You are not logged in.
Comparing the regime of Hitler to what these guys are supporting as a monarchy is quite a stretch.
Not if we are discussing social cohesion and the idea of focusing loyalty onto an individual. I used Hitler as an example becuase it draws a very distinct picture of what it means to utilize an individual as the center of a State. Granted, I am presenting an extreme, but it is an extreme that is possible under the system that was presented.
From where I've been sitting the last few years, American style democracy is at least as distasteful as any monarchies I've seen.
A poitn of clarification, America is not, nor has ever been, a democracy. It is a Republic- it is an important distinction. The closest individuals get to a true democracy is in local referendums. I also find it disturbing that you can compare American style government with a Monarchy- ours is a merit based system where individuals express their Will by choosing the leaders who will make decisions for them- at all points in the system we are allowed to be heard, with definite accountabilities deliniated- in a monarcy, no such system exsists.
Given the opportunity to emigrate to a new frontier on Mars I'd be inclined to fight, tooth and nail, any intrusion of an old Earth-based political system.
I can understand your sentiment, but I cannot understand your reason. All of our progress, religious, scientific, economic, and poilitcal are all the results of building off the lessons of the past, and using what worked- it seems you may be suggesting that there is nothing worthwhile in our current systems- is this the case?
Every system that places control in the hands of a select group is corruptable.
True, that is why a monarchy is so bad. Yet, in our system of government in the US, power resides in the people- How and wether or not they exercise this right is a seperate issue.
Current politicians are the epitome of this corruption.
An unbsubstaniated opinion that has been repeated by anyone who has been dissatisfied with something they do not agree with. A better question is why people tolerate such corruption at all.
The very lack of a centralized provision of power and other necessities and the development of stand-alone habitations will result in the ability to live without control by some self-absorbed twit who is paid by levying some tax/tithe/theft from the people he governs.
Yet the whole idea of living in a vacum neccessitates a strong centralized power in order to maintain a stable system. Everything must be generated, created, or transported from somewhere- how much freedom can you allow when a wrong door opened kills everyone? How much local freedom can be allowed if air production, water production, and energy production must all be planned for, coordinated, and implemented into an overall fail-safe system.
Things like public congregation may be limited due to saftey concerns and over-taxing life-support systems. Firearms are a virtual impossibility in a pressurized environment exsisting in vacum. Population growth must be planned and controled, since everything on Mars must be planned in advance out of neccessity- having too many people means EVERYONE dies, so the issue of reproduction now falls into pubblic domain- which requires those individuals to oversee the compliance with the groups decisions (read beaucracy and central government). Then there is the issue of individuals being free to leave whenever they want- what if the stations only water purification expert wants to leave, but in doing so, the base would be denied the expertise neccessary to effect repairs and maintence of water production- since their leaving without a suitable replacement would endanger everyone else, wouldn't that neccessitate governemnt intervention in order to keep everyone else alive? Here again we see limits placed on freedom and liberty due to the environmental constraints imposed by space colonization.
Is there any information that the Mars Society has acquired (or anyone lese for that matter) on the topic of non-governmental funding for a Mars mission?
Non-governmental funding implies that a non-governmental organization must be contracted, or created, to organize and proceed with development of a Man to mars mission. Considering that most of the expertise for this venture exsists almost solely in the governmental sector, it will be difficult to go it alone in terms of creating a non-government funded or directed project. If government agencies are utilized, so that it is a mix of private and public funds, there are certain legal and politcal issues that can make the buisness model you are suggesting untenable.
What I'm wondering is how possible it is to pay for some of the mission cost by selling media rights,
Not a problem if no government funds are used, however, if public funds are used, then how can we justify selling the media rights to anyone? Public funds implies that the resource, in this case the media rights, belong to the public. How can you justify using everyone's money so a few can profit from it? Say we sell the rights to a cable or pay for service provider, you are in effect taking the publicly funded resource and limiting who can have access to it. This in a nut-shell is the problem with mixing government and private funds in my view.
access to returned samples,
Should we set the precedent that scientific discovery for the betterment of Man is for sale? What does this access mean really? Are we allowing people to BUY the limited return samples that could be used by public educational and research facilities for scientific discovery? Are we setting a precedent that money is our goal for human exploration before science?
access to medical and life-support data,
Dosen't the medical data ultimely belong to the Astronauts? What about issues of personal privacy? Shouldn't the results be shared with as many people as possible? Once you start "selling access" you are creating a commodity whose value is based on how many people can access the information- the fewer, the more exspensive it becomes- wouldn't this limit scientific research?
Would any of the aerospace manufacturers be willing to pro-rate a launch in order to have the distinction of being the Mars launch vehicle?
Mabye a better question would be to figure out which rocket outfits have the heavy lift capability to do this- if there are only one or two, then what is the incentive for them to pro-rate?
Would any of the large brand names be willing to pay to have their name on all the suits, meals, camera shots, etc.?
This has possibilities, since this is a passive form of generating funds without compromising scientific endeavours. Taking advertising along for the ride is much different than having advertising pay for the ride.
Here is an idea:
Once ISS is completed to the point where NASA feels confident about letting non-astronauts on board, instutitute a national lottery. One winner is selected for every trip to the ISS on the shuttle. The proceeds can be used to offset the cost of launching th shuttle, as well as maybe paying for othe scientific activities. The lottery acts as a means for EVERYBODY to have a chance to go into space- it reinvigorates the idea of space travel with the general population since it is now at least perceived to be within their reach. It seems regular state lotteries build up into the tens of millions on a weekly basis- now imagine a lottery every three months, with one guareented winner at the end going into space- a dollar a ticket (or whatever) seems a deal- this model would probably generate more funds than the current $20 mil a pop the russsians charge.
