RE: The Government and Philosophy

RE: The Government and Philosophy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DCWoody -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/10/2010 5:10:13 AM)
@OP, it'll ultimately boil down to individualism vs collectivism. Govt (in the modern sense, not in the guy with the biggest stick sense) is essentially a population acting en masse for their own good. What role should the state play in your life? It should help you. And/or, it should help us. The problem ultimately being conflicting interests. Perhaps at its most basic, best to stick to 'It should protect me'. Safety in numbers. Rarely conflicting interests of not getting enslaved/killed....but even then, look at the 'taxation is theft' people. Mebe Domken has the best bet. It's not necessarily the carrying out of....taxation, protection, roads, healthcare....that's important, it's the resolution of disputes around doing so. A neutral arbiter of fairness? An agreed way to come to decisions?.....or perhaps that's more democracy specific than for all governments. But most people would reckon good governments are democratic by definition.....

DomKen -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/10/2010 6:06:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent For what purpose does the government exist? What philosophical view underpins this? After all....."how should I live my life?" is a philosophical question....likewise "what role should the state play in my life?"..... Ideally government is society's agent in managing affairs that affect all of society. What about specifics?....affairs? all of society? Specifics depends on the society and its needs. A modern service economy driven nation states needs are vastly different than a dark ages agrarian kingdom.

Real0ne -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/10/2010 10:37:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWoody @OP, it'll ultimately boil down to individualism vs collectivism. Govt (in the modern sense, not in the guy with the biggest stick sense) is essentially a population acting en masse for their own good. What role should the state play in your life? It should help you. And/or, it should help us. The problem ultimately being conflicting interests. Perhaps at its most basic, best to stick to 'It should protect me'. Safety in numbers. Rarely conflicting interests of not getting enslaved/killed....but even then, look at the 'taxation is theft' people. Mebe Domken has the best bet. It's not necessarily the carrying out of....taxation, protection, roads, healthcare....that's important, it's the resolution of disputes around doing so. A neutral arbiter of fairness? An agreed way to come to decisions?.....or perhaps that's more democracy specific than for all governments. But most people would reckon good governments are democratic by definition..... democratic in the sense you can assemble and legislate for your hood what color the "bulk" of you want to paint your house BUT respect the republic such that the guy who wants his purple can have it. democratic in the sense that 51% can tell me what I have to do or I will in some way be penalized is "conversion" a violation of my rights in which case I will bill your democracy for the imposition being the peaceful negotiable kind of guy that I am. Best of both worlds, your democracy gets it your way my republic gets it my way.

Real0ne -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/10/2010 10:46:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: joether If one relinquishs their freedom, would that not, with circumstance, all the other more freedom? Responsible leadership doesnt add to freedom, it reduces it because the leader is constrained to act in the best interest of the social unit, rather than his/her own self interest. possibly one of the only things I have run across that you and I would agree on, at least to the extent quoted. ANY time 2 partys are required to come to an agreement on ANYthing there is by default a concession of right in accord with the agreement. It does not matter if the person is sovereign. The right now extends to the contract/trust specific to matter and terms stated therein.

DCWoody -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/10/2010 10:47:11 AM)
A republic is simply a democratic state without a monarchic head of state. It's no more to do with liberalism than democracy is, neither are they opposites or conflicting.

Real0ne -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/10/2010 10:53:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWoody A republic is simply a democratic state without a monarchic head of state. It's no more to do with liberalism than democracy is, neither are they opposites or conflicting. sorta but no the best definition I have seen to date to understand it as it was designed in the USA is: Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, OR through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.] Most places only give you 1/2 the definition. there is the complete one as it applies to the USA. here think about it this way...... are you free to expatriate? yes you are then why would you be compelled to contract into the democracy against your religious or political volition? can you be made to buy a ford? no can you be made to join ohaha's health care? no IF you know who you are AND you know your rights you cannot be forced to contract.

DCWoody -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/10/2010 11:01:19 AM)
I think I had the first part of that covered with 'democracy'. The 2nd part is....unsurprisingly, having american partisanism dragged into it.

Real0ne -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/10/2010 11:08:20 AM)
depends on where you are drawing your line with the word "covered". IMO it did not get to the substance of the matter. My version does. Just to be fair here is the "essence" of democracy: Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.] The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance. In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are NO minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable. The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy.

DCWoody -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/10/2010 11:20:01 AM)
I understand your point that a democracy could be a dictatorship of the (slim) majority, but your suggestion that a republic can't is wrong. There is nothing inherent in a Republic that it could not equally be dictat of the 51%. Most republics, and most democracies, and most both....do not operate that way, and many will have constitutional writ to ensure such.....but it is not requisite. I just meant to point out that your assignment of specifically not being majority dictatorship to the label 'republic' isn't right.

