All of you have it wrong

dicktice · 2003-09-02 12:28:03

surfer so sad has a nice point but (hopefully not sounding like a dick that i have been told i am) not everyone will want to be "educated" enough to run a government. There will always be people who just want to follow as long as they are hal-way happy with theway things are running. That was a good idea but a preverbial lottery for office doesn't look to effective to me.

Ahem...I'd like to know what's wrong with sounding like a "Dick"..?

Runnerbrax · 2003-09-03 07:45:17

{{Runnerbrax: "Surfer So Sad" ?! What is this? Look, if you can't respect people who don't share your opinions, I suggest you stop posting! Now that has been taken care of...}}

I apologize,no disrespect intended. I read fast through the posts and thought that, that was your forum name. And to prevent myself from falling back into the hole i created... end post

Josh Cryer · 2003-09-03 09:18:31

Haha, if you note my post, I did the same thing!

Sorry Surferosad.

Surferosad · 2003-09-04 10:53:29

Oh boy, now I'm the one who's red in the face! Sorry, Runnerbrax, I thought you were making fun of me...

Socrates · 2004-09-02 16:10:43

Excuse me runnerbrax but you seem to fail to grasp the idea that people can (at least in the far future) directly govern themselves if people could know anything or vote instantenously than humans in a nation could govern themselves. Athens thrived on a rather constricted but yes, direct democracy for hundreds of years so pardon me if I can't believe that humans can eventually learn to think for themselves and be "team players" as you called it (However, though I'm a socialist I'm not a communist).

Besides your lumping all the many diverse (but, at best, not quite as good as a republic)governments into two simplistic governmental systems.

Admittedly Winston Churchill was able to group all the world's forms of government's into two catagories but they differ from you groupings. Here is his grouping "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others"

Mundaka · 2004-09-11 21:26:44

RobS · 2004-09-11 22:51:05

I share a lot of the concerns people have expressed about professional politicians, image, and money. This election year in the U.S. will be a sad spectacle of two political parties squeezing about a billion dollars from their wealthy supporters--mostly for favors later--and using the money essentially to lie about the other side--mostly to generate fear in the voters that the other side will win--and to lie about how great they are as well. This system causes several severe distortions: (1) it makes the parties beholden to the contributors and thus they have to support or oppose something whether it is good for the country or not; and (2) it creates enormous suspicion on the part of the voters that politicians are lying crooks that can't be trusted. This may be one reason half the electorate doesn't vote; if they're all crooks, why vote? Finally, (3) it creates deep suspicion that government itself is bad and evil, when in fact government is simply the necessary nervous system and brain of the body.

In the last twenty years the partisanship has grown deeper and more dangerous. There are books written about this. It used to be that Democrat and Republican Congressmen would argue in the chamber, then go play golf and bridge together. Their families knew each other. They went on trips together. Now, a politician with a friend in the other party is viewed with suspicion. Dialogue has broken down. Nonpartisan efforts are harder and harder to create.

But does it have to be this way? I don't think so. It is possible to have non-competitive elections. However, a political system based on non-competitive elections needs several mechanisms our culture currently lacks:

1. The election must be focused on what the country needs, and not on candidates. The debate should be on issues and plans for the future. In the case of Mars, I'd set up a series of town meetings where everyone can talk about Mars's future, not just candidates, chaired by old graybeards who are respected and are not running for anything, and see what emerges.

2. Issues of character should be left to the media to investigate; politicians and parties should view their involvement in ad hominem matters with suspicion and revulsion. Right now, this ain't going to happen in the U.S. If we had a series of ex Presidents from both parties--Carter and Ford, for example--willing to set common high standards of political behavior and denounce violations of them, regardless of party, that would help put a check on silliness about who served or didn't serve and how they served in the military thirty years ago, a nonissue that simply distracts from the country's needs and generates endless emotion. Other countries have senior statemen and stateswomen who can be more or less neutral. India and Israel both have ceremonial Presidents, as well as Prime Ministers who ruin things. Britain has a monarch. Canada has an appointed Senate and a Governor-General. One problem the US has is that everyone is immersed in a partisan system and there are no figures who easily can rise above it.

