NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm still utterly amazed as to WHY anyone would think that a Government/Church/what-have-you-not should take a hand in righting ( perceived ) social wrongs.

Conditions simply are.
And I can't imagine myself ( anymore ) voting to so empower anyone.

Anyway, this is the syllogism propents of activism tend to adhere to.

1] A social wrong exists.
2] It's the duty of Government/Church/what-have-you-not to right social wrongs.
3] Therefore, Government/Church/what-have-you-not should do something about 1.

A nice enough syllogism. If only 2] were persuasive.

Thoughts, anyone?

I Completely disagree.
Most of that is because I'm after the philosophy

"That Government which governs best, governs least"

And, even better "That Government which governs best, governs not at all"

I'm still utterly amazed as to WHY anyone would think that a Government/Church/what-have-you-not should take a hand in righting ( perceived ) social wrongs.

Conditions simple are.
And I can't imagine myself ( anymore ) voting to so empower anyone.


1] A social wrong exists.
2] It's the duty of Government/Church/what-have-you-not to right social wrongs.
3] Therefore, Government/Church/what-have-you-not should do something about 1.

A nice enough syllogism. If only 2] were persuasive.

Thoughts, anyone?

Um. So your answer is that social wrongs should just be left alone?

I'm still utterly amazed as to WHY anyone would think that a Government/Church/what-have-you-not should take a hand in righting ( perceived ) social wrongs.

Conditions simple are.
And I can't imagine myself ( anymore ) voting to so empower anyone.


1] A social wrong exists.
2] It's the duty of Government/Church/what-have-you-not to right social wrongs.
3] Therefore, Government/Church/what-have-you-not should do something about 1.

A nice enough syllogism. If only 2] were persuasive.

Thoughts, anyone?
i'm sorry, the way you phrased this is utterly confusing. could you explain it again in a way that doesn't make my brain hurt?

Let me try again.

Example of a syllogism to defend Activism.
1] A social wrong exists.
2] It's the duty of Government/Church/what-have-you-not to right social wrongs.
3] Therefore, Government/Church/what-have-you-not should do something about 1.

This seems to be the principle on which most people justify Governments taking an activist stance. Example: ensuring that everyone has decent healthcare.

But I don't agree, because I consider 2] to be balderdash and babble.

The fact that a social wrong exists does not empower a government to DO anything, imho.

Um. So your answer is that social wrongs should just be left alone?
No. My answer is that institutions have no more right to affect social conditions than they have the right to order weather, the prices on the stockmarket, or anyone's personal beliefs. You and I may have a right to do something moral - an Instution has not, for an Insitution exists beyond ( or before ) the boundaries of Right and Wrong!

What are social/societal institutions for, if not doing right by society (which includes righting social wrongs).
If everything were right, and remain so by itself, we wouldn't need them.

I'm still utterly amazed as to WHY anyone would think that a Government/Church/what-have-you-not should take a hand in righting ( perceived ) social wrongs.<snip>

I believe the government should act in cases when right simply cannot prevail by itself.

For example, there was a time in the US (as was recently discussed on this board) when only land-owning persons were entitled to vote. No amount of individual posturing would have changed that.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Everyone gets a fair chance at these. In cases where no fair chance exists, enter the government. I agree that they go way beyond what they ought to, however.

Churches, like all other private organizations, exist to meet the needs of their members. They ought to do whatever their members believe is right. If that includes charity and philanthropy, what's it to you?

What are social/societal institutions for, if not doing right by society (which includes righting social wrongs).
If everything were right, and remain so by itself, we wouldn't need them.


What I will reply to your point is what I was about to add to my previous post.
The role of social instutions is and should be restricted to saying 'Stare decisis'.

Churches, like all other private organizations, exist to meet the needs of their members. They ought to do whatever their members believe is right. If that includes charity and philanthropy, what's it to you?
The moment their actions affect MY outcomes, I demand and insist upon an absolute veto. I wont brook the slightest interference in my voluntary relations with others by persons or instutions beyond those I voluntarily associate with.
I consider this right to be left the Hell alone, implicit in liberty.

basically if it is a big social wrong eventually the government has a choice either change it from above or have change from below.

thats how we got the welfare state here in britain, its because after world war two they realised that they had lots of people who remembered the depression and now were very well armed........

What I will reply to your point is what I was about to add to my previous post.
The role of social instutions is and should be restricted to saying 'Stare decisis'.

So things should never change? That would require a lot of action by social institutions (and is not really possible).


The moment their actions affect MY outcomes, I demand and insist upon an absolute veto. I wont brook the slightest interference in my voluntary relations with others by persons or instutions beyond those I voluntarily associate with.
I consider this right to be left the Hell alone, implicit in liberty.

What about the instant that my absolute right to be left the Hell alone interferes with your absolute right to be left the Hell alone?

The moment their actions affect MY outcomes, I demand and insist upon an absolute veto.Even when you have just affected their 'outcomes'? If you kill someone, society should retaliate on behalf of the killed. And you shouldn't have a veto to stop them.

I wont brook the slightest interference in my voluntary relations with others by persons or instutions beyond those I voluntarily associate with.Do you voluntarily associate with government?
Either way in a democracy, the people rule, not the individual. It's based on majority, not concensus. Liberty is not as simple as doing whatever the hell you want. If you gave everyone a veto with regard to governement, you would do better to just convert to anarchy.

