RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

NorthernGent -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 5:07:25 AM)

Firmhand, as per usual, your post is the size of a small African nation. As it would take a day to answer all your questions, I've picked out what I think are your more interesting comments:

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

You seem to be condemning "doing our selfish best to acquire wealth, status and power" yet you (if memory serves me correctly) advocate a government which takes resources from others, and redistributes it in accordance with what you envision as a "socially just" formula of some kind.

Doesn't "taking" from one person, and "giving" it to another violate the very principles that you seem to espouse (items 1-4, Enterprise, Respect, Justice and Equality of opportunity)? 

Doesn't it just transfer the source of "wealth, status and power" from individuals, or associations of people to a central societal structure that becomes, in and of itself, the new focus for "wealth, status and power" for the people who will seek it anyway?



The inequality in Britain is built on inequality of opportunity, thus ultimately built on privilege and birthright. There are two practical options here:

a) Accept this position.
b) Wealth redistribution.

Wealth redistribution in this country redresses the balance of inequality and privilege. The result being that equality of opportunity, social justice (yes, my opinion of what constitutes social justice - we're all giving opinions and ideas here), and respect for one another are instilled. This position is based on the belief that all men/women are born equal i.e. we all deserve a fair crack of the whip, and privilege and birthright are a barrier to this ideal.

No, wealth is transferred from individuals to individuals. The government simply acts as an elected regulating body - elected to ensure equality of opportunity. The regulating body is a response to the practicalities of society. Where balance is entrenched in society, then the government's regulatory role reduces accordingly.

The basic assumption of your post is the assumption that we are inherently driven by wealth, status and power. This is an idea, rather than an absolute. What about the opposing view that we're driven by a need for respect, friendship, love, companionship? Should we automatically accept that wealth, status and power form the pillars of human drive? Where does this idea stem from?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

What makes the "invisible hand of the market" inhumane?



An unregulated market serves to generate huge corporate wealth (as we are seeing today). In turn, this generates power - power over the government and power over society. This cements the idea of market democracy and the aim of the market is to account for consumer desire rather than human need. Consequently, public duty is consigned to history because in a market democracy it is believed that we're only interested in ourselves and our consumer needs. Ultimately, basic public ideals of social justice, underpinned by the premise that all men/women are born equal, become secondary to consumerism, and a section of society is left behind in the game - left behind to anything ranging from low income to homelessness, and resulting in anything from substance abuse to anti-social behaviour. I believe this is inhumane, particularly when you consider that a small percentage of people own a large percentage of the wealth - materialism over humanity.

With regard to the market, in a nutshell, I believe in a balance. For the benefit of society we need job creation, enterprise and innovation, but we also need social responsibility in order to achieve sustainable, human economic, political and social development.

By the way, we're all advocating a form of control. Ideas become entrenched in society and, in effect, they become the directing force. In other words, we're all advocating controlling our environment through our ideas. Laying it squarely at my door (as per what I've highlighted in bold) is meaningless.





LadyEllen -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 6:21:47 AM)

It was bound to happen sooner or later!

NG wrote a post with which I can find much agreement.

Of course, the generation of wealth is important, but all should have benefit from that wealth in a state where the wealth is derived from the people and the resources of the state which ultimately are the people's, irregardless of temporary legal ownership. The benefit accruing to each citizen must however be varied according to his contribution to generating it - clearly those risking their personal assets to generate wealth must receive the bulk of the reward, whilst the workers engaged in its generation receive a fair wage and some of the wealth must be redistributed to those unable to earn for themselves.

But just as important is the quality of life for the people. It is perhaps a platitude that money does not bring happiness, yet it remains true - just as true as the notion that money alleviates suffering. In a healthy functioning state, there should be no one who contributes, that is living in poverty, and yet that is what we have, whilst the wealthy spend hundred of pounds on a sandwich. This is what we have, because we have allowed and promoted the market over the people, with the misguided notion that things will sort themselves out, encouraging thereby the idea that we do not live in a society but we are all individuals who ought to be out purely to do one another down to get ahead.