Now, space is made "real" to the average Joe- suddenly it becomes an important topic to more of the general population, which leads to further funding, which can hopefully be used to increase the perception that space is attainable. Also, it sets up the argument that every dollar we spend on NASA, is another dollar that leads to a greater chance for you or I to get into space.
This model also avoids the idea that Space, or even NASA, exsist for a select few- afterall, the shuttle, ISS, and NASA are public domain- we own it, and since it is a very limited resource that many individuals want access to, we let lady luck decide who gets to go first.
Since the shuttle has to go to the ISS anyway, it dosen't matter really if we only sell one ticket or a trillion- we still have to go- but any money generated is a good thing, plus the continual publicity of a lottery- Who Wants to Be the Next Astronaut....
I finished the second season of Star Trek NG last week (DVD). No commericals rock! Talk about instant gratification.
I liked Babylon's concept, but the acting was sooooo bad that it really detracted from the the story for me. But the story arcs in Babylon were first rate- too bad the spin off didn't get picked up.
Anyone remember the War of the World series? I remember it started out well then got hokey as time went on and the ideas started to peter out.
Oh yes, and WORST SF movie would be?
Battle Field Earth. Ugggh! They ruined the story.
I KNOW there is a long laundry list- but what is the worst?
I read both Bova and KSR. I liked Bova's writing style better, he gave life to his characters and then let them play in his imagination. KSR, though, built his characters to serve his imagination- they were merely used as a part of telling his over-arching story.
I liked KSR's ideas, hated his delivery.
I liked Bova's narration, but found his story to less encompassing then KSR.
Bladerunner- Sci-fi noir. Definitive work for the genera.
How about Kubricks 2001: Space Odessey?
I might suggest Contact, if it wasn't for the fact that the book is sooo much better.
There's also Time Machine (the old version, haven't seen the new one)- but again, the book is so much better.
Anyone remember thaaold "V" series on TV? It was on during the 80's, and I remember just being in absolute love with the show.
Thanks for your thoughts Peter. I appreciated your point of view (even if it dosen't come across in the posts).
Strong monarchy, while institutionalizing class distinctions, would also be a protection against would-be social engineers.
Wouldn't the institutionalizing of class distincitions BE social engineering?
Another point in favor of monarchy relates to the cohesiveness of society.
I understand the premise you are getting at, however, it seems to be a bit misguided. The concept of societal cohesiveness is not based on the form of government that is is used to execute the Will of the people. Social cohesion is the result of similar goals, desires, beliefs, history, etc among the people who populate Society. This is demonstrated by the myriad of governments that exsist successfully, and these same governments have people who have developed well formed "social cohesion". In the instances where social cohesion breaks down, as in your example of Yugoslavia, it is the result of disparate views between the people- competing groups (unfortunetly identified by ethnicity) form within the larger group of the whole. It is these two competing groups, that fight over the dead carcass of the original group.
If instead it becomes a mosaic, what becomes the focus of loyalty?
In terms of a Monarch, is this really the best "focus" for a socieitel cohesion? Would you be agreeable to the idea of Monarchy if we put a face to the concept of Monarchy as presented?
Imagine a rally of children wearing black arm bands with Swastikas, imagine all of these children, who have informed the State to the private activities and thoughts of their parents. Imagine these children swearing an oath of loyalty, not to an ideal, not to a way of life, but to a Person. Imagine swearing loyalty to Hitler and THEN tell me that a monarchy is still a good idea with the Focus on an individual, and not on the People.
Even in the USA, we swear loyalty to the Constitution, but almost every citizen speaks English. What happens that's no longer the case?
Nothing. The language we speak is not related to the shared ideals upon which the United States was founded. How would a Monarchy prevent or mitigate this?
Perhaps I'd be more satisfied with an elected Chief Executive who serves a decade-long term of office, so they can make plans for more than 4 years in advance.
interesting, but what about those individuals who were not allowed to vote for the Chief Executive? Imagine that at 20, you are granted the right to vote- yet the last Presidential (chief executive) election occured when you were 19. Do you think it is acceptable for individuals to conceivably wait 10 years before they get a say in who represents their nation (or whatever)? If you say yes, then how would we deal with the disenfranchisement caused by those who feel they are left out of the process becuase of their age?
I'd have to say my favorite sci-fi novel though is Dune, even though that novel
probably belongs more in the fantasy genre than the sci-fi one.
Dune was okay- I lost complete interest though after reading the sequel though.
The Eden series, by Harry Harrison are great if you like alternate earth stories. In this series it pre-supposes that the meteor that wiped out the dino's missed, and humanity grows up with a sentiant dino that rules the earth through advances in bio-tech.
Haven't head much about the Gravity Rainbow
Sorry, clark, I posted a quickie as a placeholder and then added to it.
In the interest of maintaining some semblence of order, I request that you make new posts, instead of adding to previous posts.
Though I disdain being perceived as overly technical, I'd argue that religion is "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe, or a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
Thank you for the dictionary definition of what many consider "religion" to mean in the context of English language. Now, I ask you to apply the meaning of this definition.
Thus religion itself is not "supposed to bring order to a disordered universe," as you postulate, but rather the acknowledgement that someone/thing already has.
Where is my postulation incorrect? You are arguing semantics without actually addressing the issue I raise. Furthermore, if you take my ENTIRE statement and the context it was written, your claim is made even more meaningless. I said:
After all, religion is merely a system of belief that is supposed to bring order to a disordered universe- a common human trait.
Religion IS a system of belief, designed in of itself to bring order to disorder, pointing out that this done by only acknoldging the role of a "supreme being" within Religion adds little meaning to this discussion. I guess I fail to see why it is important to establish this difference.
