Standing Government
11/21/97 12:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>>Indeed, it is highly undesirable that there be such a "professional" government.
-Lawecon from the "Cops and Robbers" thread
That's an interesting notion, going far beyond the US Founders' oft-stated ideal of "citizen legislators."
The founders distrusted "standing armies," and certainly kings and "career legislators." Craig distrusts "standing government." Both of them have a point.
Is there any way to rotate people into and out of government often enough, so as to prevent the worst traits of a "standing government" from becoming manifest, while at the same time ensuring that the essential services of government are delivered, its essential functions discharged? We have experimented with term limits in legislatures and some executive government offices.
Would more of that do the trick? Or do we need something else?
-J
Subject: Re: Standing Government
Date: 11/21/97 3:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: ChrisToto
Message-id: <19971121193100.OAA01295@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Presbyte, you wrote:
>Is there any way to rotate people into and out of government often enough, so as to prevent the worst traits of a "standing government" from becoming manifest, while at the same time ensuring that the essential services of government are delivered, its essential functions discharged? We have experimented with term limits in legislatures and some executive government offices.
Would more of that do the trick? Or do we need something else?<
Devolve most if not all important functions down to the town level and decide town business by town meetings either in auditoriums, school halls or by electronic town halls.
Unique proprietary encrypted electronic identity signature is the only major technical obstacle to electronic voting.
The mayor or some selected citizens could act as temporary liasons to larger confederations of localities such as county, state, supra state functions.
No standing legislation should be tolerated outside of town council.
Liasing functions should be temporary and issue specific.
For most supra town agreements, there really is no need beyond written or electronic communication to come to agreements.
Standing legislative bodies gaurantee that some group, some where, some time will gather and scheme outside of public scrutiny.
The only standing military forces that might be necessary would be some naval and airforce units.
These could be provided for by supra town federations.
Land forces should be left to local militias which could be organized on a town or county level.
Local militias make sense because folk would be defending their homes and not be pawns in foreign adventurism and empire building.
The militia could be a tremendous force for voluntary community cooperation.
Road, bridge, and defense infrastructure could possibly be partially maintained through either direct donation from contractors who are militia members or work could be performed near cost payed for by voluntary liturgy from concerned citizens who are not employed in the construction industry.
Lists of those who contributed liturgy or voluntary work as well as those who were invited to contribute but refused could be posted.
Public construction without billions in bonding costs and other politically correct regulations could cut infrastructure costs in half.
The social aspect of the local militia could be magnified to encourage voluntary participation in all aspects including the work parts as well as social functions.
Periodic parties, balls, plays, ceremonies could make the militia into more than target practice.
A whole interlocking social network of friends, family and friendly business aqcuaintances could gel into a strong, organically connected society.
Dissenters or cheapskates who didn't want to voluntarily share the burden would be free to do so.
But the participative citizens would also be free to exclude the dissenters from militia/community society or to shun the dissenters otherwise on a personal social level or in the market.
We need to return our culture to the central agorist meeting place whether electronic or a real market to discuss community matters.
This means getting folks away from the boob tube.
Without a reason to, it won't happen.
It's interesting that most US towns are not designed with a central market / agora meeting place anymore.
At one time the market or town green was the central meeting place.
Unfortunately, most places in the US don't have the usually fair and dry weather that the Greeks and Romans had which were conducive to large public open air gatherings.
But we have the internet,schools, libraries and with more awareness perhaps future town (voluntary) planning can be improved.
The problem with standing legislatures is that they have too much time on their hands and they see problems where none exist.
The law makers spend far too much time with each other and not enough with their constituents.
Aside from banning all standing legislatures, we should limit their sessions to 60 days a year, a truly part time job.
This way they would spend most of their time with the voters not lobbyists and big wheels.
Chris Toto (ChrisToto@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Standing Government
Date: 11/22/97 1:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19971122053101.AAA01660@ladder01.news.aol.com>
I don't have much to add to Chris' description of a possible "ideal" society.
