government" or a small group of a society above individual rights, I can see an argument made for the suppression of certain individual rights in the context of protecting the society as a whole.

My personal view is that all laws can (and probably should) be judged by the maxim: I should be allowed to do whatever I want to do as long as that doesn't interfere with someone else's same right.

For example... I can understand making it illegal to use narcotics while behind the wheel of a car. Even further I can see a case for saying that no parent should be allowed to use narcotics while performing parental duties.... What I don't like (even though I don't use drugs myself) is an arbitrary law that says some single guy can't sit around inside his home in his underwear stoned out of his guord watching Start Trek reruns.... Unless you can show me how that might interfere with any one else's rights.

any way my 1.5 cents worth

*Applauds*

Read 'On Liberty' by John Stuwart Mill it basically is summed up by what most of you have just said. So its an easy read and youll sound smart

I don't know if this will be an intelligent post... but while I would never support a system that holds the "government" or a small group of a society above individual rights, I can see an argument made for the suppression of certain individual rights in the context of protecting the society as a whole.

My personal view is that all laws can (and probably should) be judged by the maxim: I should be allowed to do whatever I want to do as long as that doesn't interfere with someone else's same right.

For example... I can understand making it illegal to use narcotics while behind the wheel of a car. Even further I can see a case for saying that no parent should be allowed to use narcotics while performing parental duties.... What I don't like (even though I don't use drugs myself) is an arbitrary law that says some single guy can't sit around inside his home in his underwear stoned out of his guord watching Start Trek reruns.... Unless you can show me how that might interfere with any one else's rights.

any way my 1.5 cents worth

Standing ovation for anybody who thinks like this.
There are too few of us in the world.

Thank you...

I think there might actually be a lot of us in the world... problem is most are too stoned to go outside and vote

Read Benthams Act Utalitrainism, that justifies it in a flash. Ill go serch up the book title if you want, or even explain it (egotistical mood tonight)

I extremely doubt I will read it, so an explanation would be best.

Read Benthams Act Utalitrainism, that justifies it in a flash. Ill go serch up the book title if you want, or even explain it (egotistical mood tonight)

But still it doesn't really justify fascism though. Since policies aren't decided on the basis of utilitarianism but on the basis on allowing the party/individual to remain in control.

Unless of course the point you are trying to make has gone straight over my head.

Read 'On Liberty' by John Stuwart Mill it basically is summed up by what most of you have just said. So its an easy read and youll sound smart

True, and not to mention that there is at least one quotation per page that can easily be crowbarred into nearly any essay. :)

I extremely doubt I will read it, so an explanation would be best.
Right ho, despite my ego, im no world authority yet so this could be a lil bit scew if.

This chap Bentham, He likes people, hell he likes them a lot, he a fairly well of chap owns a factor (i think) and likes to treat his workers nice, i saw a cartoon of him and them having a pic niq once, so ill take it that happened.

Well seeing as he as a lot of money and time on his hands he sits down with his pipe and try to work out an ethical system thats fair to eveyone.

Ta da he comes up with the hedonic calculas, in other words anything is justified if it brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number, or the minimises the unhappyness of the greatest number or minimisies the number of people unhappy.
For happy unhappy, see in pain, fed, alive, not geing nerve gassed.

So a person working in a name of the people, say stalin or hitler, could justify killing a small minoirty as long as the it made the majority of people happy.

Its also telelogical (outcome 1st meathod 2nd) so if you think it will make people happy its ok to do whatever.

The state over sees the orderly running of society. So thus the state makes sure people are not affected by crime their property isnt stolen. So without the state their would be Anarchy in Anarchy the individual is neither first nor second he is deadlast and has no laws to defend his property.

Therfore the state needs to be the primary concern of the people and the government to ensure they will be able to live their lives.

snip.

I agree that that does not justify fascism. If anything it justifies majority rule and libertarianism.

The state over sees the orderly running of society. So thus the state makes sure people are not affected by crime their property isnt stolen. So without the state their would be Anarchy in Anarchy the individual is neither first nor second he is deadlast and has no laws to defend his property.

Therfore the state needs to be the primary concern of the people and the government to ensure they will be able to live their lives.

That argument was poor grammatically and logically. You use law enforcement as an argument, and then you make a huge jump to anarchy.

And the second part did not answer my question.

I agree that that does not justify fascism. If anything it justifies majority rule and libertarianism.

You agree then you seem to disagree, blerrg I’m confused.

But the important point in act utilitarianism is bentham never puts any limits on it, it in theory justifies anything torture, arrests without warrant, ethnic cleansing. So i disagree is justifies fascism and so much more

You agree then you seem to disagree, blerrg I’m confused.

But the important point in act utilitarianism is bentham never puts any limits on it, it in theory justifies anything torture, arrests without warrant, ethnic cleansing. So i disagree is justifies fascism and so much more

I haven't agreed with you on anything so far. I agreed with whoever said that didn't justify fascism.

The reason I think it doesn't justify fascism, is that it only justifies the way in which a government sets its policy. It does nothing to justify an actual form of government.

It does mildly justify putting society above the individual, but comments very little on the place of the state.

I haven't agreed with you on anything so far. I agreed with whoever said that didn't justify fascism.

The reason I think it doesn't justify fascism, is that it only justifies the way in which a government sets its policy. It does nothing to justify an actual form of government.