I hope you can understand why such an understanding of the cosmos would drive an
individual, community, or society to choose adherence to their religious convictions over survival.
The "why" is irrelevant, and as such, I have agreed fully that individuals ARE driven by their convictions, be they religious or otherwise. However, as I tried to point out, which you seem to have summarily dismissed, is that when individuals IDENTIFY with a belief system so strongly they are willing to sacrifice the survival of the group, it is in this instance that the belief system becomes a PART of what is is to BE a person in that group.
Rather than answer the question you posed in the above quote, I prefer to point out the unconscious assumption you made in posing it: that religious thought cannot lead produce "progress" (a frighteningly subjective term in a discussion such as this one, but you chose it, so I'll use it).
I made an "unconsious" assumption? One, if it is "unconsious", how are you privy to it? Dosen't that assume a level of personal knowledge of me? If you contend that you made this dubious jump in logic based on my previous statement, I will ask you to please limit yourself to what I HAVE said, not what YOU assume that I mean.
Lets take a look at my QUESTION (which begs, how can a question assume anything, after all, it is a statment operating from a lack of total knowledge, but I digress): I asked:
If, as you contend, that religion "always seems" to trump reason, why is their progress?
My question was in response to YOUR statment regarding religion trumping Reason- your words, not mine. My question was ASSUMING that YOUR statment is TRUE- that Religion trumps Reason- I have stated NOTHING, so please, why don't you answer the questions or modify your statment.
Personally, I don't find your assumption offensive, though many would.
Considering that the only assumption I have made was in asking a question that assumed you were correct, and asking you to explain a seemingly apparent contradiction to that statement, I doubt any sensible person would find anything I have asked to be "offensive".
I'll merely point out here that no serious historian -- or sociologist, for that matter -- would agree with that assumption. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase the question?
No, not neccessary, unless you would care to rephrase your previous statement.
While I question your motivation in characterizing religion as a "beast," I would put forth that it is, at least in societal terms, uncontrollable.
How "should" I characterize religion? As for your statement that religion, in societal terms, is uncontrollable, how then should we account for the myriad of human laws that exsist solely to CONTROL religion? Are they just a bunch of hot air? To say that religion is uncontrollable by society, is to say that society is powerless- the whole idea of Seperation of Church and State is rendered impossible by your statment- yet it exsists. It also suggests that if a religion becomes a threat to the stability of Society, we are powerless to effect change- again, I would like evidence that suggests that Society is unable to regulate the way in which religion is expressed, or the way it is conducted.
Many would argue that western civilization hasn't "moved beyond the limits of Church teachings." In fact, a quick perusal of the New Testament, the Pentateuch, or the Qur'an would all indicate that western civilization has a long way to go, at least from a societal standpoint.
You are muddling the context and the subject of the posts you are reffering to. Let me clarify, how do YOU account for the scientific progress that would be denied by religious systems of belief IF RELIGION TRUMPS REASON (your words, not mine). Your previous reply only serves to underscore how Reason has proceeded BEYOND religious progress.
As for explaining "technical and scientific evidence that only serves to discredit certain religions in of themselves," I will only say that Galileo, Ptolomy, Newton, and Einstein were all religious men. The implications of that fact are yours to do with as you please.
I'm surprised you didn't include Darwin! Afterall, he gave us the theory of Evolution, yet he rejected his own findings. The "implications" of your statement are meaningless, so what, great minds were also religious- not very surprising given Humanities prefrence to create order in a disordered universe. Why don't you answer the questions instead of providing half statements from someone else? I applaud your strategy, but it won't work.
In keeping with my tradition,
Of not answering the questions, or defending your statements?
my intellectual integrity
Considering you have only dodged the questions I raise, you have none.
and my conscience, I would have to disagree once more.
Very pretty.
While the individual may have complete control over his own choice of religion (and
many would argue with even that hypothesis), society as a whole can no more control religious thought -- and, I dare say, expression -- than it can the weather.
Society can, and does, control religious thought and it's expression. How many religions that advocate slavery exsist? How many religions that require human sacrifice exsist today? Even those parents who follow their religious convictions and deny their children medical help are routinely over-ridden by Society in order to maintain the welfare of the child- how is THAT NOT controling religion, or at the very least, the expression of the Religion?
Look, you have taken the extreme position in this discussion by stating that Society is unable to control Religion, or its expression, which is blatantly untrue. All it takes is ONE example of Society "controlling" religion or its "expression" to invalidate your entire position.I suggest you revisit your posts, and try again.
To prove (or at least strengthen) my point, I challenge you to point to one society in all of human history that has managed to eradicate, subjugate, or adulterate all religious thought that it deemed to be contrary to its own best interest, and survived to tell the tale.
Almost ALL societies have either "eridicated, subjugated, or adulterated" a belief system that was deemed contrary to its best interest- if the Society did not, then it was consumed by the belief system so that it became a part of the Society to the point where it was no longer deemed contrarty to the Society. If Society deems something to be contrary to its best interest, only TWO results are possible- Sociey defeats what is contrary, or it must submit to what it contrary. Your challenge is meaningless since society need only affect enough change as to make any belief system it deems unaceptable, acceptable- otherwwise, the belief system is incorporated and Society itself changes to accomadate the belief system.
KSR... nice concept, horrible delivery.
The characters are dry, the dialogue weak- the problem is that the characters exsist solely for KSR to have an imagination driven romp through Mars- nothing wrong with that until Book 2 and 3- at this point you have established characters who apparently operate only to serve whatever plot direction KSR wants- which inevitably leads to characters acting in ways they shouldn't given their experiences or background. Don't get me wrong, I like KSR's ideas- just his writing blows.