As a terminological footnote, I'd add that such a society is an-archistic [that is, without an overarching permanent authority structure apart from the population that composes the society, and, hence, without a "state" in the classical meaning of that term].
I do believe that a few of the details might be different - on the principle that none of us is individually bright enough to anticipate ALL the innovative ways that such a society would deal with particular "problems" - but I have nothing to add to the overall structure that Chris has described.
There are many books that deal with such a society and with the particular possible solutions to this or that problem, but I really believe that Chris' description is as near as I've see to a really good summary of the main features.
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer
ject: Re: Standing Government
Date: 11/22/97 1:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: LAWECON
Message-id: <19971122052301.AAA00872@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Would more of that do the trick? Or do we need something else?
-J>>
While I appreciate Jim's comments, and I think that he has posed some interesting questions that we should consider and discuss, I just wanted to clarify that this is NOT my idea.
My idea is that in the "ideal society" there will probably be most of the government FUNCTIONS that there are today, but no such government OFFICES.
Hence, it isn't a matter of rotating people in and out of particular offices with more frequency than we do today [although that might in itself be desirable] but in not having the offices to begin with - or, alternatively, having them only on an ad hoc basis when needed.
So we may have two different discussions going - either of which I personally would find interesting.
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer
Subject: Re: Standing Government
Date: 11/22/97 2:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Presbyte
Message-id: <19971122064001.BAA05660@ladder02.news.aol.com>
>>>Hence, it isn't a matter of rotating people in and out of particular offices with more frequency than we do today [although that might in itself be desirable] but in not having the offices to begin with - or, alternatively, having them only on an ad hoc basis when needed.<<
My opening comments on the topic of "standing government" were simply that: opening topics intended to spark discussion.
The issues include: should we have/do we need any kind of "standing government," and if so, what would it be like? Without a "standing government," then by what means would we assure that the occasional, necessary government-type functions would be satisfactorily delivered? I posed greater turnover in office as perhaps one way to address the opposing requirements of the problem, but of course there could be other approaches as well.
I certainly hope we'll see them covered in this thread!
-J
Subject: Re: Standing Government
Date: 11/29/97 12:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: ChrisToto
Message-id: <19971129042300.XAA01766@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Presbyte,
here is a suggestion for an alternate type of standing government.
This is not my idea, in fact someone else may have suggested it elsewhere before on this board.
At the moment I can't think from whom I heard it.
If there must be a "standing government" of some kind, even if only on a town level, use a draft lottery to select executive officials such as jury selection.
Anyone who refuses to serve, must pay an extra "donation" to help pay for those who do serve.
Availability to serve would be part of the cost for being eligible to vote.
In a society with much less government, the overhead of government could become so small that the community populations necessary to support government wouldn't have to be so large.
Organized communities could be much smaller, small enough to allow town meetings.
Legislation could be voted upon directly by citizens.
Executive officials could be drafted by lottery.
Even if many communities either wouldn't or couldn't become small enough to fit the whole town in an auditorium, electronic networking will soon be at the point to allow attendance at virtual town meetings and voting via internet.
Or perhaps, instead of spending so much money going down the ratholes of bureaucrats' pockets, the town should invest in building a central agora which could serve as a central market for commerce during working hours and then serve as a central meeting place for both socializing as well as forums for municipal business.
Serving officials as well as private citizens could speak regarding the topics under consideration and then when the alternatives were framed the people would vote.
There should be no standing representatives to larger supra town federations or levels of government; all issues regarding relations with governments outside of the town should be discussed and voted on by the towns folk.
This may not have been feasible 100 or 200 years ago; it is today.
Telephones, fax, radio, internet make all this much easier than this was even 50 years ago.
Minimize public work and issues to be decided; no legislators needed; Minimize terms of office; draft executive officials.
Drafting officials would eliminate the campaign circus, and the lack of career potential would make more officials more conscientious, responsible and accountable.
Political discussion should be removed from the campaign trail and the boob tube and returned to the agora where it belongs.
Chris Toto (ChrisToto@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Standing Government
Date: 11/29/97 11:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: WyndRydyr
Message-id: <19971129150901.KAA05136@ladder01.news.aol.com>
The founders of thiscountry did not evision a permanant permanat standing government.
