|
Aswad -> RE: court forces brain radiation on child (12/27/2012 5:49:44 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I am not disagreeing with your statements or the idea behind it/them.
I didn't think you would. [:)]
You have the concepts to understand what I said, so it makes sense to you. I submit it only makes sense to those that have the concepts, and that its only utility, except to be nice to read, is to unbungle a relation between concepts in the heads of those that have them but not the correct arrangement between them. Most people don't seem to have the pieces, to the extent that most I know with them eventually arrive at the conclusion that this is a binary thing, something that's either redundant to explain or impossible to grasp. I persist in hoping to find some way to convey it nonetheless.
I also submit that it's at the heart of every civil rights movement so far, and probably every that is ever to come.
The notion that a law must do right by good people is similar to "first, do no harm".
quote:
It's the reality of the situation when you have vastly different thought processes in leadership positions.
This is the idealized purpose of a constitution, beyond the more pedestrian matter of formally establishing a nation: for some enlightened few that have the thought process that is based in the frame of reference which encompasses the frames of reference of the thought processes of the less enlightened leaders that are more common, and the spirit and vision to see what is right, so that these more common leaders may be more right than wrong in the course of their leadership than they might otherwise be, provided society doesn't allow the constitution to fade or the institutions of society to ignore it.
Die Verfassung des Deutsches Reichs was an impressive document in this regard, though it had some obvious flaws, and overall did not do much better than the Constitution of the United States of America (after the key Amendments), but both were good in the sense that they exceed my minimum standard of a constitution on this point. My own Kongeriget Norges Grunnlov falls far short of the minimum standard, even after the revisions that have been applied over the years, and will be amended more detrimentally next year unless the election turns out as the polls indicate (an antisocialist landslide).
quote:
Some think it's unjust to increasingly tax the successful to subsidize the unsuccessful.
I'm one of those. It is, of course, in the best interests of those with the short end of the stick for all to be equal, but my sentiment remains that we must not do wrong to do right at the level of the State, because it's a loaded gun (I think we can agree loaded guns should be handled with healthy respect and due care). Egalitarianism should be about allowing equality, best accomplished through meritocratic thought, not about making people equal.
But, I see many other reasons to subsidize the unsuccessful, directly related to correctly spending the collected taxes for the good of those that paid them, and realizing the benefits of cooperation, which is after all inherent in having a State (a franchise, being the minimum notion of a State, is in essence a collaboration in itself, so we can't avoid that if we're going to have a State).
Also, obviously, there's no problem with the State establishing an agency which serves as an opt-in collaboration that provides the common good, and since a majority of the income in a healthy economy is going to be in the middle class, that should easily cover anything that isn't covered under the heading of what can ethically be imposed on all; since corporations aren't citizens, those can be taxed directly, too, which should provide ample income if done right.
quote:
Some see complete State-control of everything as just.
The bane of humanity. If there is evil, this is it. And such a sweet thing, innit?
quote:
How do we go about defining "right," "just," and, to bring in an over-used and ill-defined example from American politics, "fair?"
With gravity and great care.
«The law must do right by good people, or else it's an unjust law.» isn't a definition of anything, it's a statement, and one that is only meaningful to those who know what is meant by the words, but if those that get it are able to refine it into something that can provide actual guidance to those who don't already see it, then that could be useful. Such people of vision come along once in a while, like Ghandi, or Krishnamurti, but it's rare. It's such people, and only such people, that advance the state of humanity. Between them, we just muddle along. Let's hope we have another one soon. One with the vision, passion and eloquence to remind us again of the necessity of freedom.
Pardon the cursory reply.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
|
|
|
|