Try the Honor Harrington series, by David Weber. - FUN FUN FUN- Start at the begining and work your way through all the series- if you like ONE, you will like them ALL.
Uplift series, by David Brin - Humanity joins the Universe and raises crearures to sentience
Ender series, by Orson Scott Card - his short stories are worthwhile, avoid his fantasy, it's udder crap - Enders Game is by far the best, the rest of the series just gets weaker until Ender's Shadow (which dosen't have to be read in order)
Beggars series, by Nancy Kress - phenomenal series dealing with advances in gentics, and the changes in humanity
Riverworld series, by Philip Jos? Farmer - everyone who ever died is brought back to life along a River that wraps around the entire world- bizarre and GREAT.
The Mote in God's Eye is a fun read.
1984 is a personal favorite, as well as A Brave New World- definite must read as the issues rasied in BOTH books are dealing with the science we enjoy today, or soon will
How about a shout out for Bradbury?
If you're interested in trying some decidely non-SF, try Choke by Chuck Palahnuiuk- you will not be disappointed. And if you need more of a recommendation, this is the guy who wrote Fight Club, which was THEN made into a movie. The man rocks, and his writing is exceptional.
Interestingly enough, history is full of stories of communities that put their religious convictions above community survival.
I don't suppose you could provide examples that might better illustrate your point.
In those "instances" where such an event takes place, we will be discussing communities that identified their "belief" as an integral part of the community- the "belief" in a sense, served to define the group. In those instances, community survival is linked to "belief" survival. To seperate the two would only serve to destroy the community anyways.
A more accurate statement, perhaps:
Interestingly enough, it would seem that history is full of stories of communities that LINKED their religious convictions TO community survival.
This statement, and this reality, only furthers to illustrate my overall point that Society looks to its long term survival- what they deem neccessary and important to that survival is ultimetly a question answered by themselves, as a group.
Interestingly enough, history is full of stories of communities that put their religious convictions above community survival.
I don't suppose you could provide examples that might better illustrate your point.
In those "instances" where such an event takes place, we will be discussing communities that identified their "belief" as an integral part of the community- the "belief" in a sense, served to define the group. In those instances, community survival is linked to "belief" survival. To seperate the two would only serve to destroy the community anyways.
A more accurate statement, perhaps:
Interestingly enough, it would seem that history is full of stories of communities that LINKED their religious convictions TO community survival.
This statement, and this reality, only furthers to illustrate my overall point that Society looks to its long term survival- what they deem neccessary and important to that survival is ultimetly a question answered by themselves, as a group.
For better or worse, right or wrong, religion always seems to trump reason.
Man is more than the sum of his desires.
If, as you contend, that religion "always seems" to trump reason, why is their progress? After all, religion is merely a system of belief that is supposed to bring order to a disordered universe- a common human trait. Yet, many of the advances we have enjoyed in our long human history have been the result of Reason, not Religion. While religion has been used as a means to coordinate groups, it is by no means an uncontrollable beast that dictates human action. Again, if religion is the "trump card" (as it were), how should we account for the western civilization moving beyond the limits of Church teachings? How do we explain technical and scientific evidence that only serves to discredit certain religions in of themselves? Wouldn't religion prevent such happenenings?
I have no doubt that humans will take religion with them, where ever they go, just like they will take germs, pests, hate, lust, want, altruism, and joy. However, religion, like the rest of the examples is a human condition that is ultimetly a product of being human- as a human condition, it falls into the sphere of our control.
Beliefs in themselves don't bring harm to anybody, so yes, I believe people have a right to believe in anything they want.
What about people who believe that their children should receive no vaccinations against highly communicable diseases. To force them to submit is to violate their "beliefs", to not do so allows for the endangerment of society. Their belief in of itself does not cause any harm- in this instance, it is distinctly the act of INACTION based on a belief that causes the problem. Would you hold in this instance still that Society has no right to intefere with someone's belief? Should porn peddlers and the like be free to "belive" what they want on school grounds, free to discuss their "beliefs" with adolecents? Or would you agree that Society does have a right to regulate the manner in which we express our beliefs?
Because the state is merely an abstract construct defined by imaginary borders and whoever has the power to exert rule.
Granted, yet those who exert power are allowed to do so by Society. The imaginary borders serve to delineate who belongs to which group, and which group is responsible for an individual. The power is derived by the consent of the governed, becuase those who exert control do so at the behest of the People. In those instances where individuals or small groups within society seize power or use their position to force their will onto the People, then it ceases to be a Society, and is merely a regime- it has no legality and should not even be considered a Government.
It's not a living entity, and the state doesn't necessarily always look out for the welfare of the individuals within it.
The State, by definition, is the welfare of everyone. When it no longer looks to represent the welfare of everyone, then it ceases to be a legal Society- it becomes one of master and slave, which is not a relationship, since it requires that one party give all and another party give nothing- that is exploitation.
When a state doesn't recognize the rights of individuals to be free, but instead
buses and enslaves its citizens in the name of some political idea and the public good, I would say that state has no right to exist.
I would say that the State no longer exsists, in its stead is a tyranny of individuals who maintain an exploitive relationship though force. That is not a State, that is not a Scoial Compact.
And I don't believe that by threatening an oppressive state your threatening to destroy all individuals within it.
One, "oppressive" can be subjective- one man's oppresion is another man's justice. Two, by threatening a legal State, you threaten the agreement between all individuals, the contract that binds the group together. By using, or advocating force to destroy this agreement, you are in effect arguing for the use of force against the very structure that is supposed to be the only legitimate user of force- the State. You are violating the very agreement of the Group in order to dissent from the rest of the Society. You are also establishing that the use of force is a legitimate means to settle disputes between individuals within society.