While they recogcnized the need for certain permanant institutions, what they intened was that farmers, bussinessmen artisians etc., would be chosen by thier citizen - nieghbors to serve (note the word serve) for awhile, then return to their lives.
I believe the current two party system, in which politicians attempt to hold office for life, using any illegal and unethical means nessecary, while feeding at the public trough and arrogantly telling citizens how to live their lives, would neauseate the founding fathers
PAUL
Subject: Re: Standing Government
Date: 12/1/97 7:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: RLGood
Message-id: <19971201235901.SAA13009@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Once we get rid of our current government and all of it's corruption and buerocracy (whenever that may be), it will be imperative to impose strict term limits and "laws against laws" to prevent the current situation from happening again.
The constitution must be beefed up with preventative measures to ensure that the government will not again become a self-sufficient entity; an organization which runs more or less without direct control from the population.
Elections must not be catered for two parties; several parties with reasonable followings must be able to take place in debates, etc.
The current reason for barring 3rd party candidates from debates creates a paradox of sorts.
Candidates who aren't projected as having a true shot at winning office are left out.
But if they can't even present their views and make their presence known to the voters, they have next to no chance of making a significant showing.
Who do you think makes these rules ? (think donkey and elephant).
There is one law, however, that I am convinced that the government must levy on the people to de-corrupt (un-?) the democratic system.
The counting and release of votes before the end of an election should be a federal felony.
This common practice today; districts releasing their results, corrupts a every national (and to a lesser extent) local election.
It isn't uncommon for the west coast to hear that a presidential election is over before they even cast their votes.
This is wrong, and after the Electoral College is disbanded, popular votes will become even more crucial than they already are.
Now, I realize that tens of thousands of boxes can't be flown to D.C.
and laid on a table to count votes.
The person in change of counting votes in each district will be required to take a training course and swear an oath before attaining their position.
And if they count and/or prematurely release results, they would be subject to prosecution under my proposed Election Interference Act.
Subject: The government is the enemy
Date: 11/12/97 8:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: ALLCOPSUK
Message-id: <19971113001400.TAA03250@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Before I studied the Libertarian positions, I thought certain big businesses "owed" the public something (jobs, equal service, etc.) in exchange for the special privileges they enjoyed from the government. (licences, zoning variances, government-protected monopolies.
One thing the Libertarians need to stress is that, sure, Wal-Mart has the lawyers and the money to put up a store, cutting through all the bureaucracy erected by town hall...BUT if this bureaucracy were eliminated, every small operator could compete against them, too, which is fine.
A zoning variance is not an excuse to make an employer hire people it doesn't want.
The government is the enemy.
Subject: Re: The government is the enemy Date: 11/30/97 4:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: ALP34 Message-id: <19971130205800.PAA02026@ladder01.news.aol.com>
If you think "MOM and POP" are the square could compete with Walmart if the local, state and federal regulations were repealed...
you're crazier than a loon.
Subject: Re: The government is the enemy Date: 12/18/97 6:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: TMA68 Message-id: <19971218224600.RAA27953@ladder01.news.aol.com>
< If you think "MOM and POP" are the square could compete with Walmart if the local, state and federal regulations were repealed...
you're crazier than a loon.
>>
The politicians who write these regulations are owned and controlled by the very corporate giants you presume to protect "Mom and Pop" from.
Not surprisingly, said regulations are enforced much more at the expense of small businesses than they are big ones.
Subject: Re: The government is the enemy Date: 1/5/98 6:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: BASTIATLAW Message-id: <19980105105901.FAA01621@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Abandon the two major parties.
/ Form legal action groups.
/ Stop legislative looting and judicial extortion.
/ Force the agents of government and the lawyers to obey the law of the land.
/ File for mandamus writs, sue to remove scoundrels from office, unleash the grand juries and inform the petit juries. / sam
Subject: Re: The government is the enemy Date: 1/7/98 3:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Presbyte Message-id: <19980107193201.OAA08057@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Methinks it is (always) "the economy, stupid."