It does mildly justify putting society above the individual, but comments very little on the place of the state.

touché indeed, it appears i need to brush up on it before making another comment because you may be right, stupid 18th centaury ethical theories with their lack of politics. sorry about the other mistake too it appeared form your statement your where agree and disagreeing, don’t want to appear a grammar troll though.

touché indeed, it appears i need to brush up on it before making another comment because you may be right, stupid 18th centaury ethical theories with their lack of politics. sorry about the other mistake too it appeared form your statement your where agree and disagreeing, don’t want to appear a grammar troll though.

Keep posting, due to extreme ADD and pot, I find it very difficult to read anything longer than a couple of pages at a time.

Thus I am very poorly read, and love quick little summaries.

Keep posting, due to extreme ADD and pot, I find it very difficult to read anything longer than a couple of pages at a time.

Thus I am very poorly read, and love quick little summaries.

Nah im tired and i cant be bother to run down to make a cup of tea, been fun though, might have an another go in the morrow eh?
Id need to glance over my notes, it is a huge part of my a level module after all.

Like any ideology, Fascism is far better in theory than it is in the real world. It does, after all, rely upon a permanently benign and incorruptable state. However, as democracy relies upon an incorruptable electorate (ha. ha. ha...) it isn't really any more justifiable than the alternative.

However, we could argue that a supreme state, driven as all states are to self perpetuation, would be able to command superior powers in the defence of the populace it requires for maintenance and support.

And anyway, since when was sacrificing individual desires for the good of the greater group a negative action? So long as the majority population is willing, fascism is a bloody good idea as it definitely allows for a more efficient use of the resources of public drive and motivation. And indeed, a fascist government is far less hampered by minority viewpoints that would otherwise limit universally beneficial initiatives - for instance, a fascist government would have no trouble whatsoever initiating effective environmental initiatives as it would not necessarily have to be effected by the big business lobby or other self-interest groups (sic). Of course, I will admit it could just as easily go the other way; but at least it would go there with some collective agreement and no half measures.

Perhaps the best argument for a fascist government is in what happens when popular support fades and it is time for regime change. Look at democracy - all the political parties are pretty much the same, with genuinely minor differences. Active protest is always in the minority and voter apathy is definitely in the majority. The entire point about democracy is that it dissipates and divides the power and passion of the poeople, fragmenting them into factions and turning them against themselves. No big changes can occur because all the little groups divided by race, creed, gender or whatever are so busy infighting.

When a fascist government needs changing, everyone will focus on it. There will be unity in the people and a definitely forceful movement. The small size of the state and the distinct separation that will have occured between the people and authority means that it will be easy to remove and install a totally new regime with minimum counter-revolutionary fervour.

So perhaps what I am saying is that fascism is fully justified temporarily.

From what I've read, fascism seems to be about a myth of the people being a special collective with a glorious destiny and by uniting and cultivating a strong morality, they will become reborn and achieve greatness or something. It's all bullshit, but it sounds cool when shouted by demagogues.

Like any ideology, Fascism is far better in theory than it is in the real world. It does, after all, rely upon a permanently benign and incorruptable state. However, as democracy relies upon an incorruptable electorate (ha. ha. ha...) it isn't really any more justifiable than the alternative.

OK, continue....

However, we could argue that a supreme state, driven as all states are to self perpetuation, would be able to command superior powers in the defence of the populace it requires for maintenance and support.

Another good point, but it doesn't address my ethical question.

And anyway, since when was sacrificing individual desires for the good of the greater group a negative action?

There is nothing wrong with it, as long as it is a willing, personal decision.

So long as the majority population is willing, fascism is a bloody good idea as it definitely allows for a more efficient use of the resources of public drive and motivation.

Does it maintain the public drive and motivation? And also, a fascist government is not responsive to majority population, so it doesn't matter if they are willing or not.

And indeed, a fascist government is far less hampered by minority viewpoints that would otherwise limit universally beneficial initiatives - for instance, a fascist government would have no trouble whatsoever initiating effective environmental initiatives as it would not necessarily have to be effected by the big business lobby or other self-interest groups (sic). Of course, I will admit it could just as easily go the other way; but at least it would go there with some collective agreement and no half measures.

There wouldn't be a collective agreement in a fascism, that is the point of fascism. The government operates in whatever is best for the government. The people are ignored. Also, it is normally those minority viewpoints that spur the major changes for the benefit of society.

Perhaps the best argument for a fascist government is in what happens when popular support fades and it is time for regime change. Look at democracy - all the political parties are pretty much the same, with genuinely minor differences. Active protest is always in the minority and voter apathy is definitely in the majority. The entire point about democracy is that it dissipates and divides the power and passion of the poeople, fragmenting them into factions and turning them against themselves. No big changes can occur because all the little groups divided by race, creed, gender or whatever are so busy infighting.

In a democracy, the changes in power and society are more organic. This means they are slower, but it also means that they have a stronger base, causing a more stable society.

When a fascist government needs changing, everyone will focus on it. There will be unity in the people and a definitely forceful movement. The small size of the state and the distinct separation that will have occured between the people and authority means that it will be easy to remove and install a totally new regime with minimum counter-revolutionary fervour.

There will be no more unity when changing a fascist government than there is in a democracy. There will still be multiple factions with opposing views on what path the country should take. The only difference is that there will need to be violence in order to oust the current government.

So perhaps what I am saying is that fascism is fully justified temporarily.

Ultimately, I didn't want to debate the justification of fascism. I was hoping to discuss the ethical question of whether the state should hold precedent over the individual.

From what I've read, fascism seems to be about a myth of the people being a special collective with a glorious destiny and by uniting and cultivating a strong morality, they will become reborn and achieve greatness or something. It's all bullshit, but it sounds cool when shouted by demagogues.

Fascism is the goverment heaven would have, if it existed.