Look at the fall of the Soviet Union. Did the people rallying against the state at that time threaten to kill all of the individuals within? Not at all, they merely wanted to be freed from its anti-individualist, pro-statist policies.
The People in this instance were not rallying AGAINST the State, they were rallying for a NEW EXPRESSION of their WILL!
I'm talking about a good Monarchy.
Of course you are. What about those "bad" monarchies? Why allow that possibility?
People thought exactly like that, because before you could write a letter to the Czar asking him to do something.
Depending on the Monarchs lasting benevolance seems a bit short sighted considering the historical experience of concentrating legeslative and executive power in one individual. Is the Monarch required to read the letters? Is the Monarch required to even Act?
Because basically, if in Monarchy a peasant couldn't become a Czar,
in Democracy, it's very hard for a poor person to become the president for one simple reason.
No, in a Monarchy, the peaseant can NEVER, without possibility, ever be King. In a democracy, ANYONE can be President, even if they are poor, the possibility still remains open to them if they wish to pursue it. A monarchy implies that there are those who are special by virtue of birth alone.
As for the only one family being the Royal Family... being a Czar is WAY harder than being a president and not everyone wished to be the Czar.
So you are advocating for a system that precludes certain people from a position they may want, and forces certain people into a position they may not want- why not simply make it open to everyone so those who wish to do the job are able, and those who do not, do not have to- letting the rest of Society decide who is BEST for the job?
And as I said, poor men are NOT depended on the noblemen to represent their views. They can just write to the Czar. That is their God-given right.
But none of the nobility or the Czar himself is required to represent the will of the people- the peopel exsist only to be ruled, to follow the dictates of their masters- that is what the system you advocate for IS!
Thus the Czar had to make sure that everyone is happy.
No. The Czar had to make the people who maintained his ability to rule through the control of force happy. As long as he had sufficient strength to crush any opposition to his rule, there is no need to even consider the "peasants".
In Monarchy, the Monarh is a respected man, loved by his country.
Not quite. In a Monarchy, the Executive of the State is granted his title by God and by the right of Birth. The attitude of the subjects is made meaningless, they exsist for the Monarch to rule. The Monarch is given his title and power based on who he is, not his ability.
The only problem with that was that a non-noble could not achieve anything without going to the army. Still, once he's a noble the doors of court and civilian positions were open to him. Then he could achieve the same by climbing the ladder.
Could he become Czar? A monarchy is inherently EXCLUSIVE of others.
Of, course, poor men still will have a much harder time getting what they want, but so it is in democracy.
You are mixing economics with politcs. In a monarchy, poor men are dependant upon the rich noblemen to represent their views, yet the rich noblemen have no need to represent their views. In a Democracy however, all individuals, irregardless of social status, wealth, or education have the same weight in speaking on a particular issue. My say is just as valid as the "nobleman"- yet in a Monarchy, the "noblemen" by right of birth alone (not the Russian Leutinant example) has a greater say in how the Society will function.
Still, I think, colonists in space will need one man to look up to, at least for some time.
Why?
You stated:
I don't believe in the "right" of the state to regulate what anyone believes absolutely irregardless of what they believe.
However, this statement contradicts your previous post, which stated:
I believe people should be able to say, believe, or act anyway they wish as long as it
doesn't bring harm
You qualified "belief" in that individuals may not "belive" in something that brings harm to others, and since "beliefs" cannot be known unless their is action in words or in deeds, you end up making laws that do not allow certain beliefs, or in the very least, affect "beliefs".
Let us also define what "belief" is- do you consider it ONLY your private thoughts whihc go unshared, or is the mere act of exchanging your views the same as sharing your "beliefs". If it is the latter, then what if I have a belief of violently overthrowing the government, and installing myself as supreme leader- would you still contend that Society does not have a right to prevent the destruction of itself?
As for freedom of speech, well, I believe in limits only so far as libel or physical
threats to an INDIVIDUAL, and not the state.
Why do you differentiate between the State and the Individual? The State is merely the disembodied representation of ALL Individuals- so how can the rights of one superceed the rights of All? If you threaten to destroy the State, isn't in essence threatening to destroy All indiviudals?
But the real crux of the problem here is political free speech. Does an individual have the right to dissent against the political policies of the "state"?
There is NO problem here, we agree- Individuals DO have a RIGHT to make their voice, or opinion, known to the State. However, the State has a right to REGULATE the manner in which the dissent is expressed. Here in the States, we elect Rep's to make our voice heard- I can't go to the Senate floor and Vote, so I am denied a certain form of "dissent"- however, I may elect a different Rep. or tell others what they should tell their Rep- you see, my dissent, the way I am allowed to express myself is REGULATED- Where do we derive ANY Right to dissent in a PARTICULAR way? The only Right we have is that we are ALLOWED the opportunity to dissent from the State.
You put the rights of the state above the rights of the individual, which by logical
extension, means that if the state believes an individual is advocating political views which run contrary to those held by the state, the state has the right to ban such a person's speech.
The State may only ban the "speech" if it endangers Society- the same standards of libel and slander for individuals should apply to the State. And again, we as a community may decide on HOW people are allowed to express their point of view. What's wrong with that?
I for one hold that the state does not have a right to ban such a person's speech, that the individuals right to express his political speech over-rides that of the state's desire to suppress his political speech.
Yet what if the individual is inciting a riot and endangering the lives and property of others? In this instance, isn't it in Socities best interest to prevent the person from causing destruction? If it is, then that establishes that the State DOES have a right, in certain instances, to ban speech.
When I say I believe in an individual's freedom, I mean I believe that an individual should have political freedom from government coercion.