NorthernGent -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/10/2010 11:37:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent For what purpose does the government exist? What philosophical view underpins this? After all....."how should I live my life?" is a philosophical question....likewise "what role should the state play in my life?"..... Ideally government is society's agent in managing affairs that affect all of society. What about specifics?....affairs? all of society? Specifics depends on the society and its needs. A modern service economy driven nation states needs are vastly different than a dark ages agrarian kingdom. Right you are....and your views on the United States today....i.e. the extent to which the US government should have control over your life....and your reason for such beliefs?

DomKen -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/10/2010 12:54:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent For what purpose does the government exist? What philosophical view underpins this? After all....."how should I live my life?" is a philosophical question....likewise "what role should the state play in my life?"..... Ideally government is society's agent in managing affairs that affect all of society. What about specifics?....affairs? all of society? Specifics depends on the society and its needs. A modern service economy driven nation states needs are vastly different than a dark ages agrarian kingdom. Right you are....and your views on the United States today....i.e. the extent to which the US government should have control over your life....and your reason for such beliefs? Control over my life? I should be left alone as long as my action affect no one else in any way. When my actions start affecting others then I have to obey the rules we as a society have agreed to, even those rules I personally disagree with or find inconvenient. I can protest against or work to overturn laws I find objectionable. One of governments largest roles in the modern world should be controling very closely the action of corporations. It is quite clear that the pursuit of short term profits is detrimental to society as a whole and strong controls and oversight need to be in place to govern the actions of corporations.

kdsub -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/10/2010 7:48:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent How far should law reach into the individual's life....in other words what should these constitute? That question has been the reason there have been so many failed governments...in fact I would go so far as to say ALL governments will fail in time because of human nature. I think there is a balance between the need to form societies for protection and prosperity and man's nature as a creature that rebels against rules that don't please him or her. As one weakens the other strengthens. Otherwise notice how all great societies in history, as they reach their pinnacle of power, seem to rebel and decline often weakened from within before conquered from the outside. I believe this is because they feel safe and prosperous enough to rebel against the very rules that were necessary to make them great. I believe many western nations are now in decline for this very reason. Person freedoms are more important to them then the necessary sacrifices to keep the society strong. The stronger the personal freedoms the weaker the cooperation becomes and cooperation is necessary for a strong society. Before you ask what sacrifices I will say they differ from country to country and time to time but almost always they are curtailment in personal freedoms. This could mean long hours of work... military conflict with conviction...sharing of resources among a few. Butch

pyroaquatic -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/10/2010 9:47:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent For what purpose does the government exist? What philosophical view underpins this? After all....."how should I live my life?" is a philosophical question....likewise "what role should the state play in my life?"..... We allow government to exist. As we can see people are going to do whatever they want as long as they do not get caught. Why have laws if all people are going to do is bend or break them. You are only guilty if you are caught, right? Government, a platform to collect money and say really important things. I've always held the notion that we are an anarchy posing as a democracy. Some individuals just do not care.

Real0ne -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/10/2010 9:57:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWoody I understand your point that a democracy could be a dictatorship of the (slim) majority, no that is not the point at all! A body politic, (group of people) are in legal terms a "corporation" or at a minimum an association. Democracy creates 2 corporate body's to vote on any issue. Pro and Con. Corporate group A says no smoking. Corporate group B says smoking. 99.99999% side with group A so no smoking is now the rule! That is the dictatorship. Group A just stole the rights of group B if they enforce it on anyone who does not want to abide by the rule. In a republic Group B the remaining .00001% of the people can still smoke. Why? Because it is their right to smoke because their smoking does not harm group A. Now if Group A and Group B join a corporation as a sub body politic to that corporation say like the US Government and agree to abide by those rules, (made by the voting of the democracy created), the mother corporation, (the US Government) then both Group A and B have contracted away certain rights under the republic contingent on the terms of the contract, for privileges and are subject to whatever the "Democracy", the mother corporation, the US Government comes up with and therefore Group B CANNOT SMOKE without suffering PENALTIES AND FINES for being naughty boys and gurls and violating "company policy" which has now become the LAW of the CONTRACT under your infinite right as a sovereign to contract! but your suggestion that a republic can't is wrong. You can have a republic with only one person because in a republic you are dealing with your rights only and in a society UP TO the point where it does not trespass on anothers rights. There is nothing inherent in a Republic that it could not equally be dictat of the 51%. Completely different. You need more than one person to be a democracy you only need one person to be a republic. The only way that 51% can do anything is if people associate and form a democracy and by contract of trust decide to do a thing a certain way. The republic protects (in a just society) the rights of the one single person to do things that are not part o the democracy. as said "group think". Most republics, and most democracies, and most both....do not operate that way, and many will have constitutional writ to ensure such.....but it is not requisite. well you can have all sorts of variations on theme and rarely if ever do you see any gubmint operating according to their design and that is usually because people are in fear or to ignorant to know what it is in the first place. I just meant to point out that your assignment of specifically not being majority dictatorship to the label 'republic' isn't right. It works like this; as soon as you have more than one person in association for the purpose of political or rule making you formed a democracy. it takes a minimum of 4 people to have 2 partys in a democracy and likewise 4 people to have a quorum for a lawful assembly. They never teach the fundamentals of government in any school that I am aware of. Now if the people (singular and individual) "CONSENT" to the rules made by the democracy and agree OR to be ruled by the democracy then they have anything from a contract to a trust or both. Hence the term "subject to" that you see in the 14th. Now as a side the government cannot declare you a citizen, only you can declare you a citizen, BUT by doing that they created the "presumption" that you are a citizen. Lets all give the BAR a high 5. They are the master minds of all the fictional "presumption" used to bypass law in the courts!