1] Even when you have just affected their 'outcomes'? If you kill someone, society should retaliate on behalf of the killed. And you shouldn't have a veto to stop them.

2] Do you voluntarily associate with government?

3] Either way in a democracy, the people rule, not the individual. It's based on majority, not concensus. Liberty is not as simple as doing whatever the hell you want. If you gave everyone a veto with regard to governement, you would do better to just convert to anarchy.

1. Yes. I quite agree with your point. To ensure that the one I hypothetically murdered remains alive, and failing that, I as a hypothetical assailant am punished is pretty much within my view of stare decisis. EXACTLY the kind of decisions that we have a Government for.

2. Quite so. I'm an immigrant... and carefully chose where to live. I even have a written contract with that Government. It's called the Constution and the Bill of Rights. I don't have such a contract with, say, the Church of the Latter Day Saints.


3. I disagree. Ours is a republic - not a democracy. I would not care greatly to live in a democracy.

The best historical way to right social wrongs are to do the things that piss off the wrongdoers most without actually causing trouble. When blacks were seen as lesser beings, good people treated them like human beings. The same has held up for jews, gays, and the list will likely continue on to cyborgs and clones and so on.

Society will correct that wrong and it will use whatever tool society has to correct that wrong, be it Government/Church/what-have-you.

Society will correct that wrong and it will use whatever tool society has to correct that wrong, be it Government/Church/what-have-you.

While I disagree with those sentiments.... I thoroughly like the way they are put!

While I disagree with those sentiments.... I thoroughly like the way they are put!
BTW, who determines if something is a Social Wrong?

Society?
Government (Through Laws, Fed/State/city)?
Religion?

BTW, who determines if something is a Social Wrong?

Society?
Government (Through Laws, Fed/State/city)?
Religion?

The Individual. There is no such thing as objectively establishing what is right and wrong. Another reason why I'm weary of empowering Government. Or any other institution.

The Individual. There is no such thing as objectively establishing what is right and wrong. Another reason why I'm weary of empowering Government. Or any other institution.

if there is no objective right or wrong, how can Government action be wrong?

if there is no objective right or wrong, how can Government action be wrong?

In that it has no mandate to act.
Therefore, it is SPECIFICALLY not allowed to act, pursuant to the IXth and Xth articles of the Bill of Rights.

Even if an institution, let us say the Bank of Japan, were free of such constraints as imposed by the Bill of Rights, from where does it receive its Mandate to move as much as an inch, other than in areas in which it is specificqlly empowered to act?

The Individual. There is no such thing as objectively establishing what is right and wrong. Another reason why I'm weary of empowering Government. Or any other institution.
Sorry, but the thought of every individual person going out and correcting social wrongs by themselves will lead to chaos.

then the fact that individuals will tend to congregate and work together...
individuals working together to right those wrongs goes back to Government, Religion, what have you.

catch 22.

Sorry, but the thought of every individual person going out and correcting social wrongs by themselves will lead to chaos.

then the fact that individuals will tend to congregate and work together...
individuals working together to right those wrongs goes back to Government, Religion, what have you.

catch 22.

Chaos - therefore: VETO.

yay for direct action!:)

booo for political action:(

In that it has no mandate to act.
Therefore, it is SPECIFICALLY not allowed to act, pursuant to the IXth and Xth articles of the Bill of Rights.

Even if an institution, let us say the Bank of Japan, were free of such constraints as imposed by the Bill of Rights, from where does it receive its Mandate to move as much as an inch, other than in areas in which it is specificqlly empowered to act?

1. Why does the institution require a mandate?

2. Allowed by whom? Who exists to stop it?

3. According to you individuals have an absolute right to act. An insitutition is simply a group of individuals acting together. Thus, there is no limit on the institutions right to act.

4. Your 9th and 10th Amendment argument is just silly. (It only applies to the Federal Government.) The Constitution gives a wide latitude of things the government can do. See the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Necesssary and Proper Clause.

Let me try again.

Example of a syllogism to defend Activism.
1] A social wrong exists.
2] It's the duty of Government/Church/what-have-you-not to right social wrongs.
3] Therefore, Government/Church/what-have-you-not should do something about 1.

This seems to be the principle on which most people justify Governments taking an activist stance. Example: ensuring that everyone has decent healthcare.

But I don't agree, because I consider 2] to be balderdash and babble.

The fact that a social wrong exists does not empower a government to DO anything, imho.


No. My answer is that institutions have no more right to affect social conditions than they have the right to order weather, the prices on the stockmarket, or anyone's personal beliefs. You and I may have a right to do something moral - an Instution has not, for an Insitution exists beyond ( or before ) the boundaries of Right and Wrong!

What if the government caused those social conditions in the first place? Or does the government only have the 'right' to screw things up?

Chaos - therefore: VETO.

Veto by whom. By what authority. If every individual has equal authority and absolute veto, then no one has any veto at all.