One point on which I vary with NG though, is in the notion of all of being born equal - clearly we are not. Rather we are all born with inherent talents and abilities which will make us valued members of our society subject to them being developed. One of the problems we have in general, is that only a select few talents and abilities are in any way valued and promoted through the education system and in the market driven society as a whole. Those who lack these specific talents and abilities are written off and become the minimum wage workers and unemployed of the future, who not seeing the advantages of our model of society, thus also do not feel any obligation or responsibility for it.

Can we then vilify these people as scrounging layabouts or criminals with any justification, when we have allowed them to be thrown out of society in the first place I wonder? Why should such people adhere to societal norms, when the society shows no interest in them? In such a situation we are left no choice but to have the administrative apparatus and government control them since these people are outside the societal norms we have made. Why is it that we show little concern for these people, and they show little concern for us, but to throw social benefits at them, when there is so much they could be doing to contribute to society and to gain thereby a foothold in its advantages - simply because we are driven solely by the market, with no regard to producing a reasonable life for all. Whilst it is acceptable to say that for instance a factory cannot compete and must therefore go to the wall, how is it acceptable exactly to say the same of human beings, if we are also to say that every person regardless of status and wealth is entitled to dignity?

E






FirmhandKY -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 7:41:53 AM)

It sounds like we are back to the old saw about the differences between "left" and "right".

"The right" see's people without education, or well paying jobs as a function of character flaws.  The "left" sees people without education or well paying jobs as a function of an inherently flawed and inequitable system.

I'd say both points of view are simplistic, although both points of view hold merit.

To me, the most important question is how you encourage people to reach their highest potential, and develop a political, social and economic system that allows it.  Being realistic on both sides of the equation.

So far, all I've seen is a discussion about how "the system" is totally broken.  I dispute that.

My concept is that you have to balance "the system" with a set of societal morals and expectations on individuals at both end of the spectrum - the owners, and the workers.

Legislating "morality" or "caring" leads to gaming the system by the "haves" and dependence by the "have-nots".

You want "something better".  What concrete changes would you see happen?  Many things have been tried.  What has worked out the best in history so far?

FirmKY



farglebargle -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 7:45:27 AM)

I'd like to see Artificial Legal Entities put back into their rightful subservient position.

Your corporation does ANYTHING against The People's Regulation, then your Corporation is dissolved and the assets remaining after penalties remitted back to the investors.

Of course, if you just conduct business under your own name, none of this would apply. Just to those who beg the state for special benefits and agree to abide by their regulation.




NorthernGent -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 8:22:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

The "left" sees people without education or well paying jobs as a function of an inherently flawed and inequitable system.

So far, all I've seen is a discussion about how "the system" is totally broken.  I dispute that.



In that case, you're misconstruing what is laid before you.

I'm not saying the system is totally broken.

I'm saying capitalism should not necessarily mean rampant consumerism or a society ran primarily for the market. There is a tendency for some to equate wealth redistribution to anti-capitalism. This is not the case, here. I can't believe anyone will dispute that, to date, capitalism has been the best form of wealth creation.

I'm advocating a balance. The pendulum has swung far too much in favour of the market at the expense of the people. We're reduced to consumers and tools for business profit in today's neo-liberal Britain. This is underpinned by my opinion that co-operation and the public good is crucial for our development, and that we need social responsiblity to act in tandem with enterprise. Together, they create sustainable development.

Develop the economy by developing people, building the skill base of the nation, aim for near as full employment as possible, generate innovation etc. In other words, invest in people - educate them, give them a guiding hand where necessary - don't reduce people to high street robots and in the process create an underclass - it is a recipe for trouble. Trouble that is in evidence today - rising inequality, rising jail populations, rising use of anti-depressants, rising obesity etc. If people are led to value the market over the community, then the logical outcome is that those cut off from society's wealth will resort to anti-social behaviour.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

My concept is that you have to balance "the system" with a set of societal morals and expectations on individuals at both end of the spectrum - the owners, and the workers.