Real0ne -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/10/2010 10:10:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Right you are....and your views on the United States today....i.e. the extent to which the US government should have control over your life....and your reason for such beliefs? why would anyone want to opt for the united states democracy when they can have the united states of america republic? ;)

Real0ne -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/10/2010 10:49:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Control over my life? I should be left alone as long as my action affect no one else in any way. That much I absolutely agree with you on. HOWEVER reality check.... Your actions will always "affect" someone else if nothing else they will "see" you.... the rule is trespass. If you decide you want to take a J walking ticket to court, you were the only one on the street hence no one was hurt you did nothing to disrupt disturb the peace yada yada etc etc and you tel the judge hey there is no one injured here I harmed no one the streets were empty except for me and the parked cop I did not see and you try to stand on your constitutional rights what do you think will happen? The judge will tell you straight up that you cannot bring the constitution in to HIS court! Then if you argue with him over it bang you get cuffed for contempt of court! WHY???? Because you are under contract of the democracy by "Presumption" to perform according to public "POLICY"!!! Public BTW is government not the people at large! See as a sovereign you have the infinite right to contract and you contracted several of your "REPUBLIC" rights away in exchange for the privileges of the Democracy and as a Sovereign with the INFINITE right to contract you are expected to know the law and so are your parents! Now the fact that you do not know the over 60 millions laws governing what you or your parents did.....well ignorance of the law is no excuse. Now there is also parens patriae that someone mentioned in one of my threads but that is the other angle either way you lost your ability to have that freedom by virtue of an oppressive (so called) democracy. (oh btw there are several violations of "due process" there but do you know them?)

DCWoody -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/11/2010 6:40:07 AM)
@Realone, you're talking balls. "In a republic Group B the remaining .00001% of the people can still smoke. Why? Because it is their right to smoke because their smoking does not harm group A." Utter bollocks. As I said, a republic is just a democracy where the people are sovereign (usually given as rather than a monarch, but it's a little more complex than that)...it has nothing to do with rights as you suggest. It is patent nonsense to suggest that republics can't pass laws that effect the minority (or even majority) that disagree with them. They can, they do. From your bullshit i'm gonna say you're american,a dn if ya haven't noticed, the USA is a republic that constantly defies your ridiculous notion of what a republic can and can't do. There are laws restricting smoking, drinking, sex toys.....all drugs...prostitution, etc.

hertz -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/11/2010 6:59:53 AM)
I would like my government to intervene to protect the vulnerable from the more powerful vested interest groups which exist within and outside society. These groups might be the wealthy, the corporations, the media, other governments and states and so on. Clearly there is the potential problem that government itself might become a group which attacks the vulnerable.