I Completely disagree.
Most of that is because I'm after the philosophy

"That Government which governs best, governs least"

And, even better "That Government which governs best, governs not at all"


so to put it short anarchy

1. Why does the institution require a mandate?

2. Allowed by whom? Who exists to stop it?

3. According to you individuals have an absolute right to act. An insitutition is simply a group of individuals acting together. Thus, there is no limit on the institutions right to act.

4. Your 9th and 10th Amendment argument is just silly. (It only applies to the Federal Government.) The Constitution gives a wide latitude of things the government can do. See the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Necesssary and Proper Clause.

1. Because an institution has no 'moral' meaning. Therefore, it cannot be said to have rights or mandates at all - unless SPECIFICALLY empowered so.

2. I'd say... whatever Posse Commitatus can be found.

3. If the Institution were to absorb the rights of the individual, individuals were to have no right that is absorbed left. Then you have either:
A] multiplication of absolute rights. or.
B] nilification of individual absolute rights.
Therefore, the idea of an institution deriving rights from its component parts is nonsensical.

4. Hapless Toad, as the current Supreme Justice would say.

What if the government caused those social conditions in the first place? Or does the government only have the 'right' to screw things up?

*grin* I'd say that Government only has the power to screw things up.
Therefore, the Colossus must be enchained by our tiny individual chains.

1. Because an institution has no 'moral' meaning. Therefore, it cannot be said to have rights or mandates at all - unless SPECIFICALLY empowered so.

Good. So when we empower them with said mandate. Oh, oops. You don't like that answer and we all know it's about what YOU like.

2. I'd say... whatever Posse Commitatus can be found.

3. If the Institution were to absorb the rights of the individual, individuals were to have no right that is absorbed left. Then you have either:
A] multiplication of absolute rights. or.
B] nilification of individual absolute rights.
Therefore, the idea of an institution deriving rights from its component parts is nonsensical.

Not if those individuals infer those rights on the institution with intent. I have a right to free speech and I join a group that I want to help me excercise my free speech. That is entirely within the intent of the US Constitution. I view a wrong that I wish to correct, I have every right to engage the government in righting that wrong provided it in no way violates the US Constitution. You have to make an argument as to why what you're arguing violates the US Constitution and you haven't made a compelling one yet. The 9th and 10th amendment are there specifically to suggest that those rights need to be protected by the US government as actively as free speech or the right to bear arms.

4. Hapless Toad, as the current Supreme Justice would say.

I see that you don't have a response. Noted.

*grin* I'd say that Government only has the power to screw things up.
Therefore, the Colossus must be enchained by our tiny individual chains.

Ridiculous. When you make an assertion with no evidence, then I need no evidence to dismiss it.

The government empowered slavery so it not only has the mandate but it has the absolute responsibility to correct the effect that empowerment has had on the plight of black people, as an example. When the effect of negative practices of the government are no longer felt then the mandate disappears. The government has an obligation to level a playing field it tipped at some point.

1. You can't transfer your absolute rights ( they would not be absolute otherwise ). You could write a document doing so... but it remains meaningless. An unenforceable contract. A clause nill ab ovo.

2. See 1.

3. See 1. You have rights as an individual who happens to be an LDS member - but none as an LDS member.
In the first instant, you're as free to shout for your beliefs as I shout for mine.
In the second.. you don't.

4. I'm confident that the new Supreme Court will work hard to reduce interferences to IX and X to the bare bones minimum, preferably paring it down to zero. Roberts' hapless toads comment is a good harbinger.

Ridiculous. When you make an assertion with no evidence, then I need no evidence to dismiss it.

The government empowered slavery so it not only has the mandate but it has the absolute responsibility to correct the effect that empowerment has had on the plight of black people, as an example. When the effect of negative practices of the government are no longer felt then the mandate disappears. The government has an obligation to level a playing field it tipped at some point.

I'd say that the example of the government empowering slavery is the Mother of all examples why Government should refrain from even THINKING about empowerment.

4. I'm confident that the new Supreme Court will work hard to reduce interferences to IX and X to the bare bones minimum, preferably paring it down to zero. Roberts' hapless toads comment is a good harbinger.

LOL. We'll see, padawan. We'll see.

I'd say that the example of the government empowering slavery is the Mother of all examples why Government should refrain from even THINKING about empowerment.

And yet slavery was empowered by the Constitution. It took the Government to undo it with the 13th Amendment. (And the little war.)

LOL. We'll see, padawan. We'll see.

Well... if you think Scalia and Alito, I can't honestly blame you for being sceptic.
For let the record show that true-believing Conservatives have wreaked more havock on liberty than liberal justices would have dared to dream about.

1. You can't transfer your absolute rights ( they would not be absolute otherwise ). You could write a document doing so... but it remains meaningless. An unenforceable contract. A clause nill ab ovo.

So no group rights. This is pretty much COMPLETELY unsupported or churches and/or corporations would not be protected in this country at all. Again, assertions with no support need no support in the dismissal.

2. See 1.

Who cares? Faulty assertion used to prove more faulty assertions.

3. See 1. You have rights as an individual who happens to be an LDS member - but none as an LDS member.
In the first instant, you're as free to shout for your beliefs as I shout for mine.
In the second.. you don't.

Again, 200 years of case-law disagree with you.