Agreed. What expectations and morals do you have in mind?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

You want "something better".  What has worked out the best in history so far?



Try somewhere like Sweden or Denmark. Capitalist, but regulated. The quality of life is high. The inequality is relatively low. They do not have the levels of anti-social behaviour and crime of Britain and the US. In other words, they invest in their people and their people value their communities.

The something better is a balance recognising the spirit of human enterprise and the inherent need for community.

Do you know much about Durham, North Carolina? The rise up the GDP list from something like 49th to 25th in US states? My understanding is this was based on sustainable development - investing in people and investing in R&D. Wasn't this funded by wealth redistribution? My knowledgde is sketchy here, feel free to fill in the blanks.



LadyEllen -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 8:45:58 AM)

My view Firmhand, is that we cannot begin to solve the situation unless we have a consensus within society as to what kind of society we want, based on common values and aspirations. This cannot happen at the moment because we are so divided in terms of culture and ideas, with the old competing with the new and no two being able to formulate an agreed point of view. Neither can this coalescing of old and new be forced from the outside (by government for example), but it must develop organically, and that could take a long time unless we make an effort to make it happen from within the people. For as long as we are unable to do this, then by default we will have governments and their opponents, media and corporations setting the scene as they have done for a while now, with agendas that take no account of any value that cannot be ascertained in financial terms and no account of any aspiration other than getting richer quicker.

I am in agreement with you about the left and the right - both have good and bad points, but ultimately these are ideas no different to any others that are found in our culture, whether they be older ideas deriving from Christianity or newer ideas brought into our societies by immigration or philosophical evolution. They are ideas which come from the outside and then exist separate from one another in our society, with those holding them often entrenched against one another, when with a little thought it can be seen that each of them holds a grain of common value and truth which when combined could form the basis of a consensus whereby we could develop a solution to the problems besetting us. As you say, such a solution must be realistic in developing each citizen's potential within a social framework which allows and enables that. It cannot be legislated into place from above but must originate from the bottom and become the societal norm and expectation, which is as I believe, as you proposed.

As for solutions, I didnt want to get into that as yet as right now I'd like to discuss the idea of whether the mechanism I proposed could result in a solution, rather than prescribe the solution - which would be exactly as government or other outside agency might attempt, and fail at, since solutions cannot be imposed with any great success.

My basic model for a solution however, would be that of the social contract between all, whereby it is understood and expected that each citizen has obligations and responsibilities towards his fellows which he must meet, if he wishes to derive the benefits and advantages of the society. This for instance, would mean that the factory owner must meet his obligations in respect of his workers, but also that the workers must meet their obligations towards the factory owner. What those obligations would be, would be decided by the consensus of the people, rather than handed down from government - the government existing as the administrative apparatus of the will of the people, not imposing its own will upon the people.

And from there I think is seen the flavour of this thread - that I disagree with you on the point that the system is not broken. Patently it is broken, in that we all experience not our will being enacted but our lives being regulated from above, and too often without any regard to our own welfare, but rather to the welfare of those able to influence government by way of their wealth, status or ownership of the economy on which we all depend for our living. But this is a result of the divided society in which we live, in which these influences are more keenly felt that the multitude of differing influences arising from the people, and this is why I see it as urgent in regaining control of our societies that we come to some common understanding of what we want, regardless of our background, ethnicity, political outlook, religion or lack of, or any of those characteristics that divide us.

E








NorthernGent -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 9:26:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

My view Firmhand, is that we cannot begin to solve the situation unless we have a consensus within society as to what kind of society we want, based on common values and aspirations......For as long as we are unable to do this, then by default we will have governments and their opponents, media and corporations setting the scene as they have done for a while now, with agendas that take no account of any value that cannot be ascertained in financial terms and no account of any aspiration other than getting richer quicker.