3. The ultimate ideal is to hold elections with no campaigning, nominating, or electioneering at all. In other words, no one can stand up and say "don't vote for him"; they also can't stand up and say "vote for me." I can see a system working reasonably well when people run around and say "Mars needs x and y"; they don't need to say "and by the way, vote for me and I'll implement it." It will be obvious enough who is calling for what. The only way to make this arrangement work is to create the cultural value that voters are turned off by "egotism" when someone says "vote for me." That would greatly tone down rhetoric and keep the election focused on issues.

By the way, there is one place where this noncompetitive electoral system has been used and has functioned well for about 80 years: the Baha'i Faith. There are about six million Baha'is around the world. They vote in local elections every April to elect nine-person local governing councils to coordinate their local "congregrational" activities. They also elect a local delegate who attends a national convention every April to elect a national coordinating council, and every five years the 175 national coordinating councils meet to elect a nine-member worldwide governing body. All the elections occur without mentioning of any names, without nominations, and without campaigning. People meet, pray (to set the right atmosphere), then vote silently. The system seems to produce these results:

1. No one has any idea when they might be elected to something.

2. The people who are elected are not just the noisest and loudest. They don't have to be great orators; rather, they have to have become known because they did something.

3. Since there are no campaigns, there is no polarization between liberal and conservative views within the Baha'i community. This is something campaigning does: it focuses on small differences, magnifies them, exaggerates them, and divides people into competing blocks. When there can be no discussion of candidates, issues do not emerge sharply, so the populace and specifically the electorate does not become polarized. If Mars is a multinational society, avoiding polarization is immensely important; otherwise it could be Americans versus everyone else, Americans versus Europeans, Westerners versus Asians and Muslims, everyone versus Muslims, and a dozen other possible polarizations.

4. If there is no campaigning, there are no campaign promises and no money donated or spent on campaigns. Thus those elected are free to vote on something based on merit, rather than based on prior promises and commitments.

5. When there are no campaigns, there is no negativity about elections and candidates, and there is correspondingly greater esteem for, and trust in, government. Governments that are trusted and do not destroy that trust through corruption are able to do more and be more effective than governments that are well meaning, but are not trusted.