4. I'm confident that the new Supreme Court will work hard to reduce interferences to IX and X to the bare bones minimum, preferably paring it down to zero. Roberts' hapless toads comment is a good harbinger.
Uh-huh. If you think that any justices are going to try to establish that organizations of individuals do not have rights, you're so sadly mistaken, it's almost not worth addressing. Let them take away the rights of a church or the ACLU or the KKK or whatever. I liked to see that day because it would be the day the KKK are fighting next to the black panthers.

I'd say that the example of the government empowering slavery is the Mother of all examples why Government should refrain from even THINKING about empowerment.

Except they did and thus should be required to set things back level. I think I can guess which side of the leveling you're resting on, when you say that an unlevel playing field is fair game even when it's tipped initially by the government.

And yet slavery was empowered by the Constitution. It took the Government to undo it with the 13th Amendment. (And the little war.)


I know. If it had been a matter of replacing one act of tomfoolery ( empowerment, not slavery being the tomfoolery ) by another, things would not be so bad. But then there is the risk of a little war every now and then...
( not to mention the unpleasantries in between... )

Hence I call the empowerment of slavery the mother of all examples of how bad the very notion of empowerment is.

Jocabia. So no group rights. This is pretty much COMPLETELY unsupported or churches and/or corporations would not be protected in this country at all. Again, assertions with no support need no support in the dismissal.
Transfer or sell your rights to a corporation. I'll buy the corporation then. And own your rights. That is, if you are right.

I know. If it had been a matter of replacing one act of tomfoolery ( empowerment, not slavery being the tomfoolery ) by another, things would not be so bad. But then there is the risk of a little war every now and then...
( not to mention the unpleasantries in between... )

Hence I call the empowerment of slavery the mother of all examples of how bad the very notion of empowerment is.

Yes, these are the types of arguments people make when they can't support things any other way. Perhaps we should have no voting because voting resulted in the rise of Hitler. right? No freedom of speech, because of the things Pat Robertson says? No freedom of religion because someone burnt a cross on a lawn? Because there are bad examples of how a freedom, mandate or right were misused is not a reason the freedom, mandate or right are bad. You're going have to try, oh, I don't know, actually supporting your argument.

Sorry.
Try going back to the first post.
Required: evidence for 2]
I still haven't noticed a pervasive argument for it.
And don't really expect one to be made.

Example of a syllogism to defend Activism.
1] A social wrong exists.
2] It's the duty of Government/Church/what-have-you-not to right social wrongs.
3] Therefore, Government/Church/what-have-you-not should do something about 1.

This seems to be the principle on which most people justify Governments taking an activist stance. Example: ensuring that everyone has decent healthcare.

But I don't agree, because I consider 2] to be balderdash and babble.

This seems to ignore the base issue of social wrongs, namely instances wherein social wrongs directly limit the individual's ability to right said wrongs.

How much power an individual has to right social wrongs to begin with is debatable.

I Completely disagree.
Most of that is because I'm after the philosophy

"That Government which governs best, governs least"

And, even better "That Government which governs best, governs not at all"

Pft. Anarchist. [/sarcasm]

Anyway, this is the syllogism propents of activism tend to adhere to.

1] A social wrong exists.
2] It's the duty of Government/Church/what-have-you-not to right social wrongs.
3] Therefore, Government/Church/what-have-you-not should do something about 1.

no it isn't.

2 should read that we, as individuals, have a duty to correct wrongs. then it should be followed by 2b, the nature of social wrongs requires that they be addressed by collective action. then 2c would be that organization x is the most effective/convinient/intrinsically right organization to use for the collective action necessary to fulfill our duty.

2 should read that we, as individuals, have a duty to correct wrongs.


From what is this duty derived?

I would suggest that we, as individuals, have an ability to correct wrongs, but whether we do so remains a matter of free choice. "Duty" seems to suggest an obligation beyond the control of free choice, which in turn threatens to make meaningless the "as individuals" qualifier (Edit: this problem seems especially dangerous when there is talk of the necessity for collective action in executing such a "duty"). Also, whether wrongs can be corrected without causing greater evil will depend on the specifics of the situation, which a sense of urgency created by the idea of a "duty" may be in danger of overlooking.

Thus my preference to dispense with any talk of "duty" and to err on the side of individual liberty.

Sorry.
Try going back to the first post.
Required: evidence for 2]
I still haven't noticed a pervasive argument for it.
And don't really expect one to be made.

Who's contending two? I'm not. I'm contending that they can if we wish them to. Provided righting a social wrong does not violate the Constitution, then we as voters/constituents have the ability to issue a mandate to correct said wrongs to the government, our church, our political action group, etc.. If you contend that our issuance of the mandate is in violation of the US Constitution, demonstrate that it is so. If you are contending that we cannot issue such a mandate, demonstrate that it is so.

It's not the duty of the government to right what this nebulous concept, we call the government, considers wrong. It is the duty of the government to excercise the will of the people within the bounds of the US Constitution. Are you contending that it is not?

The real support for an argument of righting wrongs is...

1) A social wrong subjectively exists (in the eyes of the people)
2) Righting that wrong does not violate the US Constitution
3) The people will the government to right that wrong.
4) The government excercises the will of the people.

Now, would you like to support your various assertions that you've used to support your claims or are you admitting you cannot?