Think this statement throguh: An individual should not have to submit to Government coersion- you in effect are stating that NO ONE must pay taxes, obey laws, serve jail time for a crime, etc. This idea that the "Government" is coercing you is inaccurate- you as a member of Society, are also a part of the "Government". Which means that you agree to abide by the Laws in exchange the Government guareente's your Rights. Since you, as a member of Society, are part of Government, how can you coerce yourself?
I don't recognize a government's right, for instance, to institute a military draft to send people off to die or kill against their will, even if it means such a society is doomed.
Again, this statment is inaccurate. The "Government" isn't instuting a Draft, we, as members of Society, and the government as the executor of our SHARED Will, is instuting the draft. It is Individuals deciding as a Group that some of the Individuals within the Group must be used/sacrificed to protect the Group.
To get to the point, I believe the government only has a right to initiate force against an individual if that individual has already initiated force (by force I don't necessarily mean physical) against another person.
Government, or the Will Of The People, has a right to initiate force when individuals do not comply with the agreed upon laws. How can their be equality under the law if individuals are allowed to flout the laws?
I am at a loss when I try to understand why someone would advocate for elected represenatives to develop the law upon whihc we would all live under, yet wants an unelected Executor, who would be responsible for enforcing the laws. WHy do yuo feel comfortable with electing legislators, but not Executives?
How can the idea of equality, and equal application of the law apply exsist in a system that instutionilizes the idea that there are some who are fit to rule, and there are others who are fit only to be ruled?
A monarchy, in any form, is the living embodiment of "class", the premise being that there are those who are above the "ordinary" man. Is this a worthrwhile concept that should be perpetuated? If you hold that it is, you are implicitly supporting the idea that irregardless of MERIT, or ability, there are only certain opportunites that are available to those, solely depending on who gave birth towho and when.
If you argue for only a ceremonial role for a Monarch, how do you justify the idea that Society as a whole is responsible for maintaing the welfare of a family, and their prodigy, for the sole reason that they are who they are- in this instance, equality no longer exsist among all people- the simple creation of this instution establishes that there are those who, through no proof of merit, are ENTITLED to compensation.
I don't really believe there is a concrete thing as the "public good". What exactly is that?
Public good could be considered what is best for the maintence of liberty for everyone within Society. It is in the "public good" interest to have an open and free debate of ideas, however it is also in the "public good" interest to limit debate in certain instances, such as yelling Fire in a crowded theater. Here we have an example of two points of view that are both equally correct, yet are at odds with one another. Sometimes individuals must limit their personal freedom in order to maintain their overall liberty.
How should it be determined?
Ideally, everyone should have all the available information pertaining to the issue at hand, and everyone should have a say in any new laws passed.
I'm wary of giving any group of people the power to enforce what they believe to be in the "public interest."
Ahh, but you see, when a "group of people" within society are given this power to decide what is and isn't in the "public interest", and the Public itself is not consulted, then what we have is not a Society, but a Dictatorship. Small groups that form within Society leverage their position to have a greater influence on Society, the groups self interest is what ends up being represented, and not the publics interest.
I'm sure the Nazis believed they were acting in the "public interest" when they decided to eradicate Jews from their society.
Case in point- A small group ursurped the General Will of Society, and then made decrees (a decree is an order, or law, that is unjust and has no LEGAL power to compel others. Thios small group pushed their own agenda based on their own self-interest- The public interest, while used as the exscuse, was actually never represented.
I believe people should be able to say, believe, or act anyway they wish as long as it
doesn't bring harm (yes I know that word is opening a can of words) to other people.
In other words, you believe that Society may REGULATE what we say, what we believe, and how we act. That in a nutshell is what you have just stated. You have given a stipulation, or a baisc requirement, for others to belong to your version of Society (if you were to form your own). They may be a part of Society, and be free within this Society, as long as they do not Say, Belive, or Act in anyway that might harm others. Taking your argument to the logical conclusion, you advocate that the price of liberty is the loss of freedom. Do you still believe what you believe?
I especially couldn't support any regime which would seek to crush political dissidents in the name of society.
What, or who, do you consider a politcal dissident? There are many ways one can be "crushed", is economic sanctions against politcal dissidents more acceptable than violent oppresion, or is it equal? What of politcal sanctions? What if a Government doesn't recognize the legitmacy of a group who claim to represent the politcal views of a minority- the simple act of non-recognition to prevents a means for representation of views, which can have the same effect as physically crushing politcal dissidents. What if the politcal dissidents, say KKK members, advocate something at odds with the rest of society, and that their views may constutite a threat to our society- dosen't it behoove Society to squash it? In this instance, would you still agree that you "couldn't support" a regime, or a governemnt, that did this?
Dissent is the best thing to happen to a free thinking Society.
NO! Dissent is the WORST thing for a society. What is important though is that all individuals can make their voice heard. Dissent from the General Will should NEVER happen, becuase by definition, the General Will can never make a wrong choice, and if that is the case, dissenting from the General Will is CHOOSING the wrong choice. As an individual there is never a time where meeting your own self interest is better than meeting the General Will. Case in point, Defending the Country. The General Will decides to place individuals in harms way in order to protect the General Will of the Society. As an individual, this is ludicrous, since you may be sacrificing your life, or at the very least, putting yourself in harms way- you endanger your self for the welfare of the General Will. You do this to preserve the General Will, which ultimetly preserves you as an individual. An individual may dissent from the General Will by not participating in the Defense of the Country- How would that be in the best interest of a free-thinking Society? Every individuyal that dissents in this fashion weakens the whole. Individuals should be allowed to disagree on what is best, this is the best way to discuss what IS BEST for Society- however, once a decision has been made, no dissent can be allowed unless regulated by the General Will.
I don't think dissent would exist in your Society, though. If I'm understanding it properly.