-- RobS

Morris · 2004-09-14 08:02:15

I share a lot of the concerns people have expressed about professional politicians, image, and money. This election year in the U.S. will be a sad spectacle of two political parties squeezing about a billion dollars from their wealthy supporters--mostly for favors later--and using the money essentially to lie about the other side--mostly to generate fear in the voters that the other side will win--and to lie about how great they are as well. This system causes several severe distortions: (1) it makes the parties beholden to the contributors and thus they have to support or oppose something whether it is good for the country or not; and (2) it creates enormous suspicion on the part of the voters that politicians are lying crooks that can't be trusted. This may be one reason half the electorate doesn't vote; if they're all crooks, why vote? Finally, (3) it creates deep suspicion that government itself is bad and evil, when in fact government is simply the necessary nervous system and brain of the body.
In the last twenty years the partisanship has grown deeper and more dangerous. There are books written about this. It used to be that Democrat and Republican Congressmen would argue in the chamber, then go play golf and bridge together. Their families knew each other. They went on trips together. Now, a politician with a friend in the other party is viewed with suspicion. Dialogue has broken down. Nonpartisan efforts are harder and harder to create.
But does it have to be this way? I don't think so. It is possible to have non-competitive elections. However, a political system based on non-competitive elections needs several mechanisms our culture currently lacks:
1. The election must be focused on what the country needs, and not on candidates. The debate should be on issues and plans for the future. In the case of Mars, I'd set up a series of town meetings where everyone can talk about Mars's future, not just candidates, chaired by old graybeards who are respected and are not running for anything, and see what emerges.
2. Issues of character should be left to the media to investigate; politicians and parties should view their involvement in ad hominem matters with suspicion and revulsion. Right now, this ain't going to happen in the U.S. If we had a series of ex Presidents from both parties--Carter and Ford, for example--willing to set common high standards of political behavior and denounce violations of them, regardless of party, that would help put a check on silliness about who served or didn't serve and how they served in the military thirty years ago, a nonissue that simply distracts from the country's needs and generates endless emotion. Other countries have senior statemen and stateswomen who can be more or less neutral. India and Israel both have ceremonial Presidents, as well as Prime Ministers who ruin things. Britain has a monarch. Canada has an appointed Senate and a Governor-General. One problem the US has is that everyone is immersed in a partisan system and there are no figures who easily can rise above it.
3. The ultimate ideal is to hold elections with no campaigning, nominating, or electioneering at all. In other words, no one can stand up and say "don't vote for him"; they also can't stand up and say "vote for me." I can see a system working reasonably well when people run around and say "Mars needs x and y"; they don't need to say "and by the way, vote for me and I'll implement it." It will be obvious enough who is calling for what. The only way to make this arrangement work is to create the cultural value that voters are turned off by "egotism" when someone says "vote for me." That would greatly tone down rhetoric and keep the election focused on issues.
By the way, there is one place where this noncompetitive electoral system has been used and has functioned well for about 80 years: the Baha'i Faith. There are about six million Baha'is around the world. They vote in local elections every April to elect nine-person local governing councils to coordinate their local "congregrational" activities. They also elect a local delegate who attends a national convention every April to elect a national coordinating council, and every five years the 175 national coordinating councils meet to elect a nine-member worldwide governing body. All the elections occur without mentioning of any names, without nominations, and without campaigning. People meet, pray (to set the right atmosphere), then vote silently. The system seems to produce these results:
1. No one has any idea when they might be elected to something.
2. The people who are elected are not just the noisest and loudest. They don't have to be great orators; rather, they have to have become known because they did something.
3. Since there are no campaigns, there is no polarization between liberal and conservative views within the Baha'i community. This is something campaigning does: it focuses on small differences, magnifies them, exaggerates them, and divides people into competing blocks. When there can be no discussion of candidates, issues do not emerge sharply, so the populace and specifically the electorate does not become polarized. If Mars is a multinational society, avoiding polarization is immensely important; otherwise it could be Americans versus everyone else, Americans versus Europeans, Westerners versus Asians and Muslims, everyone versus Muslims, and a dozen other possible polarizations.
4. If there is no campaigning, there are no campaign promises and no money donated or spent on campaigns. Thus those elected are free to vote on something based on merit, rather than based on prior promises and commitments.
5. When there are no campaigns, there is no negativity about elections and candidates, and there is correspondingly greater esteem for, and trust in, government. Governments that are trusted and do not destroy that trust through corruption are able to do more and be more effective than governments that are well meaning, but are not trusted.
-- RobS

Very interesting. At first I asked myself how it is possible for all Bahai's to know everyone else, then I realized that they don't have to as each body is elected by the next lower body. If I understand it, the Bahai way would remove universal suffrage for the higher offices, but would have the advantage that almost everyone personally knows the candidates they vote for.

RobS · 2004-09-14 17:45:45

Not knowing "who to vote for" is the biggest problem with the Baha'i system. This discourages people from voting, because everyone is a candidate, in a sense.

But this disadvantage has an advantage built into it. Why should everyone vote for two or three candidates? The system that selects those two or three tends to be corrupting because it requires intense competition and lots of money. When one can vote for anyone, the choices are wider, and in a way it matters much less who is elected. Also, the voting is always for councils of individuals, not for individual offices, so one is voting for nine people, not for one person. The nine-person assembly that is elected will have some people with more capacity for this and others with more capacity for that, so it will organize itself to use best the strengths available to it.