You're dropping arguments or dismissing them using assertions that are unsupported. The first post is not the only post in the thread. Would you like to participate in a debate or are you just going to post assertions and expect us to not realize you haven't supported a single one.

no it isn't.

2 should read that we, as individuals, have a duty to correct wrongs. then it should be followed by 2b, the nature of social wrongs requires that they be addressed by collective action. then 2c would be that organization x is the most effective/convinient/intrinsically right organization to use for the collective action necessary to fulfill our duty.

I would go further to say that we, as individuals, have are welcome to correct wrongs should we so desire, then follow it by the rest of what you said.

I'm still utterly amazed as to WHY anyone would think that a Government/Church/what-have-you-not should take a hand in righting ( perceived ) social wrongs.

Conditions simply are.
And I can't imagine myself ( anymore ) voting to so empower anyone.

Anyway, this is the syllogism propents of activism tend to adhere to.

1] A social wrong exists.
2] It's the duty of Government/Church/what-have-you-not to right social wrongs.
3] Therefore, Government/Church/what-have-you-not should do something about 1.

A nice enough syllogism. If only 2] were persuasive.

Thoughts, anyone?
I can agree, as long as we can reach an understanding about what constitues a "social wrong," and which "social wrongs" are appropriate for government to tax others to correct them.

My other question would be what would be the alternative? Slavery as an institution existed long before our government. It did not go away without the efforts of the government. There were efforts by many individuals at that time to disrupt or stop this social wrong and to a great degree they were causing strife and, in some cases, violence. Had the government not interceded, there is much evidence that it would be a long time before said social wrong righted itself and it's still possible that it would continue in isolated circumstances. Not only could it have continued but government action was REQUIRED in order to give the vote to either women or minorities. So there are three social wrongs that would have continued despite the best efforts of the individual without government/group involvement.

So the question is - what alternative is there to the government or other large groups correcting what in some cases the vast majority of the country finds to be wrong and with whom the constitution agrees (take violations of civil rights like the ban on interracial marriage)?

Ergh, my eyes are crossing.
Is it just me, or does someone else feel like they're reading excerpts from "Through the Looking Glass" when reading Bogmarsh's posts?

Ergh, my eyes are crossing.
Is it just me, or does someone else feel like they're reading excerpts from "Through the Looking Glass" when reading Bogmarsh's posts?
"Gulliver's Travels", rather, viz. his earlier reference to binding the monster with our tiny individual chains, like the Lilliputians binding Gulliver. Of course, in Swift's satire, the Lilliputians were ridiculous, wasteful, conceited, stupid people -- not good models for society's guardians.

From what is this duty derived?

from the same place as any other moral obligation.

I would suggest that we, as individuals, have an ability to correct wrongs, but whether we do so remains a matter of free choice. "Duty" seems to suggest an obligation beyond the control of free choice, which in turn threatens to make meaningless the "as individuals" qualifier

so what would you think about a person who had the ability to save a child from drowning but refrained from doing so?

(Edit: this problem seems especially dangerous when there is talk of the necessity for collective action in executing such a "duty").

how so? keep in mind that most human activites require collective action.

Thus my preference to dispense with any talk of "duty" and to err on the side of individual liberty.

i fail to see how they are opposed.

from the same place as any other moral obligation.


My duty derives from an obligation.

*pushes swivel chair away from desk and spins around in circles* :D


so what would you think about a person who had the ability to save a child from drowning but refrained from doing so?


This question is a red herring incognito. Specifically an appeal to emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion). Even more specifically, an argumentum ad consequentiam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences).

What I think is irrevelant. Whether "a person" decides to accept the risks encountered in assisting another is his decision, not mine.


how so? keep in mind that most human activites require collective action.


Absolutely correct. I don't fear collective action. What I fear is involuntary coercion derived from some vague concept of "duty."


i fail to see how they are opposed.


Being able to exercise my individual liberty means being able to choose to not assist another. As such, the "duty" in question cannot exist if I am to have such a choice.

My duty derives from an obligation.

*pushes swivel chair away from desk and spins around in circles* :D

Um, reread, please. That was not said. It says that all such obligations come from the same place.

This is a red herring. Specifically an appeal to emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion). Even more specifically, an argumentum ad consequentiam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences).

What I think is irrevelant. Whether "a person" decides to accept the risks encountered in assisting another is his decision, not mine.

Can you please carry around a card that makes certain that people are aware that you don't think they should help you in the event of an emergency where you can't help yourself? Thank you. I'd hate to think you're a hypocrite.

Absolutely correct. I don't fear collective action. What I fear is involuntary coercion.

So collective action is okay so long as it's voluntary? Um. Okay. So you like anarchy? Good. Then we're done here since in your view government does not exist.

Being able to exercise my individual liberty means being able to choose to not assist another. As such, the "duty" in question cannot exist if I am to have such a choice.
Hmmm... okay. So no military. No public police. No public schools. No public fire departments. Particularly not in poor areas. Because all of those require funding and you shouldn't be required to help anyone. No sewage. Again, funding and all.

My duty derives from an obligation.