Sounds good to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

I am in agreement with you about the left and the right - both have good and bad points,......with a little thought it can be seen that each of them holds a grain of common value.



I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this. Where I fundmanetally disagree with the right is that they place too much faith in the market.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

As you say, such a solution must be realistic in developing each citizen's potential within a social framework which allows and enables that. It cannot be legislated into place from above but must originate from the bottom and become the societal norm and expectation, which is as I believe, as you proposed.



Sounds good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

My basic model for a solution however, would be that of the social contract between all, whereby it is understood and expected that each citizen has obligations and responsibilities towards his fellows which he must meet, if he wishes to derive the benefits and advantages of the society. This for instance, would mean that the factory owner must meet his obligations in respect of his workers, but also that the workers must meet their obligations towards the factory owner. What those obligations would be, would be decided by the consensus of the people, rather than handed down from government - the government existing as the administrative apparatus of the will of the people, not imposing its own will upon the people.



Sign me up......for a small fee.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

And from there I think is seen the flavour of this thread - that I disagree with you on the point that the system is not broken.



The system or a core group of right wing thinkers corrupting the system and taking us down the path to market democracy (with most of us not realising what was happening)?



FirmhandKY -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 9:39:31 AM)

LadyEllen,

It seems to me you are making an argument against multi-culturalism.  A society in which there is room for personal endeavor, but with a shared and common world view about how society should function, and people's duties and responsibilities as well as rights can't be based on a mix-cultural nation in which there are competing primary cultural modes.

Toleration is a good thing, but only when the primary cultural agreements are understood, and adhered to by all members party to the social contract.

In the end, you are talking about a moral vision.

So the question becomes - whose moral vision?  Whose vision of "right" and "wrong" and "fair" and "equitable"?  You can't have one culture that says women are essentially property on an equal basis as one in which women are considered full citizens and partners in the contract (for example).

What you are talking about also, are shared cultural and national myths and beliefs that bind together the people as part of their contract, that teach lessons and values  to be emulated, absorbed and acted upon.

If you followed NG "Left and Right" thread, you may have an idea of what my core beliefs are.  I'm a classical liberal, with the additional belief that some sort of spirituality is important to man.  It's one of the reasons that I'm not convinced that the socially liberal cultures of the West, and especially of Scandinavia as NG mentions are viable in the long term, for they have replaced the Christian ethos with a secular, non-spiritual belief system - for the most part - consumerism.

This causes a lot of problems in the long run, including the alienation that you and NG are both discussing.

My thesis is that a return to the Christian roots is the best, most likely way to merge the Industrial West with a spirituality that would provide most of the cultural mythos and societial anchors that you feel the wont of.  There are other possibilities, such as some form of Human secularism or Islam. 

I'm not convinced that Human secularism will solve the problem however, because it seems to me to be one of the biggest reasons for your preceived lack.

What else does that leave?  A "New Secularism"?  Where is it?  How would the spiritual hunger be satiated?

You see, the very problems that you identify have an easy answer for a solution, yet I doubt it will ever be accepted for the simple fact that Christianity is basically condemned now in your part of the West.  There is such an emotional antipathy to it, that mostly you can't even have a rational discussion about religion in a sense that I am attempting to discuss it here.

The core Christian beliefs address each and every one of both your and NG's concerns. 

What Europe needs is a New Enlightenment of Christianity, shedding certain aspects of the negative history of the Catholic Church, and government support (sever State/Church ties).

I can see no other reasonable alternative, short of such a re-ordering of society as to transform into experimentally into .... what?  More alienation based on secularism and atheism?  An Islamic based "submission to the will of Allah"?  Buddhism?  Tao? 

Human secularism and atheism has had its chance.  I think the gnostic belief in self -godhood will continue to mean the destruction of any society which adopts it. 

The West - Europe in particular - is embracing that now, and you are living the results.