It is difficult, if one is a delegate to the National Convention, to know who to vote for in the entire nation for the nine-member National Assembly. One result of this is that incumbents have a tendency to get reelected. But in the competitive system they also have a tendency to get reelected; something like 99% of members of Congress that stand for reelection get reelected. But they get reelected in an atmosphere where someone else spends tens of millions of dollars to defeat them, and much of that money nowadays basically goes to slandering them. As a result, they have to slander back, and whoever is elected has a lot of mud stuck to them and a lot of voters that dislike them or distrust them. In the Baha'i system, people also tend to get reelected, sometimes for years, but at least they are trusted and they are free to serve well. They are also elected in a system that expects service as the highest ideal and goal. Finally, they are elected in a system whereby the next higher level can disqualify them for service if they are found to be corrupt. That happens by and large in our secular system as well; politicians that become corrupt are caught by the FBI and thrown is prison. The problem right now is that the system that is supposed to be protecting us from corruption through checks and balances is actually generating vast amounts of corruption and cynicism. And if it continues become more and more partisan, it could cause legislation to gridlock completely and necessary reforms to become impossible, causing needless misery.

-- RobS

~Eternal~ · 2004-09-14 20:26:32

If your going to insult anarchy and communism, go learn what it is first.

Algol · 2004-09-15 08:54:15

Or you could implement democracy in its truest form - the way the greeks (athens) did it. All officials and jury-men are elected by lot - obvioulsy you wouldnt have a president but a council. It encourages the development of a well educated populace for one thing.

Another interesting thing that they had - which i quite like - was ostracism - from the Greek word for potsherd. In this reverse election to decide which leading politician should be exiled for ten years, voters scratched or painted the name of their preferred candidate on a piece of broken pottery. At least 6000 citizens (which was a lot for back then) had to 'vote' for an ostracism to be valid, and all the biggest political fish risked being fried in this ceremonious way. For almost a hundred years ostracism fulfilled its function of aborting serious civil unrest or even civil war.

C M Edwards · 2004-09-15 14:13:43

reverse election to decide which leading politician should be exiled for ten years...

Washington, DC would clear out like New Orleans evacuating for a hurricane!

Gennaro · 2004-09-15 16:57:05

One of the worst problem with democracy is the professionalization of the political role. This is fundamentally a facet of the ever continuing specialization of production, which means democracy isn't really suitable for any sort of advanced society. Look at how democratic politicians are created!
They join a party at an early age and are not required to be wise or know about anything. Those who survive the long march through the corridors are those who have learnt to scratch the right backs at the right time in order to further their personal career advancement. Never mind the country, catering to short-sighted opinions, staying in favour with interest groups or the media (which contrary to what you might think is not currently free but concentrated on a few hands with a corresponding agenda) is what matters.

Politics is too important to be left to democratic career politicians (sophists). I suggest members of the legislative body should be appointed among the foremost of the country's institutions (military staff, universities, science institutions), whereby individuals of outstanding merit should be asked to do their duty and serve the community for a set period. This would do away with all the personal career and vested interest nonsense. It would also forestall the risk of the system deteriorating into an oligarchy of the rich.
In order to let the people have some influence you could institute two chambers sharing an equal amount of the mandates and relegate the democratic circus to that level.

In turn, the upper house could elect department heads to renew the government, the head of which would hold executive power.

Democratic society rests on the principle that every citizen (ideally) should have equal power to influence politics; I say the affairs of state should be decided by the most capable.
What they require is information about society's needs so freedom of speech is a cornerstone of the system as is public accountabilty of the decisions made.
Thirdly, there would have to exist a supreme court with the sole purpose of safeguarding the constitution.

And if all else fails, start a revolution!