*pushes swivel chair away from desk and spins around in circles* :D

no, a duty is a moral oligation. as to where moral obligations in general derive from, that's a whole other discussion. i figure that for the purposes of this discussion, i'd just skip all that because i figure that my moral inuitions here are very common.

personally, i'd hold that these obligations arise as a consequence of the kind of society i wish to live in, and that others should want similar things on a variety of subjective grounds. but it could also be true that our moral obligations somehow exist in the universe.

This is a red herring. Specifically an appeal to emotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion). Even more specifically, an argumentum ad consequentiam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences).

no, it's actually a question about moral intuitions, which is pretty standard when it comes to these sorts of discussions. without appealing to moral inutitions, questions about ethics have no grounding at all, and we can't compare between one ethical system or another. our intuition may of course be 'wrong' or confused or otherwise unhelpful in some cases. but they form the basic starting point.

Whether "a person" decides to accept the risks encountered in assisting another is his decision, not mine.

yes it is. but the question is how you judge that person's actions.

Being able to exercise my individual liberty means being able to choose to not assist another. As such, the "duty" in question cannot exist if I am to have such a choice.

why? is it impossible for people to fail to fulfill their duties?

I don't fear collective action. What I fear is involuntary coercion derived from some vague concept of "duty."

including the involuntary coercion used to capture and restrain murderers?

including the involuntary coercion used to capture and restrain murderers?

Exactly what I thought when I read it, but I was saving that argument and offering more rope. You ruined it, you evil, evil person, you.

<snip>
Being able to exercise my individual liberty means being able to choose to not assist another. As such, the "duty" in question cannot exist if I am to have such a choice.
But this is the key to this entire argument.

Although society is a group of individuals, "society" and "individual" are not the same things. (Society is not merely a plural form of individual.)

Society is an entity that has an active representative, that being government. Individuals have no such representative, except as members of society. Therefore, the government's interests are not necessarily the same as the individual's.

Individuals, as individuals, have no inherent duties or obligations to any other individual or group. There is no inherent duty to be a Good Samaritan. You don't have to save the drowning child. Your neighbors may think badly of you if you don't, but their opinion imposes no prior obligation on you.

However, a government, because it exists only to represent and/or act on behalf of another, i.e. society, DOES have such a duty/obligation. Government is an entity entirely burdened and defined by obligations and duties because doing things at the behest or for the benefit of others is the reason it was created. Therefore, the question of whether the government should act to correct social wrongs can only be answered by "yes."

Note, however, that because the government is a construct of society, it has no will of its own and cannot act without orders. So government will neither recognize nor act on a social wrong without being told to by society -- i.e. being given a mandate.

If you, as an individual, witness a social wrong and allow it to continue through inaction, you will be guilty of nothing more than being, at best, a self-interested individual or, at worst, a bastard (like most of humanity).

But if the government is given a mandate by society to correct a social wrong and it does nothing, then it has violated its very reason for existing.

Two more points: There's a difference between a social problem and a social wrong. Problems may be just shit that happens and has to be dealt with somehow, either privately or publicly. Social wrongs are conditions that demonstrably violate the principles of the given society, so by definition, they are the concern of society and, thus, government is a correct tool for fixing it -- not the only one, but certainly a good one.

Also, even the original poster has acknowledged that he is willing to compromise individual liberty for the sake of society (as in his murder example), but he seems to be arguing that society is an artificial construct. However, human beings did not evolve as solitary creatures. An urge towards society is inherent in our natures. It is extremely difficult for a solitary human to survive for very long (even hermits on mountains have helpers who visit regularly), and in today's over-populated world, it is nigh on impossible to prove otherwise. Where can you be alone enough to do just what you want without limits or interference?

The balance between societal interests and individual interests has been an issue for 1000s of years and it won't go away anytime soon, because individuals need society, even when they don't like it.

Um, reread, please. That was not said. It says that all such obligations come from the same place.


And this "place" is....?

Thank you. I'd hate to think you're a hypocrite.


Argumentum ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem) and poisoning the well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well).

Again, I am irrelevant. Whether a person chooses to assist another is his decision, and no one else's.


So you like anarchy? Good. Then we're done here since in your view government does not exist.


Your strawman argument fails to consider the difference between the initiation of coercive force where it is unnecessary, and defending one's self from and correcting the effects of said initiation of coercive force, the latter being the legitimate and necessary function of government. Where people respect each other's rights, including the right of voluntary association, government intervention, and thus coercive force, is not necessary. Those who are violated, however, have a legitimate right to seek self-defense and restitution for the purpose of reestablishing the previous state of peace.


Hmmm... okay. So no military. No public police.


See above.


No public schools. No public fire departments.


These are services that I am perfectly happy to pay for, assuming acceptable performance that justifies such continued payment of course.


Particularly not in poor areas.


More appeals to emotion and concequence.


Because all of those require funding and you shouldn't be required to help anyone.


I shouldn't be required to help anyone. But, does this necessarily mean that I won't help anyone? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9866172&postcount=19) Perhaps not.

Exactly what I thought when I read it, but I was saving that argument and offering more rope. You ruined it, you evil, evil person, you.

mea culpa

including the involuntary coercion used to capture and restrain murderers?

See my third response here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10342933&postcount=58

In short, an accused murderer is captured and restrained because it is believed that he has violated the individual liberty of another. There is a fundamental difference between initiation and self-defense.