As long as the great mass of people are kept busy getting by, they will not have the time to ride herd on their government, as they are entitled to do under the tenets of the American constitution.
For our republic to work, people must take the job of citizen seriously and discharge it with some discipline.
And those who go into public service must clearly see their jobs as serving the public -- sometimes as leading by educating or inspiring, but never as "herding the masses."
Of course, history shows that, even in this country, with our system of checks and balances, those who mean to rule rather than serve can find a way to do it.
And the continuing economic pressure on the population ensures that only a manageable number of people will be able to poke their heads up long enough to function well as politically aware and active citizens.
So often, the job of "public servant" swiftly becomes one of "crowd control."
"When the people lead, the leaders will follow." There is a lot of wisdom and truth in that bromide.
In a republic like ours, the people MUST lead, or things get way out of hand.
When our country threw off royalty, it was hoped that this would imply "every man a king." Were every person to consider himself or herself "royal" in this sense, and act accordingly, the mischief-makers would probably get away with a lot less than they do.
But if you're going to be a "king," you have to step forward and stand your ground in your dealings with one and all.
And we see, over an over, that people cave in, give up, sell out.
Big business and big government are both very good at grinding people down that way.
Nobody is strong forever.
At the heart of libertarianism, I believe, MUST be a personal commitment to be strong and to help others attain strength.
This isn't anything that can be legislated or coerced.
But without it, libertarianism will not work any better than any other "-ism." Strength via education, economic independence, freedom from immediate want, etc., are necessary before people can exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens.
The point of libertarianism, however, is to dispell illusions that these things can come from some external agency or central authority.
Rather, each individual must shoulder the personal burden of being strong, and also find a way to help others to be similarly strong, explaining this creed to them and hoping that one's own example (and the illustrations of its correctness that one can point out in the real world) can inspire others to embrace the creed and live according to it.
If that sounds idealistic, please understand that it is tempered in my mind with real world knowledge that such a thing is difficult, rare, and fleeting. On the other hand, on the universal scale, so is life itself.
I think we dismiss the wonder of life by dismissing the necessary libertarian commitment to personal strength and helping others to be strong.
And that would be a mistake.
In a very real way, I believe, the commitment I describe IS "the economy, stupid." And the community, as well.
-J
Subject: Re: The government is the enemy Date: 1/9/98 11:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: ChrisToto Message-id: <19980109154200.KAA25336@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Yes.
Put another way, the conflict is between a civil society based on intact natural rights including the means to defend itself (and a disarmed state) versus the absolutism of Hobbes' state power with a disarmed citizenry, and only state endowed priveledges for the citizens.
For reviewing several discussions of natural rights and civil society vs the absolutist Leviathan state, click on: James's Liberty file collection index Nice site.
Be warned though, some of this may make you more pro-"anarchy." ;-D
Chris Toto (ChrisToto@aol.com)
Subject: Re: The government is the enemy Date: 1/10/98 11:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: LAWECON Message-id: <19980110155901.KAA29347@ladder01.news.aol.com>
One of the perennial disputes between libertarians has to do with the "derivation" of libertarian positions.
One of the popular traditional positions [up to, say, the mid-19th century] was that libertarianism was based on "natural rights" and/or "natural law".
The James pages recommended by Chris are probably one of the better net resources expressing that view today.
Rand, somewhat paradoxically, is one of the modern libertarian authors who advocated such a view.
The fundamental problem with this view is it is inherently reductionistic, and, as such, really says nothing honest about ultimate values.
Natural rights are said to be derived from "that which is necessary to life" or "that which is necessary to the life of man as properly lived" or "that which promotes happiness".
[James, in his introductory essay, admits that there are, in fact dozens of such definitions that have been given by natural rights/natural law theorists.] The common feature of all these definitions, however, is that they reduce "what is good" to something else.