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-15 18:29:44

One of the worst problem with democracy is the professionalization of the political role. This is fundamentally a facet of the ever continuing specialization of production, which means democracy isn't really suitable for any sort of advanced society.

Excellently stated.

What is it about those so-called "progressives" that makes them latch onto political systems that can only function in the most primitive societies? :laugh:

Rhetorical of course, I know exactly what it is. :;):

Morris · 2004-09-15 19:57:56

Thirdly, there would have to exist a supreme court with the sole purpose of safeguarding the constitution.

I would be very interested in seeing how you do this. In the US, a Supreme Court to guard the constitution (despite the fact that they have sworn to do so) is a contradiction in terms since the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. I would be very interested in a method of assuring a Supreme Court would really see the Constitution as primary, rather than their own decision. The U.S. Constitution could be interpreted as primary by pointing out that all rights not expressly given to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the People. However, I understand that recently the Supreme Court has decided unanimously against the people being able to override them. I guess the only way to get rid of them would be for Congress to impeach them. Now that would really be an interesting trial, impeaching Supreme Court justices for failing to defend the Constitution. But the current justices, especially those that are seen as being very conservative! (e.g. Rehnquist and Scalia), are among those who are most for the doctine that "the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is". Which proves how fundamentally false their "conservatism" is.

Gennaro · 2004-09-16 00:11:08

I would be very interested in seeing how you do this. In the US, a Supreme Court to guard the constitution (despite the fact that they have sworn to do so) is a contradiction in terms since the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. I would be very interested in a method of assuring a Supreme Court would really see the Constitution as primary, rather than their own decision.

Provided I understand this correctly, I don't think it would be that hard to make it work. When it comes to rights, for instance, the supreme court would only consider what is actually stated in the constitution, since my state does not recognize the universality of human rights as such. After all, there is no such thing.
What it does consider are citizen's rights (right to a fair and equal trial, free speech etc). There cannot, by the very definition of rights, be any right outside or above the state, since there are no rights in nature.

Excellently stated.
What is it about those so-called "progressives" that makes them latch onto political systems that can only function in the most primitive societies? :laugh:
Rhetorical of course, I know exactly what it is. :;):

LOL! Cobra, if you consider the impact of full disclosure might be too tough on the auditorium, you're of course not obliged to reveal what you exactly know if you don't care to.
:;):

Morris · 2004-09-16 08:34:46

There cannot, by the very definition of rights, be any right outside or above the state, since there are no rights in nature.

??? Of course there can. That's what the enlightenment doctrine of "natural rights" is all about. It is likely true that there can be no rights without reference to some kind of philosophical system, but this does not entail embodiment in a state.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-16 08:38:35

Of course there can. That's what the enlightenment doctrine of "natural rights" is all about. It is likely true that there can be no rights without reference to some kind of philosophical system, but this does not entail embodiment in a state.

Not in any objective, quantifiable sense. "Natural Rights" are all in our heads, with the possible exception of a right to fight for our own survival. In the absence of a state to guard and enforce them, rights are nothing more than an fragile agreement, easily broken whenever convenient. Not rights at all in the sense we generally think of them.

LOL! Cobra, if you consider the impact of full disclosure might be too tough on the auditorium, you're of course not obliged to reveal what you exactly know if you don't care to.

I'm sure it would spawn a ponderous discussion all its own. The mention of societal self-loathing alone will generate pages of flames, I'm sure. :laugh:

Gennaro · 2004-09-16 11:15:41

Of course there can. That's what the enlightenment doctrine of "natural rights" is all about. It is likely true that there can be no rights without reference to some kind of philosophical system, but this does not entail embodiment in a state.

The enlightenment doctrine has got it all wrong. A gazelle is a wonderful creature - considering a universe full of little else than icy dust it's almost priceless. Still it ends up leopard dinner if nature has its way, just like we would.

