NationStates Jolt Archive

What is evident in a duty to impose? Many times on these boards I have seen people say such things as “don't impose your lifestyle/beliefs on me”, but isn't this imposing your view upon others one of the sacred functions of government? When you vote in any way, you are attempting to overpower another point of view. The entire idea, is in fact, to use the government as a tool to create order through pulling the people together in either cooperation, or force. I understand that this is a rather grim view, but at its face it is correct, no?

Now it is pointless to simply resign the world to anarchy for the sake of the logical quandary “achieving freedom through government.” If the world must have order, the world must have direction, and this direction is achieved by overpowering certain elements whose voices are deemed wrong. So I simply ask this: What is it that gives you your duty to impose your views on others? Is it your intelligence? Your perspective? Your own welfare, that you may keep your voice equal to others?

What is evident in a duty to impose? Many times on these boards I have seen people say such things as “don't impose your lifestyle/beliefs on me”, but isn't this imposing your view upon others one of the sacred functions of government? When you vote in any way, you are attempting to overpower another point of view. The entire idea, is in fact, to use the government as a tool to create order through pulling the people together in either cooperation, or force. I understand that this is a rather grim view, but at its face it is correct, no?

Now it is pointless to simply resign the world to anarchy for the sake of the logical quandary “achieving freedom through government.” If the world must have order, the world must have direction, and this direction is achieved by overpowering certain elements whose voices are deemed wrong. So I simply ask this: What is it that gives you your duty to impose your views on others? Is it your intelligence? Your perspective? Your own welfare, that you may keep your voice equal to others?

It's very simple. Because I fucking can.

<snip>If I vote for someone that's for gay marriage, am I really forcing heterosexuals to marry people of the same sex? If I vote for someone that is campaigning to allow abortions to be legal, am I forcing every potential mother to get an abortion?

If I vote for someone that's for gay marriage, am I really forcing heterosexuals to marry people of the same sex? If I vote for someone that is campaigning to allow abortions to be legal, am I forcing every potential mother to get an abortion?

You dont seem to have quite grasped what Im saying. Example I: No you are not. Example II, no you are not. You are however, overriding the opinions of what other citizens wish the world could be and if you are successful then you have suceeded in overpowering their opinions. I am not asking whether you do or not, that is simply a given. What I am asking is why you feel comfortable in doing it.

If I vote for someone that's for gay marriage, am I really forcing heterosexuals to marry people of the same sex? If I vote for someone that is campaigning to allow abortions to be legal, am I forcing every potential mother to get an abortion?

No, but if you vote for someone who runs on the platform of raising taxes then you are forcing everyone else to pay higher taxes. Actually, every issue is like that b/c gov't money that tax payers supply will go to support that position.

Ideally, government should be doing the least harm (followed by the greatest good), for the greatest number of people.

This does not require imposing things on people... except in cases where one's idea of non harm actually harms someone else (a rapist may think he needs to rape, the victim, however, needs to be protected). So, as has been noted, homosexual marriage, which does not harm anyone, is not an imposition, but a BAN on homosexual marriage WOULD be harmful if imposed to the rights of homosexuals.

So no, should not be about imposing. It should be about finding the best solution for everybody.

You dont seem to have quite grasped what Im saying. Example I: No you are not. Example II, no you are not. You are however, overriding the opinions of what other citizens wish the world could be and if you are successful then you have suceeded in overpowering their opinions. I am not asking whether you do or not, that is simply a given. What I am asking is why you feel comfortable in doing it.

What other citizens wish the world could be? If what they wish IS an imposition, if it forces harm on someone, then it is not a good thing. If it does more harm than good, it is definitely not a good thing.

If my way of looking at things helps more people than it hurts, I think mine is better. So I vote that way. Sometimes that means I vote for higher taxes, because I think that helps more people than it hurts. I am certain that the people who vote the other way probably believe the same thing about their position. So who ends up being right? Well, in our society, the larger (or more persuasive) group. We have to find some way of living together, and so far, this is the best we have come up with.

Do you have another suggestion as to how we should proceed? Can you think of another, better way, for a group as large as ours to try to make decisions?

I prefer to use "duty to inflict" rather than "duty to impose". Inflict just seems like the more powerful word for coloring up an idea with provacative language. Also whenever a government does something I never say "The senate committe gave it's second set of findings on" instead it is far better to say "Yet again the (insert political grouping here) riddled government has committed the act of duplicitous fairytaling"

Ideally, government should be doing the least harm (followed by the greatest good), for the greatest number of people.

This does not require imposing things on people... except in cases where one's idea of non harm actually harms someone else (a rapist may think he needs to rape, the victim, however, needs to be protected). So, as has been noted, homosexual marriage, which does not harm anyone, is not an imposition, but a BAN on homosexual marriage WOULD be harmful if imposed to the rights of homosexuals.

So no, should not be about imposing. It should be about finding the best solution for everybody.