My two questons to those that advocate such views are as follows: (1) If this is really what you mean, why do you keep talking about "rights," what "ought to be" etc.? People should be honestly presented with what it is that you think is important, whether that be biological survival, psychological health, etc., rather than being tricked into thinking that you are really talking about absolute ethical judgments or social values when you are not. (2) If this is the correct concern of social ethics, social theory, etc.
then why aren't you all studying evolutionary biology and/or psychology, and why don't you pay more attention to the research being done in those fields, since those are the disciplines that are concerned with the questions that you believe to be "the issues"? In my own cynical way, I rather suspect that the answer to this question has to do with the fact that the definitions offerred by those of the natural rights/natural law school aren't really to be taked seriously.
None of these people evidence serious interest in the disciplines that should be "supplying the answers" according to these definitions, and, hence, I rather suspect that this is all a rouge for a rather dishonest semantic game.
But I could be wrong.
What do you think?
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools." Herbert Spencer
Subject: Re: The government is the enemy Date: 1/10/98 3:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Presbyte Message-id: <19980110192300.OAA27271@ladder01.news.aol.com>
<< People should be honestly presented with what it is that you think is important, whether that be biological survival, psychological health, etc., rather than being tricked into thinking that you are really talking about absolute ethical judgments or social values when you are not. << -LAWECON
That is a fair challenge, and a practical one, as it helps the ensuing discussion focus on specifics, rather than vague generalities.
I belive in "natural rights" in this sense of the following three "principles":
1.
You can't blame a guy for defending himself and his (justly acquired) property from attack. 2.
You can't blame a guy for wanting to better his circumstances and do that which makes himself happy. 3.
You can't blame a guy for assisting someone in 1 or 2.
If you don't allow these three, then what is the point of getting out of bed in the morning?
The reason I worded the principles in terms of "blame," is to underscore the fact that the whole concept of natural rights is a non-issue, unless viewed in a social context.
The point of invoking natural rights is to convince one's reasonable neighbors to allow each person a sphere of activity and decision, and to elicit their assistance in maintaining that sphere (or redressing its breach by one's unreasonable or negligent neighbors).
Also, it is important to realize that nothing about these deliberately-worded principles impels anyone to do anything for anyone else.
Number 3 merely justifies well-intended intervention and participation in others' lives.
On the other hand, you can blame and punish a guy for knowingly using more or crueler means than necessary to achieve goal one.
And you can certainly hold him responsible for any harm he does to others in the pursuit of goal two (though being a stickler about formally redressing every little interpersonal injury that a person commits in the pursuit of happiness is counterproductive to the smooth functioning of any society -- as a practical matter, there has to be a "noise floor," below which formal suits must be considered as "nuisances," and informal resolutions, if any, are to be preferred). Someone who causes harm to the intended beneficiary or anyone else under principle three can also be held responsible or may be restrained.
Anyway, I don't have to invoke a deity or a human spiritual essence to support any of those three principles; they seem to follow clearly from the nature of living beings in general.
And they lie at the heart of so many human situations, that I am hard pressed to identify any where one or more does not clearly apply.
My bottom line is that "natural rights" are the reasons you give to other people to keep them from punishing you for the things you do, to keep others from acting against you, or to elicit the help of others in capturing and punishing those who act against you.
They had better be the most straightforward, honest, and self-evident principles you can find.
The above are mine.
-Jim
Subject: Re: The government is the enemy Date: 1/17/98 7:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: LAWECON Message-id: <19980117114500.GAA21799@ladder02.news.aol.com>
I belive in "natural rights" in this sense of the following three "principles":
1.
You can't blame a guy for defending himself and his (justly acquired) property from attack. 2.
You can't blame a guy for wanting to better his circumstances and do that which makes himself happy. 3.
You can't blame a guy for assisting someone in 1 or 2.>>
That is fine, but it has nothing to do with "natural rights".
Perhaps it would help if I summarized the opposing camps of ethics.
As far as I can tell they are two in number: (1) moral intuitionists and (2) Kantian apriorist.
The moral intuitionist says, simply, right and wrong are right and wrong [they aren't reducible to something else].
Although they can be identified and we can talk about some of their features the features aren't the thing, the thing is our "moral sense" [conscience, if you prefer] that X is right and Y is wrong.