Nature is not the giver of rights. Rights are artificial and can only exist as an agreement between sentient parties. You can even create a charter of arbitrary "human rights" and present it to everyone who might be interested in signing it, if you wish. What you cannot do all the same is impose any such collection of rights upon anyone and working from the assumption that it has universal value, since that would require the authorization of a third party, who is God. A hypothesis of whose demands or existence we have no evidence.
In the words of Duns Scotius, the world is contingent, that is, it exists independently of the will of God.

I hold that humans objectively have emotions and the ability to sense compassion. This is the basis upon which we found our sense of righteousness and laws. Those are not dependant on some universal charter of "natural rights", which simply carries no objective reality at all.

Morris · 2004-09-17 15:52:08

Not in any objective, quantifiable sense.

Au contraire, my dear sir. They are quite quantifiable by any of a wide variety of social science measuring techniques. All that is required is the belief, not the codified law. Christianity before Constantine, for example.

Morris · 2004-09-17 16:22:40

The enlightenment doctrine has got it all wrong. A gazelle is a wonderful creature - considering a universe full of little else than icy dust it's almost priceless. Still it ends up leopard dinner if nature has its way, just like we would.

As for the enlightenment doctrine having it wrong, perhaps and perhaps not. However, it was a major philosophical foundation for one of the most successful societies the world has ever known. Many of the most forward-looking leaders of the 18th century in Europe felt it had a lot of merit, thus the doctrine was both "real" and influential. And much of it was embodied into law. While such embodiment is not necessary for rights to exist, they are, as you and Cobra have indicated, much more effective if such codification has occurred.

I don't really relate to the basic point of your gazelle example, though I do agree that one is a priceless creature. Evolution is much more sophisticated than you portray.

Have you ever seen the films showing how often they get away? If they didn't frequently get away, then there wouldn't be any for us to observe!

I'm not going to go into a discussion of the existence of God at this point, but I do point out that if there is one he/she would likely be the primary giver of "rights", just as enlightenment figures suggested. The fact that God is a hypothesis that you do not happen to believe has nothing to do with whether or not conceptions of rights based on the presumed existence of a God do exist and are influential.

I hold that humans objectively have emotions and the ability to sense compassion. This is the basis upon which we found our sense of righteousness and laws. Those are not dependant on some universal charter of "natural rights", which simply carries no objective reality at all.

Yes, I certainly think that human emotions and the capacity for empathy are heavily involved in the development of concepts of rights, justice, and other abstract goods. In fact, all these things reflect the objective nature of man. Because man is a "natural" creature, it is natural (in man's nature) for him to develop systems of justice, rights, etc. which are constrained in their efficacy according to whether or not such systems are consistent with man's deep and complex nature. Those systems that are most consistent with man's nature (whether divine or not) will be most influential and long-lasting. Thus a concept of "natural rights" can be fully objective and does not require any reference to a third-party God to give it meaning.

Palomar · 2004-09-17 18:26:12

The enlightenment doctrine has got it all wrong. A gazelle is a wonderful creature - considering a universe full of little else than icy dust it's almost priceless. Still it ends up leopard dinner if nature has its way, just like we would.
As for the enlightenment doctrine having it wrong, perhaps and perhaps not. However, it was a major philosophical foundation for one of the most successful societies the world has ever known. Many of the most forward-looking leaders of the 18th century in Europe felt it had a lot of merit, thus the doctrine was both "real" and influential. And much of it was embodied into law. While such embodiment is not necessary for rights to exist, they are, as you and Cobra have indicated, much more effective if such codification has occurred.

*It seems 18th century Enlightenment philosophy is often misconstrued as believing and fostering the notion that the world is a lovely, warm place full of dreams and benevolence. Voltaire's _Candide_ pointed out repeatedly that the world is usually anything *but* that.

There were elements of utopianism in it. But that era's philosophers believed the use of reason could guide mankind to a better future than superstition ever could, etc. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was more of a utopian -- and he was actually quite opposed to many Enlightenment ideals.