No, it would not, becuase in an ideal Society there would be no need for dissent, since all Laws would be agreed upon, and only Just Laws would be introduced, there would be no need for dissent from the General Will- maybe you should define who is desenting and from what.
And a ditactorship wouldn't be able to exist because the General Will is based on just law and rule.
Amazingly, you are wrong. A dictatoraship may exsist, since a dictatorship is merely acts as a means to express the General Will. However, a dictatorship is fraught with the danger of the individual self interest that a dictator represents. There are times when the General Will may consider it advantagous to become a dictatorship, look to Socities in crisis, or in war- in such times, they often turn to the effeciency of action that only a dictatorship may provide. As Rosseau points out, the danger with a dictatorship is in allowing the Executor of the General Will become the Legislator of the General Will. Or put another way, that I believe Rosseau would agree with, those who enforce the laws should not be the ones to make the laws- that's why dictatorships don't last very long (or one of the reasons).
I admit that there was something weak with my statement, but I feel that the bigger our civilization gets, the less potential there is for slavery and so on.
There is always the danger of loss of liberty as long as there are two or more people. The greatest defense to a loss of liberty is an in crease in education, the ability to Reason and access to TRUE information to inform our Reason is the cornerstone of Society.
I would say that laws for a select few are the cause for every war or revolution.
Every war?
Why wouldn't we want work to be easy? Why wouldn't we want growing food to be easy? Why wouldn't we want, say, travel to be easy? Why wouldn't we want most things to be easy?
Sure, we want some things to be easy as possible- say like VOTING. However, my point is that we do not neccessarily want EVERYTHING to be easy. In the instance of disassociating from Society, as I was refering to, it is not neccessarily in Socities best interest to make it easy for people to leave Society, by making it easy, we endanger the long term stability of Society since at any moment people can up and leave, making the whole instution of Society questionable.
I find it amazing that we are agreeing so much. Maybe I'm just agreeing with Rosseau?
You are agreeing with my interpretation of Rosseau, so in a sense, you are agreeing with me. You really should read it for yourself. His arguments are so clear- if a bit complicated.
Personally I'll have to be the illogical one and say I support the rights of the individual over those of the society.
I doubt you really support this idea if you think through the ramifications of your statement. If you support the right of the individual versus those of society, you are in essence saying that the needs of one individual can superceed the needs of everyone else. As an individual, you have a right to freely assemble where and with whom you want- sounds great on the surface. Now lets say that you meet the same people all the time, and that many of them have been know to commit crimes. Let's even sya there is evidence to support that when your group meets, more crime takes place- isn't it the best interest of Society to limit these people from meeting each other- here we have individual rights being sacrificed for the right of Society to protect itself.
I believe it's basically acting in the best interest of society when individuals are allowed a very wide degree of political and economic freedom that can't be abridged by the government.
Define "wide degree". Exactly how much is that? The politcal freedom to enslave yourself and your children if you wish? The economic freedom to exploit others for maximum profit while destroying the environment? That kind of freedom, where the government is not allowed to stop these kind of actions?
What is society, after all, but the sum total of its individuals.
Exactly, and as such, the SUM of all individuals is greater than the PART- which means the SUM of our collective rights, ie Societies Right, must superceed the Individual Right, which is merely a part of the total.
In line with this topic, how can you legitametly support an argument that a dead person has the same rights as a living person, or failing that, how a dead body has ANY rights what so ever? If it has no rights, then there is no argument as to what can and cannot be done with the body, at least from the perspective of the deceased.
This sounds like direct democracy. Almost anarchy, to me. What kind of government are you talking about?
The type of government is largely irrelevant, since all governments are merely the expression of the General Will- some groups work better with a democracy, others with a Republic- the type of government is largey dependant on the group that will form it. What i am considering are the basic "principals" upon which any enduring Society should adhere to.
I guess you could say that Society can execute dissentors, but this Society sounds like a dictatorship to me.
On the face of this statement, I would agree- however, if Society (ie The General Will) dictates that disenters of a certain type should be executed for the welfare of the State, then that is Just. Should all dissenters be executed, NO, of course not- that works contrary to the welfare of the State- But let me provide you an example that puts this issue into perspective: Treason. One can make an argument that an act of Treason is merely one individual (or group) dissenting from the rest of Society- however, as a member of the Society, upon whom you draw your life and sustenance, you have violated the compact that exsists between you and others within your group. You have dissented from the General Will, The Group, Society (any way you want to put it) that endangers the welfare of Society- it is just to execute you since you pose a threat to Socities Welfare. Dissent, like everything else, can be REGULATED by Society.
People, being able to think freely, aren't going to put up with a dictatorship.
Sounds like a bet, and a bet you will lose. People, thinking freely, constantly submit to one form of dictatorship to another- how much freedom do you have in your job? How much freedom do you have in the apartment you rent from your landlord? What f the millions of free thinking individuals that currently live under dictatorships in their home countries? People will not put up with a dictatorship if it does not represent the General Will.
If a Society is not free, it cannot survive very long.
Human history suggests otherwise- of course maybe you should define "very long". American History has several hundred years of slavery- prior to that, most civilizations practiced slavery of one form or another, it still continues to this day- centuries of slavery... isn't that "very long"?
But, if you believe in god, I think it's fair to say that we have a god-given right to think for ourselves. Given that, I don't see why we wouldn't want things to be as easy as possible.
Really? Why would we want everything to be easy? Is it in our best interest to have passage of Constutional Ammendments as "easy as possible"?
Just laws are unnecessary. As they say, ?Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the law.
Rosseau would agree with you, however, this is a side issue- the point is that UN-Just laws are not laws, but decree's, and we as free-thinking individuals have no reason to follow them. Rosseau explains this principle better than I.