The Kantian apriorist thinks that "there is nothing good but a good will" and a "good will" is one that acts "according to a maxim that could be universal law" [i.e., in one formulation, "do onto others....."].
Personally I opt for the former view, and, apparently, so do you.
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools." Herbert Spencer
Subject: Re: The government is the enemy Date: 1/17/98 6:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Presbyte Message-id: <19980117225600.RAA02561@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>>That is fine, but it has nothing to do with "natural rights".< -Lawecon
Sez you.
I get the feeling that you are trying to bait people into arguing that some kind of deity confers them with some fundamental rights.
But this homey don't play that.
:-)
From what I have read of "natural rights," they are based on the intrinsic needs of organisms (particularly humans) to maintain their own life, whether or not a "creator" conferred that life.
(It can help forensically, but is by no means necessary, to say that "the creator" endowed life, that life is therefore sacred, and that furthermore, the means to maintain life must not be denied to any person.
But the other side has to agree that appeals to a "higher authority" are valid, which few are willing to do these days.)
If you are simply wanting to engage people in the standard debate about classical "natural rights," with all narrow, academic and historical definitions observed, then fine.
I misunderstood you and will turn my attention to other threads, since I've been around this block more than a few times, and don't see that the current discussion is in need of any contribution or moderation that I can provide.
On the other hand, if the idea is to talk about what rights can possibly be "natural," i.e., intrinsic to the condition of life, then I argue that my principles are very much relevant and have everything to do with the subject.
There's a Gordian Knot being tied here, seems to me, and I am doing what I can to respect the topic and yet cut through the knot.
-J
Subject: Re: The government is the enemy Date: 1/19/98 2:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: LAWECON Message-id: <19980119060001.BAA01728@ladder02.news.aol.com>
I misunderstood you and will turn my attention to other threads, since I've been around this block more than a few times, and don't see that the current discussion is in need of any contribution or moderation that I can provide.>>
Well, yes and no.
First of all, my experience has been that the overwhelming majority of contemporary libertarians who care anything about the philosophic premises of libertarianism want to ground their views in "natural rights" and argue from some form of "naturalistic ethics." I think that it is well, therefore, for libertarians to examine these concepts in some detail and determine whether or not they make any sense.
I, frankly, don't think that they do make any sense.
Hence, as someone who believes in most of the conclusions of libertarianism [albeit in a rather extreme form] I feel some need to critically debate these matters with my fellow libertarians so that, if I am right, they don't appear to be fools, and, if I am wrong, that I don't remain one.
One can characterize that enterprise as "academic," but such a characterization really doesn't say much about it.
Incidentally, my further conclusions [after the addition of a few additional premises] from the preliminary conclusion that natural rights and natural ethics don't make any sense are that "ethics" in the form that do make sense have been largely rejected as important to human choice for a hundred years or so and that mature people are more easily persuaded by arguments that have something to do their conditions of life [e.g., their incomes, their freedoms, etc] than by what is rightly viewed by them as "preaching" by ministers of secular ideologies about what is "right" or "wrong".
>
No.
I am not interested in that endeavor, since, as I made clear previously, I don't think that those things "intrinsic to the condition of life" [whatever that rather ambiguous phrase means] have anything to do with natural rights or natural ethics.
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools." Herbert Spencer
Subject: Re: The government is the enemy Date: 1/24/98 5:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Presbyte Message-id: <19980124211900.QAA09020@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>>> No.
I am not interested in that endeavor, since, as I made clear previously, I don't think that those things "intrinsic to the condition of life" [whatever that rather ambiguous phrase means] have anything to do with natural rights or natural ethics.
<<
Well, then, I'm happy to bow out of this one, with no hard feelings.
In parting, however, I will express some wonder that you feel the phrase "intrinsic to the condition of life" is ambiguous.
Stated more colloqially, it simply means the things without which life cannot continue.
Air, food, water, breathing room, shelter, clothing, general self-defense, etc.
Maybe this clarification helps explain why I used language involving "blame" in my statement of principles.