But the Enlightenment philosophers, overall, were also very much realists. Voltaire worked for liberty and justice, and hoped to see it become commonplace -- however, he had a certain level of cynicism in him which doubted it would ever be so. Denis Diderot was one of the most worldly and blunt of the philosophers; he definitely -didn't- see the world through rose-colored glasses. :laugh: Thomas Paine was a bit overly optimistic in some areas; Benjamin Franklin was a realist.

They hoped for a better future, they worked to see the advancement of science, reason, education, justice, equity, etc., etc. They wished for future generations a better quality of life and opportunities which their generation didn't know. The eradication of the smallpox scourges, an end to slavery and humane treatment of animals were just some of the "causes" they fought for.

But they didn't have their heads in the clouds. They had their optimisms, but were also very practical and realistic. It's a very fascinating era to read about; intricate and multifaceted...it can't easily be "pigeon-holed."

And now I'm falling in love with Voltaire all over again...

--Cindy

Gennaro · 2004-09-17 23:26:07

As for the enlightenment doctrine having it wrong, perhaps and perhaps not. However, it was a major philosophical foundation for one of the most successful societies the world has ever known.

Every idea has its place in the sun. However, it doesn't serve us very well anylonger. And personally, I prefer truth rather than a noble lie.

Many of the most forward-looking leaders of the 18th century in Europe felt it had a lot of merit, thus the doctrine was both "real" and influential.

Darwin wasn't around in that day.

Evolution is much more sophisticated than you portray. Have you ever seen the films showing how often they get away? If they didn't frequently get away, then there wouldn't be any for us to observe!

And in what sense does this observe the rights of the prey?

I'm not going to go into a discussion of the existence of God at this point, but I do point out that if there is one he/she would likely be the primary giver of "rights", just as enlightenment figures suggested. The fact that God is a hypothesis that you do not happen to believe has nothing to do with whether or not conceptions of rights based on the presumed existence of a God do exist and are influential.

The point is not what I happen to believe. The point is there is no proof of his existence or this entity's particular intentions. No connect between what some may have dreamed upon about him (like the ten commandments, or that Hebrews are some chosen people, for example) and what we can observe around us. So every time someone comes along waving a piece of paper saying you can't do this because it's against the "rights of man" (meaning, because my imagined god says so) it's fraud by definition.

Yes, I certainly think that human emotions and the capacity for empathy are heavily involved in the development of concepts of rights, justice, and other abstract goods. In fact, all these things reflect the objective nature of man. Because man is a "natural" creature, it is natural (in man's nature) for him to develop systems of justice, rights, etc. which are constrained in their efficacy according to whether or not such systems are consistent with man's deep and complex nature. Those systems that are most consistent with man's nature (whether divine or not) will be most influential and long-lasting.

In other words, you agree that rights, even the concept of construing justice in the form of rights, are only a man-made agreement.

By the way Morris, I won't try to rob you off your belief in western man's God. You just continue believing in whatever you like.
I believe in what I observe and on that basis I would define everything that civilization creates, justice, the social contract, laws, self-constraint - civilization itself - as a departure from what is typically nature, wherein everything only thinks about itself. Civilization is all artificial, but therein lies its very greatness. It's more than nature.
In that sense every cultural creation is also a unique construct, seperated from each other by the amoral wilderness which is nature (not "immoral", amoral in the sense of ethical neutrality).
To believe that there is some objectively true civilization in other words, having the "right" to override the others, is a fallacy.
(Of course, civilizations and political entities invade, conquer and suppress each other all the time, it's the excuses I resent.)

*It seems 18th century Enlightenment philosophy is often misconstrued as believing and fostering the notion that the world is a lovely, warm place full of dreams and benevolence. Voltaire's _Candide_ pointed out repeatedly that the world is usually anything *but* that.