Real0ne -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/11/2010 10:23:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWoody @Realone, you're talking balls. "In a republic Group B the remaining .00001% of the people can still smoke. Why? Because it is their right to smoke because their smoking does not harm group A." Utter bollocks. As I said, a republic is just a democracy where the people are sovereign (usually given as rather than a monarch, but it's a little more complex than that)...it has nothing to do with rights as you suggest. It is patent nonsense to suggest that republics can't pass laws that effect the minority (or even majority) that disagree with them. They can, they do. From your bullshit i'm gonna say you're american,a dn if ya haven't noticed, the USA is a republic that constantly defies your ridiculous notion of what a republic can and can't do. There are laws restricting smoking, drinking, sex toys.....all drugs...prostitution, etc. I thought I was very clear about the distinctions. a republic is where the people are each sovereign period. However what comes after that can be any number of flavors "within" the republic as a result of "contract". Think about soviet socialist republic, republic of china. lots of different flavors of republics out there. Republics are the best and the worst of all worlds. They by virtue of their construction grant the most freedom while at the same time the greatest slavery because the knowledgeable are free and those who fail to understand the distinctions with absolute clarity unwittingly enslave themselves. So let me try to explain it another way. In your version you used the word sovereign with the word republic and described the democracy as the sovereign. That is only true if you are a subject to that democracy. Each group of sovereigns form a single party. What you described is the State or the Fed which is also a State created as a mother group usually a territorial domain used as the construct to operate the many variants of subgroups (partys) for the purpose of political decision making. Think of a democracy as an overlay on the republic by means of "contract". The "contract" is voted on by the partys (sovereign sub groups) within the State (mother group), how each sovereign is going to relinquish a part of their sovereignty to achieve some objective or ideal. The State then becomes the sovereign BUT only in regard to "OUTSIDERS", or OUTLAWS those outside THEIR agreed upon contract/trust law. The state can never LAWFULLY act as sovereign (in terms of being ABOVE) one of the people who created it. So as sovereign and being in a foreign jurisdiction to ALL other sovereigns including the State if you are not SUBJECT to as a party member the sovereign has the right to choose if they want to relinquish part or all of their jurisdiction on matters and if they do not then they have the sovereign right to reject the offering of the other sovereigns as long as they are NOT a SUBJECT PARTY IN the mother group or corporation. (as a citizen) Are you a US citizen? Yes? ok then that is your mother group that you agree to abide by its rules as long as it serves YOUR purposes, oh and you are a democrat? Yes? Ok then that is your political subgroup. When you agree to be a citizen you are part and party to a larger group forming the democratic part operating within the republic (exercising your sovereign right to contract including your right to contract AWAY your rights!!!). think miranda* NOW what separates the republic from the democracy is the ability to stand on your rights. If the democracy agrees to no talking as a Sovereign you can stand on your right to free speech and ENFORCE it. Unfortunately however when criminal enterprises (the BAR) takes over the democratic process and it becomes a commercial enterprise you find yourself in a position of taxation without representation because your ability to enforce your sovereignty is removed through constructive fraud that I affectionately labeled "syntax terrorism". republic = you are sovereign = the ability to stand on your rights. democracy = State is sovereign = little to no ability to stand on your rights, short of what would cause an uprising and over throw of the democracy. now this is set up to respond specifically to your post and is not exhaustive of several other conditions variants that can occur. I tried to keep it limited for clarity because this becomes a mirrors game as you can put on many hats and be many things and operate at many levels but if you fail to make the proper distinctions the judge will make it for you and it will always be to the states benefit.

NorthernGent -> RE: The Government and Philosophy (10/11/2010 1:15:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWoody @OP, it'll ultimately boil down to individualism vs collectivism. I wouldn't agree with that...to what extent is anyone on this board an 'individual'....everyone explicitly or tacitly agrees to conform to the group....there are very few people who do not use public parks...roads...libraries...schools etc...and anyone doing so tacitly accepts the protection/guidance/authority...whatever you want to call it....of the state.... There are degrees in terms of opinion on state authority....granted....but there's no one running round as 'an individual'.... What role should the state play in your life? It should help you. And/or, it should help us. The problem ultimately being conflicting interests. Why? Why should the government help you? And what's in it for me? Does your version of 'help' correspond with my version of 'help'? And if there are conflicting interests between individuals then what system best fits our conflicting interests? And why? As a prompt....I fully believe in the liberal view that education and health should be placed before defence in terms of importance and government prioritisation....why should you have to conform to my view where the majority agree with me? Is there an alternative? How could I possibly prove that prioritising education will lead to a more prosperous society...likewise how could someone else prove that a strong defence is the better bet? If they're only ideas that can never be proven then what does that mean or should that mean for government authority? And what are the consequences for the minority? Are the majority defeating themselves by virtue of majority rule where the minority....who are a crucial component of any society.....i.e. the non conformist creative arm of society....are ridden roughshod? But more importantly...why do you think you way you do? Where have these beliefs come from...and is there much in the way of reason to support them? quote: ORIGINAL: DCWoody Perhaps at its most basic, best to stick to 'It should protect me'. Safety in numbers. Rarely conflicting interests of not getting enslaved/killed....but even then, look at the 'taxation is theft' people. The 'taxation is robbery' argument - John Stuart Mill On Liberty - very few on this board will agree with that....most of us have a cause that we champion...including wars in Iraq and moral crusades and the like.....but there is a very good philosophical argument behind Mill's work. And that is that the thing that human beings should strive for is 'happiness' i.e. pleasure and the absence of pain...and to be master of one's own life is an essential part of human happiness...according to Mill...hence the 'Harm Principle'...and constraining the individual damages everyone as the minority are an extremely valuable resource for the whole of society... And that's what I'm getting at really....presumably political beliefs are underpinned by a certain view of human nature and behaviour....and that's what's more interesting to me.....not the what...rather the why....

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875