You can't blame anyone for wanting to maintain and improve his own life.
But you can hold him responsible for the harm he may do others in that attempt.
If there is nobody else around, then there is no harm, no blame.
But if anyone else is around, harm is possible, blame becomes an issue, and retribution or redress of harm a goal to be pursued by those who must justify their "pursuit of justice" in some way -- usually by an appeal to some theory of rights!
I believe that no theory of rights can be called "natural," unless it incorporates and respects such concepts as those above and in my prior postings here.
But it is clear that you and I are talking about two different things, and that history and convention regarding the use of the term "natural rights" is on your side.
So I'll bid adieu.
-J
Subject: Re: The government is the enemy Date: 1/25/98 12:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: LAWECON Message-id: <19980125042000.XAA16390@ladder01.news.aol.com>
In parting, however, I will express some wonder that you feel the phrase "intrinsic to the condition of life" is ambiguous.
Stated more colloqially, it simply means the things without which life cannot continue.
Air, food, water, breathing room, shelter, clothing, general self-defense, etc.>>
It has been a while since you posted the item I was responding to, so I can't really recall the context, but I can explain the "ambiguous" comment.
Most people who find some merit in the terms "natural law" and/or "natural rights," and who believe that these terms have something to do with "life" [both of which I understood was true of your position], tend to equivocate back and forth between three or more meanings of "life," i.e., "biological existence [and, perhaps, the minimal requirements for reproduction of the species]," a "decent standard of living" and "life appropriate to man qua Man".
All of these three definitions are, of course, "value laden" rather than purely operational [the third being much worse in that regard than the first], so they prove what is meant to be proved by "packing the conclusion into the assumptions," but they are really quite different meanings of the term "life" and should not be mixed together in the same discussion.
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools." Herbert Spencer
Subject: Re: The government is the enemy Date: 1/11/98 4:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: ChrisToto Message-id: <19980111083901.DAA14361@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Lawecon, you wrote,
One of the popular traditional positions [up to, say, the mid-19th century] was that libertarianism was based on "natural rights" and/or "natural law".
The James pages recommended by Chris are probably one of the better net resources expressing that view today.
Rand, somewhat paradoxically, is one of the modern libertarian authors who advocated such a view.
The fundamental problem with this view is it is inherently reductionistic, and, as such, really says nothing honest about ultimate values.
Natural rights are said to be derived from "that which is necessary to life" or "that which is necessary to the life of man as properly lived" or "that which promotes happiness".
[James, in his introductory essay, admits that there are, in fact dozens of such definitions that have been given by natural rights/natural law theorists.] The common feature of all these definitions, however, is that they reduce "what is good" to something else.
>> <<-- Do they all?
> <<--- I think this depends on what your system of ethics is.
If you think that Natural Rights / Law advocates are trying to make a logical connection with some ephemeral code of ethics unrelated to life on this planet, like witch doctor voodoo, Plato's formless shadows, etc.
you would doubtless be right.
If on the other hand, your ethics is not a mystical value system but is grounded in the practicality of sustaining and advancing human life on this planet, then Natural Law / Rights follows from human biology, human nature. I'm no Randroid, but Rand did seem to have a very practical approach to ethics.
Instead of stating "what is good," she would ask, "Good? Good for what? Good by what standard? Good for staying alive or for death? Pro-life or pro-death? Good for living how, as a sub-terannean grub eater or as a skyscraper builder? Good for being able to live as a rational animal with the capacity to choose, or as a slave?" Rand was big on saying that if an ideal was impractical, then it was proof that it was a bogus, false ideal.
Reality, was the final arbiter of an ideal's worth.
In the case of human ethics, human life was the standard, the scientific success criterion.
Dead = Bad, Life = Good.
Live as slave = not so good.
Live as freeman = very good.
The Ultimate Value = Life as a Free Human.
IMO, I think Rand supplied the missing link, or the explicit connection between a biologically based ethics and Natural Law / Rights.
I don't think Rand reduced any thing; she equates Natural Rights as a necessary condition for human life.