The ending of the Fable:
Once the monkies had fled to the mountains, each was hunted down by the villiagers of Chu. They were then killed and eaten in a great celebration to mark the New Year. Those monkies who were not caught, died of malnutruion during the droughts, and froze during the harsh winter months when no shelter was available. You see, the Monkey master provided the monkies with security from those who wished to devour them. He also provided them with medicine when they were ill, shelter when they were cold, and of course food, when there was little for them.
Yu-li-zi says, ?Some men in the world rule their people by tricks and not by righteous principles. Aren't they just like the monkey master? They are not aware of their muddleheadedness. As soon as their people become enlightened, their tricks no longer work.?
Some men in the world live like monkies, never looking beyond their own personal self-interest. They are not aware of thier muddleheadness.
Do you want to be a monkey?
Thank you John, you are getting there.
Yes, Rosseau discuss's the ideal society, which is as it says, an ideal, not the reality. The reality that you list is actually discussed by Rosseau in the Social Compact. The application of law to a select few is really a sign of th breakdown of social cohesion. What happens is that groups form within the Society- these groups develop Group Interests, and use their power as a group to influence or control the General Will- it is at this point that the General Will is no longer represented- it is a breakdown in the system.
As for why we should discuss this ideal at all, well, I thought the goal of any NEW society was to make it better than the previous- I say we revisit some of the tenets that Rosseau proposes for a just Society.
Maybe a form of government that does not allow for politcal association of Groups- thus NO parties may form- only individuals may assess the issues, as individuals. This would prevent one of the greatest threats to the stability of the General Will.
Some societies are objectively more free than others. So I think it's unfair for you to use this terminology since in many cases this free association you speak of is really quite the opposite.
Almost ALL societies have a means for individuals to no longer associate with that Society if they wish to, however the Society does have the right to regulate the fashion in which this takes place. There is no god-given Right for things to be "easy".
You cannot go without law, but you can certainly go without irrational authority. Which just so happens to be what most law is.
Law by definition is just. If a law is unjust, then it was, is, and never will be a law. It is immpossible to violate an unjust law, becuase by definition, unjust laws have no power and are merely the application of Self intrest, and have no power other than someone talking out their rear. Rosseau deals with this as well.
Some societies have laws and rules that are only applicable to a select few. Often for ideological reasons. To say that men are subjected to the same rules equally as women
in a muslim society is laughable at best.
Then those socieites are unstable and will eventualy fall. You must also alliow for others to decide on what is best for their society- some are not ready for the Civil Society, and not all are ready for the same form of government- the Loya Jurga works for Afghanistan, but not Britain- neither is right or wrong, they are merely the expression of self-determination.
Society you speak of doesn't exist. And if it did, it wouldn't have property laws. Otherwise you have to:
You call ME out for discussing about a Society that dosen't exsist- isn't that what we ALL are doing by discussing a future Mars?
) Eradicate those without property, as they are not part of Society.
Unnneccessary. The basic Right ov every Person is that they have the right to all that they need to exsist. This is how we derive the right to self defense- why it is NOT wrong to steal food if you are starving and no alternative to stealing exsists. As long as there is opportunity, then we're fine.
First, you state that the welfare of the society supersedes the welfare of the individual.
Not quite right, I stated that the rights of a living society superceed the rights and welfare of a DEAD individual. Furthermore, the welfare of Society ALWAYS superceeds the welfare of the individual, it is the basis of the Social Compact. We have a right to free speech, however, that right is limited in certain instances becuase it deemed neccessary for the welfare of society- if it were not, we wouldn't have laws about not yelling "Fire" in a crowded room- there are other examples of this precedent.
I believe that libertarians may have something to say about this, as well as some
of the more thoughtful gun advocates.
No, they will, or should, all agree with the premise that the welfare of Society is more important than the individual. If you think it through, you might begin to relaize that your individual welfare is ENSURED by Society- it is in our individual best interests to maintain the welfare of Scoiety, becuase it thus ensures our own. Now, some may disagree as to what is and what isn't important or neccessary for the welfare of Society, however, that is a seperate issue- the one of individual welfare versus Society's welfare is a closed issue... unless you can provide a convincing argument in the face of hstorical evidence.
Secondly, recycling bodies will have an insignificant effect on the welfare of a colony.
This is a moot point. Refrence my previous post, the reasons WHY are immaterial. If thier is a perceived need by Society, then Society has the right and duty to dispose of bodies in a manner they deem neccessary. arguing about wether or not it is really productive is an unproductive exercise.
Growth of food in greenhouses and extraction of water from the atmosphere or other sources, as well as supplies sent from Earth will far outweigh the few people who will die each year even in a colony of 1000 people.
So what? If it is DEEMED neccessary, then the colonists have that right. Even if you prove without a shadow of a doubt that more effecient avenues exsist to reach the same goal, it dosen't matter- it dosen't change the basic tenet that the wishes of Society superceed those of the individual.
Indeed, on Earth I don't know of a single country which practices mandatory organ donation after death, even though such a scheme could save significant numbers of lives each
year and would be very beneficial (but the analogy isn't very apt - organ donation is more significant than body recycling).
Yet mandatory organ donation is a possibility. Customs and what is considered "taboo subjects" change over time. Just becuase it isn't happening dosen't mean that it can't or that it isn't legal.
This is dependent on whether its colonists decide to pursue this course of action, and of course if a colony never 'needs' to use the dead then it's a moot point.
I fail to see the point of any of this statement- Of course ALL of this is mad irrelevant if the colonists choose not to do or do somethig- however, what I contend is that the colonists have the right to dispose of the bodies in a manner they choose, irregardless of the deads wishes.