I guess that's why I keep asking for concrete examples of how you or NG or anyone else could conceive of anything that would stand a reasonable chance of addressing the problems you see.

To me, the answer is a triad of science, faith, and free markets.  Anything else seems utopian and unrealistic.  Those are the three triads that have brought the West to this time in history so far, with the highest levels of personal freedom, the highest levels of economic freedom, and the highest levels of  political freedom that the world has ever known.

Perfect?  No, not at all. I don't think there can be a "perfect" system.

Science has grown.  Free markets have grown.  Faith has withered, and that is the diagnosis of the illness, I think.  The system is out of kilter and out of whack, but the cure - no one wants to face.

FirmKY



Real0ne -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 9:43:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

But this is a result of the divided society in which we live, in which these influences are more keenly felt that the multitude of differing influences arising from the people, and this is why I see it as urgent in regaining control of our societies that we come to some common understanding of what we want, regardless of our background, ethnicity, political outlook, religion or lack of, or any of those characteristics that divide us.

E



The closest government in the world to the "people" having control of a society is the us with our constututional rights.  All others never had any resemblance of control in the first place.  So "regaining" control imo can only really be accomplished here in the us and for everyone esle it would be gaining control.



seeksfemslave -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 10:24:08 AM)

The argument that we will have a just equitable society when we all agree to want a just equitable society or concensus prevails is the biggest load of superficial nonsense that it is possible to imagine. Its what politics is all about, deciding how to run and organise a socety about which there never has been and never will be concensus.

With regard to the point  repeatedly made  that modern UK  government policies have reduced the population to consumerist ciphers, that too is nonsense. This in a state where approaching 50% of budget expenditure is directed to welfare/education and if you count the cost of government funded bean counters I would guess the figure is 75% +.

With regard to equal opportunity argument, who buggared up the educational system then? Why the trendy Liberals who constantly tell us how important equal opportunity is. A perfectly sensible comprehensive educatiom system, which was introduced starting in the mid 50's, was systemattically disembowelled by said trendies in attempting to achieve equality of outcome. If no one Fails, no one Succeeds either.

Trendy Liberal policies on Law and Order also diminish the quality of life of many who the trendies passionately believe they are helping. What a larf.

Just to add..I would be very interested to hear a definition of the public good that says anything more than things like
< all educated to maximise their potential>. ~ etc etc etc blah blah blah
That is Pie in the Sky fantasy or if you wish empty rhetoric.

Another point: many millions actually want to be consumerist ciphers, and would consume even more if they had the money.
Stick that up your hair shirt !



LadyEllen -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 10:34:04 AM)

Firmhand – yes, I get a lot of the “youre against multi-culturalism” – but I’m not. What I do not want and what no one could ever hope to accomplish, is mono-culture. What I am arguing rather is that out of all the diverse cultures we have in the UK (and presumably also in the US), it should be possible for those belonging to those cultures to also belong to a greater society, wherein there are common and shared values drawn from a composite of the points in common held by those cultures, which inform a social contract applicable between all, regardless of their origins, culture or any differentiation of that nature. It should be eminently possible for a person to maintain their own culture, whilst also sharing in the greater culture which is the society at large.

I fully take your point that some elements of some cultures are simply not mutually accommodating. Though I dislike to single out Islam, the cultures which have been brought here which share that religion have some cultural ideas and practices which are simply unacceptable – misogyny being a case in point.

However, this is not a reason to throw up one’s hands and abandon the idea as unworkable. There would in my opinion, be sufficient other values and ideas expressed in any composite, that such unacceptable views must be held to be overridden by those other common values and ideas. It would indeed be, and is strange to hold that for instance all citizens must be treated equitably, if we are then to hold that some may be treated more equitably than others. Any group that chose such a path of argument must itself then face the question as to whether their group as a whole warrants equitable consideration.