It's correct the Enlightenment is a complex, evolving phenomenon and does not entail just one opinion or attitude.
If I recall, Candide itself signifies a radical shift in Voltaire's thinking with relevance to this discussion.

Every person has a sort of genealogy or etymology to his or her thinking and I should come clear about mine. It goes something like this:

Plato
Scholastic realism
Phenomenology
Existentialism

Likewise, the idea of "natural right" genealogically relies on the metaphysical assumption of an intention within creation itself. It's called teleology. But in truth there is obviously no intention, only product, or if there is, it's not a particularly nice one.

I should also admit that I prefer Hobbes to Locke. Not because he's a nicer guy, but because he is honest.

Palomar · 2004-09-18 06:07:36

If I recall, Candide itself signifies a radical shift in Voltaire's thinking with relevance to this discussion.

*You probably know this already: Candide was Voltaire's reaction to the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 (a very catastrophic event for those days) and a response to (in parody form) the Leibnitzian philosophy (ala Dr. Pangloss).

I've not read Hobbes. Have read references to and comments about "Leviathan" and etc., but of course that's not the same as actually reading his material.

Voltaire wrote an article of refutation called "Against Hobbes." Might be of interest. Of course Voltaire isn't the be-all/end-all of philosophical knowledge (I have points of disagreement with him as well, in various matters), but I thought I'd mention it. Also, I'm not sure at what age Voltaire wrote "Against Hobbes," i.e. if before, after or around the time of Candide; I don't have a literary timeline for Voltaire available to me.

My favorite "renegade" philosopher would be Machiavelli.

There's an objective world, IMO; but there is also the issue of what we agree to and with.

Perhaps this is going a bit too far off-topic. Just wanted to add a few more comments.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-18 07:00:16

It seems fair to say that the Enlightnment, like so many other political/philosphical shifts in human history, had some golden nuggets of wisdom worthy of enshrining and some big lumps of dung to be buried and forgotten.

Rights for individuals are the former, but the idea that they exist in nature, independent of the state is philosphical excrement. Which is not to say the state can arbitrarily abridge them, accepting the idea of rights entails full adherence, otherwise it's meaningless. But the very possibility of such abuse seems to negate any claim to "natural rights" put forth.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-09-02 12:28:03

Re: All of you have it wrong

#27 2003-09-03 07:45:17

Re: All of you have it wrong

#28 2003-09-03 09:18:31

Re: All of you have it wrong

#29 2003-09-04 10:53:29

Re: All of you have it wrong

#30 2004-09-02 16:10:43

Re: All of you have it wrong

#31 2004-09-11 21:26:44

Re: All of you have it wrong

#32 2004-09-11 22:51:05

Re: All of you have it wrong

#33 2004-09-14 08:02:15

Re: All of you have it wrong

#34 2004-09-14 17:45:45

Re: All of you have it wrong

#35 2004-09-14 20:26:32

Re: All of you have it wrong

#36 2004-09-15 08:54:15

Re: All of you have it wrong

#37 2004-09-15 14:13:43

Re: All of you have it wrong

#38 2004-09-15 16:57:05

Re: All of you have it wrong

#39 2004-09-15 18:29:44

Re: All of you have it wrong

#40 2004-09-15 19:57:56

Re: All of you have it wrong

#41 2004-09-16 00:11:08

Re: All of you have it wrong

#42 2004-09-16 08:34:46

Re: All of you have it wrong

#43 2004-09-16 08:38:35

Re: All of you have it wrong

#44 2004-09-16 11:15:41

Re: All of you have it wrong

#45 2004-09-17 15:52:08

Re: All of you have it wrong

#46 2004-09-17 16:22:40

Re: All of you have it wrong

#47 2004-09-17 18:26:12

Re: All of you have it wrong

#48 2004-09-17 23:26:07

Re: All of you have it wrong

#49 2004-09-18 06:07:36

Re: All of you have it wrong

#50 2004-09-18 07:00:16

Re: All of you have it wrong

Board footer