See my third response here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10342933&postcount=58

In short, an accused murderer is captured and restrained because it is believed that he has violated the individual liberty of another. There is a fundamental difference between initiation and self-defense.

so what? so he violated someones liberty or initiated force - why does that matter?

See my third response here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10342933&postcount=58

In short, an accused murderer is captured and restrained because it is believed that he has violated the individual liberty of another. There is a fundamental difference between initiation and self-defense.
But the initial argument of the thread questioned whether the government has or should have any right to take such action to correct a wrong. So if individual liberty is paramount, then by what right can any group (i.e. society, represented by government) take action to punish any individual for an individual act? Simply by agreeing to limit your own liberties to make equal room for other people's liberties, you grant to society/government a certain degree of power over you.

Also, once again, murder might be a social problem (if there is a lot of it), but it is not a social wrong. Look at it this way:

High murder rate = US social problem because it makes it difficult for individuals to live freely, but it is caused by individuals acting against other individuals. EDIT: In other words, individuals acting freely cause each other problems.

Racial segregation = US social wrong because it makes it difficult for individuals to live freely, but it is an institutionalized system of society that is in direct violation of the general principles of society as defined by the Constitution and other laws. EDIT: In other words, a social wrong could be called a crime society commits against itself; fixing it is a fundamental correction of the social structure.

Do you see the difference? Government has the exact same obligation to correct crime as it does to pave roads and treat sewage. But I say it has an even greater obligation to address social wrongs because they strike at the root of the society it was created to maintain.

I can agree, as long as we can reach an understanding about what constitues a "social wrong," and which "social wrongs" are appropriate for government to tax others to correct them.
Aye, there's the rub.

personally, i'd hold that these obligations arise as a consequence of the kind of society i wish to live in, and that others should want similar things on a variety of subjective grounds.


I would think that my desire to create such a society should be based on my ability to pursuade others that it is a good goal to achieve, not on some concept of a "duty" that they have to accept, perhaps even if their own wishes or subjective beliefs differ from mine.


but it could also be true that our moral obligations somehow exist in the universe.


I think that they do, because emperical knowledge about human behavior can be had. However, I do not claim to know what that objective knowlege is right now, so, again, I choose to err on the side of caution (i.e. on the side of liberty and not "duty") because of the potential danger created by my ignorance.


why? is it impossible for people to fail to fulfill their duties?


Not if the obligation being opposed on my is done so with my cooperation. I can certainly agree to assist another, and thus be bound to that obligation. However, I don't think that such an obligation exists in and of itself outside of my own choices and liberty.

Basically, I think I'm objecting to this idea of "duty" because it is unclear to me where where this "duty" is being derived from. If it is derived from voluntary contract or voluntary cooperation, then my objection essentially disappears. If, however, it is derived from the use of coercive force from on high (for example, the typical governmental welfare state), my objection remains.

Your strawman argument fails to consider the difference between the initiation of coercive force where it is unnecessary, and defending one's self from and correcting the effects of said initiation of coercive force, the latter being the legitimate and necessary function of government. Where people respect each other's rights, including the right of voluntary association, government intervention, and thus coercive force, is not necessary. Those who are violated, however, have a legitimate right to seek self-defense and restitution for the purpose of reestablishing the previous state of peace.

And who decides what is an 'initiation of coercive force'? Some might argue that merely setting an example is such a thing. Some might argue that coercive forces are financial. Some might argue many things. You wouldn't want to say, perhaps, that in the face of a compelling reason public groups have the duty to right these acts of 'coercive force'. Some might call those coercive forces 'wrongs', but then you'd be agreeing with us. Whoops. Or is it a strawman unless I let you define the argument?

And this "place" is....?

So you admit that your earlier response made no sense. Good. Trying reading what you're replying to.

More appeals to emotion and concequence.

Ah, I see. So we can't talk about the consequences of your ridiculous claims, only the claims themselves, so long as we define them exactly as you want us to define them and follow your silly rules. I see. And here I thought we were discussing reality and not some made-up world where things work the way you say they must.

I shouldn't be required to help anyone. But, does this necessarily mean that I won't help anyone? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9866172&postcount=19) Perhaps not.
You forget that when everything is completely up to you it gives you coercive force.

<snip>
Basically, I think I'm objecting to this idea of "duty" because it is unclear to me where where this "duty" is being derived from. If it is derived from voluntary contract or voluntary cooperation, then my objection essentially disappears. If, however, it is derived from the use of coercive force from on high (for example, the typical governmental welfare state), my objection remains.
But if you would voluntarily feed the poor if asked, why should you object to a government system that does so without asking you?

I can see objecting to a system which is corrupt or overblown or that is motivated by politics rather than real need, but if we can keep our systems honest, then I have no objection to tax-funded social "safety net."

In fact, I'd rather have the system automated, as it were, using my taxes, than be harrassed by private charities constantly. Here, my individual desire to be left alone dovetails nicely with an imposed societal duty to share some of the wealth.

But the initial argument of the thread questioned whether the government has or should have any right to take such action to correct a wrong. So if individual liberty is paramount, then by what right can any group (i.e. society, represented by government) take action to punish any individual for an individual act? Simply by agreeing to limit your own liberties to make equal room for other people's liberties, you grant to society/government a certain degree of power over you.