Her theories may not have been flawless, but she was up-front in your face honest about her ethics.
I think that this was her signal contribution to the cause of freedom, which almost single handedly revived freedom out of the grave of 20th century relativistic butchery.
< (2)If this is the correct concern of social ethics, social theory, etc. then why aren't you all studying evolutionary biology and/or psychology, and why don't you pay more attention to the research being done in those fields, since those are the disciplines that are concerned with the questions that you believe to be "the issues"? >> <-- What we are doing here, _is_ part of human biology.
We aren't studying it, we're _doing_ it.
None of these people evidence serious interest in the disciplines that should be "supplying the answers" according to these definitions, and, hence, I rather suspect that this is all a rouge for a rather dishonest semantic game.
>>> <<--- I think we're still digging out from under a mountain of tyrannical governments, government dogma schools where natural rights / laws are not real popular.
The libertarian movement isn't all that big yet.
In fact it's still tiny.
But there has been a precedent for doing biologically based research on human social activity.
Before the end of the 19th century, Edouard Seguin followed by Maria Montessori were proponents of biologically based approaches to education.
I think that was why Rand was such a fan of Montessori schools. But after 1900 the philosophical **** hit the fan in education.
And the study of ESS, Evolutionary Stable Strategy which is mentioned in James' essay seems to be an ongoing effort.
That seems to be a biologically based theory.
I'm not familiar with it or it's extent but I doubt if the NY Times or 20/20 would be plugging it much.
Not PC, you know.
Chris Toto (ChrisToto@aol.com)
Subject: Re: The government is the enemy Date: 1/17/98 7:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: LAWECON Message-id: <19980117115500.GAA22158@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Instead of stating "what is good," she would ask, "Good? Good for what? Good by what standard? Good for staying alive or for death? Pro-life or pro-death? Good for living how, as a sub-terannean grub eater or as a skyscraper builder? Good for being able to live as a rational animal with the capacity to choose, or as a slave?">>
Yes, I think that you've summarized it very well.
And what you have summarized is exactly what is mistaken about Rand's view.
Despite the scorn she and her disciples heap on utilitarianism, that is exactly what her view is about.
We don't ask "what is good" we ask "what is it good for".
[A typical Randian equivocation and confusion, sort of like the confusion between the psychological doctrine of egoism and the moral doctrine of egotism.]
The utilitarian and the ethical questions are, however, two quite different questions.
X may be "good for" destroying statists, but the issue still remains whether destroying statists is good.
Rand herself twists and turns between "good for life" [which she then backs away from] and "good for the life appropriate to man qua man" [the later phrase, of course, simply hiding the ultimate moral values in a catchy slogan without meaning until unpacked of its core values].
The other problem with Rand's ethics that you have identified in the above is that it is intrinsically collectivistic [just as was most of Aristotle's reasoning].
We are not talking about what is good for Fred Smith or Sally Jones but what is "good for man".
I put it to you that that is a very odd way for a purported libertarian to set up the core propositions of her philosophy, and that if you believe that there is that which is "good for man" you'd better jump in on the side of the public school advocates in the discussion going on elsewhere in this forum.
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools." Herbert Spencer
Subject: Re: The government is the enemy Date: 2/4/98 2:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: I1Barcus Message-id: <19980204181300.NAA29339@ladder03.news.aol.com>
Concerning the charge that Ayn Rand's "good" was collective, not individual....how can the individual survivie without the collective? What is good for one is good for the other.
We are not islands, after all.
Ione Barcus
Subject: Re: The government is the enemy Date: 2/5/98 12:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: LAWECON Message-id: <19980205042600.XAA23764@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Well, I don't think that Rand would have agreed.
Recall that her great heros were all "individualists" in the sense of iconoclasts.
And the point of Gaults Gulch wasn't that "productive people" could do better without leaches, but that true individuals didn't need anyone - presuming they had a perpetual motion machine.
:-)
Craig Bolton
"The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own follies is to fill the world with fools."
Herbert Spencer
this website copyright scars publications and design. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission from the author.
this page was downloaded to your computer