The government and the people behind it, have no choice but to impose regardless of the issue. When you allow homosexual marriage you are effectively dismissing the opinions of those who dont wish it, when you dont allow homosexual marriage you are imposing that upon those who wish it. Either way, someone must not be allowed to have their wishes expressed and therefore have been imposed upon. The question is simply why you do it? Why do you think you deserve or have a duty to force your views (vote) onto others?

What other citizens wish the world could be? If what they wish IS an imposition, if it forces harm on someone, then it is not a good thing. If it does more harm than good, it is definitely not a good thing.

If my way of looking at things helps more people than it hurts, I think mine is better. So I vote that way. Sometimes that means I vote for higher taxes, because I think that helps more people than it hurts. I am certain that the people who vote the other way probably believe the same thing about their position. So who ends up being right? Well, in our society, the larger (or more persuasive) group. We have to find some way of living together, and so far, this is the best we have come up with.

Do you have another suggestion as to how we should proceed? Can you think of another, better way, for a group as large as ours to try to make decisions?

You understand! thank you :) . In any case, I am not criticizing the way that things currently are...well maybe a little bit, but only that people sometimes refuse to accept the deeper implications of their actions in government! "If my way of looking at things helps more people than it hurts, I think mine is better " Exactly what I was asking. So would you go so far as to say it is your conciense then?

You dont seem to have quite grasped what Im saying. Example I: No you are not. Example II, no you are not. You are however, overriding the opinions of what other citizens wish the world could be and if you are successful then you have suceeded in overpowering their opinions. I am not asking whether you do or not, that is simply a given. What I am asking is why you feel comfortable in doing it.Because I'm only forcing them to accept other lifestyles ;)

No, but if you vote for someone who runs on the platform of raising taxes then you are forcing everyone else to pay higher taxes. Actually, every issue is like that b/c gov't money that tax payers supply will go to support that position.Not really, considering that I wouldn't be living a lifestyle of paying higher taxes in the first place ;)
A better example would be me urging on legislation that forces people to recycle and reuse more. I would applaud such legislation, but I personally prefer getting people to do something like that on their own by convincing them that its a better lifestyle.

There should only be two laws: force (physical harm (murder, rape, beating, etc.) and fraud (uhh... fraud. What else is there to say?) Of course, I am more socialist, so 'fraud' goes a little further... (meaning that teh rich need more taxes than the poor).

All other laws are inherently bad and make me :mad: .

Freedom to :fluffle: !
Freedom to :upyours: !
Habita libere!

Not really, considering that I wouldn't be living a lifestyle of paying higher taxes in the first place ;)
A better example would be me urging on legislation that forces people to recycle and reuse more. I would applaud such legislation, but I personally prefer getting people to do something like that on their own by convincing them that its a better lifestyle.

uhh sure, it's just really absurd to think that laws passed and enforced by the gov't don't effect everyone.

The government and the people behind it, have no choice but to impose regardless of the issue. When you allow homosexual marriage you are effectively dismissing the opinions of those who dont wish it, when you dont allow homosexual marriage you are imposing that upon those who wish it. Either way, someone must not be allowed to have their wishes expressed and therefore have been imposed upon. The question is simply why you do it? Why do you think you deserve or have a duty to force your views (vote) onto others?

Least harm, followed by greatest good, for largest number of people.

Like this (for this issue)

Are homosexuals harmed if homosexual marriage is allowed? No
Are heterosexuals harmed if homosexual marriage is allowed? Some may think they are but no proof has been shown

Are homosexuals harmed if homosexual marriage is banned? Yes
Are heterosexuals harmed if homosexual marriage is banned? Simple answer, not appreciably. More complex answer, yes, but that is for another debate entirely.

So, least harm comes with homosexual marriage being allowed.

Followed by...

Are homosexuals helped if homosexual marriage is allowed? Yes
Are heterosexuals helped if homosexual marriage is allowed? Not across the boards, but in the long run equality is good for everybody

Are homosexuals helped if homosexual marriage is banned? No
Are heterosexuals helped if homosexual marriage is banned? No

So the most help comes with homosexual marriage being allowed.

The least harm and the greatest good comes from one choice rather than the other, so that is the choice I pick.

And, again, in this issue, the allowing of homosexual marriage imposes NOTHING material on heterosexuals. They are not forced to marry a homosexual, they are not forced to DEAL with homosexuals, they may have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with homosexuals if they so choose. However, if homosexual marriage is banned, there are very clear and obvious harms done to homosexuals, forced on them by others.

In this case, it is perfectly clear which choice is the least harmful. Granted, it may not always be so clear, but we must try to figure it out in each case, for ourselves as best we can.

What is evident in a duty to impose? Many times on these boards I have seen people say such things as “don't impose your lifestyle/beliefs on me”, but isn't this imposing your view upon others one of the sacred functions of government?


No. :)