Of course. Allow me to clarify then: the individual is not paramount in that his behavior must be restricted in consideration of the equal rights of other individuals around him. However, where and when government is necessary to see that this happens will vary greatly depending on the specific situation. I simply believe that some social issues are better solved through voluntary effort, instead of the strong arm of the state.


Do you see the difference? Government has the exact same obligation to correct crime as it does to pave roads and treat sewage.


I disagree. Those who commit actual crimes have demonstrated their unwillingness to abide by the values of voluntary effort and individual liberty. As such, coercive force will likely be necessary to stop their behavior and institute justice. Paving roads and treating sewage, however, are activities that can be conducted perfectly well within the realm of voluntary effort and individual liberty. As such, these activities need not necessarily be the responsibility of the state.

But if you would voluntarily feed the poor if asked, why should you object to a government system that does so without asking you?


Because it takes away the free choice that gives my effort meaning. When I am coerced by the state, I am no longer a concerned citizen. I am a political tool. I am made to be a robot. As far as I am concerned, it is the ultimate insult.

Thus, I choose the red pill. :D


I can see objecting to a system which is corrupt or overblown or that is motivated by politics rather than real need, but if we can keep our systems honest, then I have no objection to tax-funded social "safety net."


If.... :)


In fact, I'd rather have the system automated, as it were, using my taxes, than be harrassed by private charities constantly. Here, my individual desire to be left alone dovetails nicely with an imposed societal duty to share some of the wealth.

My individual desire to be left alone happens to include not being made into a robot.

You forget that when everything is completely up to you it gives you coercive force.

I fail to see how "everyone must choose for himself" equates to "everything is up to me."

so what? so he violated someones liberty or initiated force - why does that matter?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10343155&postcount=68

And who decides what is an 'initiation of coercive force'? Some might argue that merely setting an example is such a thing. Some might argue that coercive forces are financial.

Perhaps this is true. Unlike what is most likely to occur with the hypothetical murderer discussed elsewhere in this thread, however, financial/welfare problems need not necessarily require the application of the coercive force of the state in order to find resolution.

Those who commit actual crimes have demonstrated their unwillingness to abide by the values of voluntary effort and individual liberty.

so? it isn't as if they have any obligation to abide by those values, right?

so? it isn't as if they have any obligation to abide by those values, right?

How an individual behaves is ultimately his choice. So no, there isn't any obligation. However, he should expect that choices have consequences. The question is, then, "what are the proper consequences?"

Some suggest an active role for the state, I suggest a restricted role for the state (mainly, as a last resort) in recognition of the individual's choice.

I would think that my desire to create such a society should be based on my ability to pursuade others that it is a good goal to achieve, not on some concept of a "duty" that they have to accept, perhaps even if their own wishes or subjective beliefs differ from mine.

i probably didn't make myself clear - ethical duties arise out of the nature of the ethical system i think is best. but because i don't hold that there is any universal moral truth to be discovered, i have to hold it to be best for a variety of ultimately subjective reasons. reasons that i hope will be good enough for other people to adopt it too.

I think that they do, because emperical knowledge about human behavior can be had.

but you cannot move deductively from an is to an ought.

The government should not try to "right" a social wrong; this has honestly almost never proven effective and often is nothing more than a waste of time, personnel, and money, if not outright detrimental to the rights and well being of society. Instead, the government should seek to create programs that are self-limiting; ideally, they should attempt to create independently sustainable change in society that ultimately removes the need for the program.

How an individual behaves is ultimately his choice. So no, there isn't any obligation. However, he should expect that choices have consequences. The question is, then, "what are the proper consequences?"

how can there be 'proper' consequences?

i probably didn't make myself clear - ethical duties arise out of the nature of the ethical system i think is best. but because i don't hold that there is any universal moral truth to be discovered, i have to hold it to be best for a variety of ultimately subjective reasons. reasons that i hope will be good enough for other people to adopt it too.


What by method are other people to "adopt" it?

how can there be 'proper' consequences?

I don't know. This is why I prefer to leave people to their individual choices.
(Edit: Perhaps it boils down to nothing more than "whatever is best for me." Which, I suppose, is another reason why I have trouble with the concept of a higher moral "duty." It is nothing more than a facade, a euphemism, for the law of the jungle.)

I fail to see how "everyone must choose for himself" equates to "everything is up to me."

There's the point, you fail to see. You talk about your position as if it's a given, but it's a spectrum and you drew the line the place you feel is appropriate and you act as if any argument that doesn't fit your position should be dismissed because you don't like. Actions.... they have consequences. There is a reason why there are emotions in the arguments being made, because as a society we've decided those things are emotive. You think your view is the clear place to draw the line but it violates the wishes of the majority of Americans that wish for these types of safety nets. Those safety nets are applied equally. The taxes that support them are applied equally. You have to show some compelling reason why the will of the people, in a country based on the will of the people, should be violated.

so come on, you can't honestly tell me that in the case of a person who had the ability to save a child from drowning but refrained from doing so, you wouldn't feel that they had neglected their moral obligations - that the choice they had made was the wrong one. can you?