Yes, it is a moral vision, but not one imposed from outside or based on any particular set of ideals and values found within the society, even if this is the background cultural model – unworkable at best, and dangerous at worst. It must be a consensus reached between the diverse peoples and cultures of the wider society for it to have any hope of success, and in its successful achievement such a consensus would then inevitably influence how the country is run by the administrative apparatus which is the government, regaining (or for RealOne gaining) influence by virtue of its common voice.

E



FirmhandKY -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 10:35:18 AM)

NG,

My experiences says that there are two ways to get people to "re-distribute the wealth" and have people "treat" other people with respect and humanity:

1.  By force,

2.  By free will.

In the final analysis, "by force" means through government regulation.  "By free will" means by beliefs i.e. faith in a moral system of some sort that supports and rewards those activities.

Any system that resorts to force is eventually doomed to failure, if not supported by free will as well.

In my view, a government can and should set up the mechanisms to reinforce and guide the basic beliefs already existent in the society, as part of an already recognized social contract.  A government can not force a social contract on the order or in the way that you envision for a modern, healthy society.

I think I mentioned "hydraulic empires" before.  A hydraulic empire is a nation in which the state controls the very basic requirements for life of a population, such as ancient Egypt.  I think the oil rich middle eastern countries, in which the majority of government funds are raised not out of the society, but through the sale of oil on the world market are close to such governmental constructs, and the results are the same: tyranny, even with a "social liberal" face (think Saudi Arabia).

Human secularism seems to strengthen government.  It replaces the lost instrumentality of faith.  It becomes the arbiter of final decisions of morality. "There should be a law." is heard, in almost all responses to social problems.

The major difference in a typical hydraulic empire and the Middle Eastern countries is a pre-existing religion that enforces a level of control on the ruling oligarchies.  In Europe, it seems to me that you are approaching making "artificial" hydraulic empires, by giving the governments the right to declare what is "fair", what is "equitable" and to become the final source for all moral dispute resolutions.

In effect, like in all hydraulic empires, the ruling oligarchy becomes the religion of the population subject to it's sway, absent a strong countervailing religion or tradition.  What is that strong countervailing religion or tradition in Europe?  What is the reinforcing tradition?

I think, by abandoning faith based beliefs, and by giving government the power, right, and responsibility for the re-distribution of wealth, and the power, right and responsibility to ensure that all are "treated with respect and humanity", that you are on the short road to utter tyranny.

In contrast, by accepting and embracing a faith that teaches each child about humility, humanity, dignity and social responsibility of selfless service, of social obligations to the less fortunate, the sick, the worker (the laborer is worth his pay), that a government then becomes a moderator, and works by exception, and not by fiat of some groups belief of what is "good", "right" and "equitable".

People act respectfully, and in a socially acceptable manner because that is how they have been socialized.  They have a trained inner consciousness, with mythos and beliefs that performs as a governor of excesses and a rewarder of good deeds.

I'm much rather live in that world.

FirmKY



LadyEllen -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 10:37:57 AM)

OK then Seeks.

So which is it then? Is the society running perfectly naturally or is it fxxxxd up beyond any salvation?

What is your solution? OK - I havent proposed solutions as such, but a mechanism for perhaps arriving at a solution, but I'm interested to hear how you would resolve the situation which you decry?

E



LadyEllen -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 10:44:28 AM)

Good post Firmhand - I dont think we're much far apart on the nature of what is needed to unite society, but we're poles aparts on what exactly the unifying factor should be, which I'm assuming from your previous mentions of it would be Christianity.

Christianity or even a model based on Christianity would not work for us though. As you have mentioned, as a religion it has lost so much credibility that it would not be acceptable. Even more so when one considers that left to its own devices it becomes a movement filled with misogyny, homophobia, racism and other forms of exclusion.

We dont need a religion as such, but if we wanted religion to have influence (as it would) then we would I believe have to take the one kernel of truth from all religions; that selfishness in all its forms, is the root of all social problems.

E



LadyEllen -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 10:52:34 AM)

Notwithstanding all this high brow talk of social revolution from within, its now time for me to go and do some cooking. Indian as it happens - I might be English, but that doesnt mean I have to stick with bangers and mash does it?

Back later

E



Vendaval -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 1:40:50 PM)

 
Lady Ellen,
 
I understand your point and do not think that you are arguing against
"multi-culturalism".  We have the same problems here, trying to integrate
new people with differing languages, cultures, religions and habits.
 
A few basic questions to ask are -
How much has an individual invested in the new country?
Are they open to change or holding strong to their own traditions?
What are basic values that all these groups can agree upon?
 
And if you want to take a look at ancient laws -
 
"Code of Hannurabi - Wikipedia"
 
"The Code of Hammurabi (also known as the Codex Hammurabi and Hammurabi's Code), created ca. 1760 BC (short chronology), is one of the earliest extant sets of laws and one of the best preserved examples of this type of document from ancient Mesopotamia. It was created by Hammurabi. Still earlier collections of laws include the codex of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (ca. 2050 BC), the Codex of Eshnunna (ca. 1930 BC) and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1870 BC).
 
The Code contains an enumeration of crimes and their various punishments as well as settlements for common disputes and guidelines for citizen's conduct. The Code does not provide opportunity for explanation or excuses, though it does imply one's right to present evidence. For a comprehensive summary, see Babylonian law.
 
The Code was openly displayed for all to see; thus, no man could plead ignorance of the law as an excuse. Few people, however, could read in that era, as literacy was primarily the domain of scribes."
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Code_of_Hammurabi
 



quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Firmhand – yes, I get a lot of the “youre against multi-culturalism” – but I’m not. What I do not want and what no one could ever hope to accomplish, is mono-culture. What I am arguing rather is that out of all the diverse cultures we have in the UK (and presumably also in the US), it should be possible for those belonging to those cultures to also belong to a greater society, wherein there are common and shared values drawn from a composite of the points in common held by those cultures, which inform a social contract applicable between all, regardless of their origins, culture or any differentiation of that nature. It should be eminently possible for a person to maintain their own culture, whilst also sharing in the greater culture which is the society at large.

E



FirmhandKY -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 1:41:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Good post Firmhand - I dont think we're much far apart on the nature of what is needed to unite society, but we're poles aparts on what exactly the unifying factor should be, which I'm assuming from your previous mentions of it would be Christianity.


Thank you.

I mention Christianity primarily because it has - at its core - all those beliefs that fit the criteria, as well as being etched into the bones of the society.  When I look around, I don't see anything of comparable "heft" with a better chance of meeting the needs, without upturning the society and transforming it into something unrecognizable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Christianity or even a model based on Christianity would not work for us though. As you have mentioned, as a religion it has lost so much credibility that it would not be acceptable. Even more so when one considers that left to its own devices it becomes a movement filled with misogyny, homophobia, racism and other forms of exclusion.


While I can understand your viewpoint, I don't necessarily agree with you.  I think - especially for many European societies - the main reason for the kiss of death of Christianity has more to do with it's traction with the governments.

Many Christian churches have established themselves as an arm of the government, and removed themselves from the "free market" of ideas, and, as a consequence, have lost the drive and need to actually serve their putative membership.

When you introduce coercion into religion, little comes of it.

What are the still vibrant Christian churchs in Europe?  They are the Protestant denominations that eschew governmental support.  I think this is one of the reasons that Christianity is much healthier in the US.  State supported religion is the combination of two different sources of secular power that should have a clear separation, for they fufill two separate aspects of humanity.

When a church becomes joined at the hip with government, it eventually and essentially gives up much of its moral authority, and its ability to perform its spiritual function.

As far as "misogyny, homophobia, racism and other forms of exclusion" I've two comments:

1.  Beware of your own prejudices, and of painting with too broad a brush, and

2.  In the US, there are Christian denominations, and churches that do not practice what you preceive as "misogyny, homophobia, racism and other forms of exclusion"  in fact, they are considered "very liberal" with gay ministers, female priest, and openly gay parishioners.  So, don't discount "Christianity" totally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

We dont need a religion as such, but if we wanted religion to have influence (as it would) then we would I believe have to take the one kernel of truth from all religions; that selfishness in all its forms, is the root of all social problems.


Good sentiment, but what is the likelihood of that occurring?  The mechanism?

Don't get me wrong, if you can do it, and it works ... then I've nothing against it.  I'd actually like to see something like that work, but ... how realistic is it?  Revolutionary ideas, and major shifts is paradigms don't happen quickly or easily.

I think my basic criteria of what is required is a system of "spiritual faith", regardless of what that faith actually is.

FirmKY



LadyEllen -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 2:40:16 PM)

OK, so assuming that we could probably start with the basic sentiment, expressed by all religions, that

selfishness in all its forms, is the root of all social problems

Is this a fair basic sentiment also, from the point of political viewpoints, secular humanism and so on?

E



FirmhandKY -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 3:32:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

OK, so assuming that we could probably start with the basic sentiment, expressed by all religions, that

selfishness in all its forms, is the root of all social problems

Is this a fair basic sentiment also, from the point of political viewpoints, secular humanism and so on?


hmmm .... I'm not certain I could accept that phrasing.

What is the difference between "selfishness" and "self-interest"?

Human selfishness, in and of itself I don't believe is the root of all social problems.  And I don't think it is possible to rid humanity OF "selfishness".  It is a motivating factor in progress and a very basic and inherent part of the human psyche, there for reasons of survival.

Overweening selfishness, to the exclusion of other human attributes may be the cause of some of the worlds social problems, but it can depend on what you see as "selfish". 

Is envy "selfishness'?  Is "lust" selfishness? Is lack of motivation to improve oneself "selfishness"?  Is the desire to see your family in better circumstances "selfish"?  Is it "selfish" to wish to win an award for a cure for a disease? Is it "selfish" to be proud of being part of a group that builds houses for the poor?  Is it "selfish" to wish that your sons or daughters excell above others in school?

I suspect you could easily make the argument that all of these things are "selfishness".  But are they all bad?

You can't simply "ban" selfishness or blame it for all human social problems.  You must harness it, and you must contain it with a structure of other emphasized aspects of humanity.  And who decides how much "selfishness" is too much? Who decides what is socially acceptable?

The Japanese society historically used "duty" to transmute "selfishness" of its samurai class into social acceptable outlets.  Christianity attempts to use "altruism" (love thy neighbor as thy self, turn the other cheek).  These concepts must be taught, and integrated in a social matrix in order to guide and shape how an individual and "society" can best benefit.

In other words, you can't eliminate "selfishness", you can only guide it, direct it to socially acceptable methods and means.  By, I submit, a self-consistent and reinforcing system of ethics and morals.

Are you getting to some concrete ideas on how to do this?  I'm willing to assume your statement that "selfishness, in all its forms, is the root of all social problems" for the sake of discussion, as long as you understand my strong reservations.

FirmKY



seeksfemslave -> RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract (3/26/2007 3:43:41 PM)

Homophobia racism  discrimination , buzzwords that Liberals think are simply not capable of being challenged.

Irony or paradox call it what you will but in the recent furore over Gene wotisname , openly homosexual who has been elevated in the Anglican Church and the ongoing debate about homosexualty  in the Anglican Church.,which part of the Anglican community has been the most vociferous in its opposition, ? Why the African sector.
Does that confuse you mixed up PC Liberals.?

I know of no example of a heterodox society that, allowing for class hierarchy, is stable.

UK society is not effed up but given the kind of mindless gormless sentimental unthinking PC values that are being implemented it very soon will be.

If the Christian ethic, which is basically very sensible , is in the process of being thrown in the dustbin then there is very little hope. IMO. I do not consider myself a Christian, but I can recognise commensense when I see it.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875