[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I do have a question: Aren’t you a devout believer? I am surprised that you said “ideas” rather than “God.”[/quote]
Yes, and why? [/quote]
Because you said that you believed ideas to rule the world. Surely God trumps ideas.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Because you said that you believed ideas to rule the world. Surely God trumps ideas.[/quote]
Without a doubt, and if I believed that God is really concerned about this world, then I would have said that God rules this world.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Because you said that you believed ideas to rule the world. Surely God trumps ideas.[/quote]
Without a doubt, and if I believed that God is really concerned about this world, then I would have said that God rules this world. [/quote]
Ah OK. It’s clear I misunderstood your belief.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Because you said that you believed ideas to rule the world. Surely God trumps ideas.[/quote]
Without a doubt, and if I believed that God is really concerned about this world, then I would have said that God rules this world. [/quote]
Ah OK. It’s clear I misunderstood your belief.[/quote]
That would be easy to do. I have a hard time reconciling the faith that many Christians/church-goers claim to have in a loving God with their belief that God is actively involved in the day-to-day lives of people on Earth. If one has that view of God, God permits sin, and God punishes sin without revealing Himself, which is easily within His power, then I think it would be hard to say that God is loving. The God that many seem to believe exists is suspiciously like a human priest or preacher.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m particularly interested in answers from people on the left.
What are the legitimate functions of government?
If you’re interested in my opinion, I’d urge you to read this short essay by Frederic Bastiat:
http://www.bastiat.org/en/government.html
If you have the time you might be interested in Bastiat’s The Law
http://www.bastiat.org/en/government.html[/quote]
Well I will try to answer Your question.
To make it simple I am going to treat the term “Government” as an synonym for the term “State”. I understand a state to be a institution who has a monopoly of violence within its geographical Reach and its main purpose is to govern the society. In my view a state is only legitimate when it is controlled by the governed( the People it governs ) and that it has some limitation regarding what it can do towards its Citizens. In other Words a liberal-democratic state( A “demokratisk rettsstat” in Norwegian ).
Besides this I considers the role of this democratic state to make decisions on matters that concern the Whole of the People, wich follows from the idea that “collective matters should be decided on by the collective”. Furthermore I see it as an legitimate role for the state to implement policys wich aims to improve the society. This can be policys to combat poverty, to enhance the general education among its citizens, to extend the Democracy to the workplace, to regulate the economic sphere to prevent damage to humans and the eco-system and so on. So in simple speach I am for a welfare-state, but also a activist state.
I Guess that sheds some light on my view of “the role of the government”
EDITED.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m particularly interested in answers from people on the left.
What are the legitimate functions of government?
[/quote]
Do government have right to collect taxes? Well, they collect them anyway and I see no point in pursuing something that utopian as a taxfree society. So the next question is for what purposes taxes can be collected, and that is probably the list of legitimate functions.
It depends where you are and what you have. I have scanty interest in ideals, though I don’t deny their usefulness. Without ideals no guides for action, either.
I don’t believe in any universal on-size-fits-all solution. Classic american model have worked fine, social-democratic models have worked in northern Europe. Basically it is a balancing with too little government services and too much. A functioning society is an effective one, something the whole western world seems to be missing at the moment.
[quote]florelius wrote:
Well I will try to answer Your question.
To make it simple I am going to treat the term “Government” as an synonym for the term “State”. I understand a state to be a institution who has a monopoly of violence within its geographical Reach and its main purpose is to govern the society. In my view a state is only legitimate when it is controlled by the governed( the People it governs )
[/quote]
Majoritarianism is mobocracy. A state controlled by a mob will collapse into dictatorship in no time at all. History shows this to be demonstrably true. It’s why the American Revolution succeeded and the French Revolution didn’t. The federalists set up a bicameral legislature and Jacobins set up The Committee of Public Safety.
No, liberal democratic states inherently interfere with individual liberty and enact positive(coersive) rights and shun negative(non interference) rights.
The interests of the “whole of the people” is an abstraction. The interests of different factions are at odds with each other. For example pro-lifers and pro-choicers, the rich and the poor, the popularis and the optimates etc.
Yes I know what you’re for.
[quote]
I Guess that sheds some light on my view of “the role of the government”
EDITED.[/quote]
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Do government have right to collect taxes?
[/quote]
Governments don’t have rights; people do. Is collecting taxes a legitimate function of government? If collected in a legitimate way and spent on legitimate things.
I think Europeans won’t realise what rights they’ve lost until they desperately need to exercise them.
And since I am not for mob rule, I want to put some limitations on the state( as stated in the quote by me under. Limitations means basic liberal concepts such as: freedom of speech, to form non-violent Groups/gatherings, right to a fair trail etc. Also limitations in my view means that the state should not torture, execute, spy( Without good reason ) on People.
“…and that it has some limitation regarding what it can do towards its Citizens. In other Words a liberal-democratic state( A “demokratisk rettsstat” in Norwegian )…” ( quote by me )
Libral-democracy in this context simply refers to a democratic state( representativ ) wich is constrained by a constitution. The Norwegian term rettstat refers to the concept of the rule of Law.
I actually agree With this and ergo is Democracy a sensible form of government since it acts as an platform where this differences can be battled out in a non-violent way.
You asked I answered.
Edited to fix quotes.
[quote]florelius wrote:
And since I am not for mob rule, I want to put some limitations on the state( as stated in the quote by me under. Limitations means basic liberal concepts such as: freedom of speech, to form non-violent Groups/gatherings, right to a fair trail etc. Also limitations in my view means that the state should not torture, execute, spy( Without good reason ) on People.
“…and that it has some limitation regarding what it can do towards its Citizens. In other Words a liberal-democratic state( A “demokratisk rettsstat” in Norwegian )…” ( quote by me )
Libral-democracy in this context simply refers to a democratic state( representativ ) wich is constrained by a constitution. The Norwegian term rettstat refers to the concept of the rule of Law.
I actually agree With this and ergo is Democracy a sensible form of government since it acts as an platform where this differences can be battled out in a non-violent way.
You asked I answered.
Edited to fix quotes.[/quote]
We differ on how to go about achieving those things. With competing factions in society who are at odds with one another, the best remedy is a system based around negative rights - a right to non-interference. As in, I have a right not to be forced to bake a gay cake or buy someone else’s abortifacients. As opposed to a system based around positive rights - as in, I have a right to force this guy to make me a gay cake or force this guy to pay for my abortifacients.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Do government have right to collect taxes?
[/quote]
Governments don’t have rights; people do. Is collecting taxes a legitimate function of government? If collected in a legitimate way and spent on legitimate things.
I think Europeans won’t realise what rights they’ve lost until they desperately need to exercise them. [/quote]
Well this falls into the same category as governments don’t have rights, people do. What Europeans?
So what rights did Europeans have that they lost?
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Do government have right to collect taxes?
[/quote]
Governments don’t have rights; people do. Is collecting taxes a legitimate function of government? If collected in a legitimate way and spent on legitimate things.
I think Europeans won’t realise what rights they’ve lost until they desperately need to exercise them. [/quote]
Well this falls into the same category as governments don’t have rights, people do. What Europeans?
So what rights did Europeans have that they lost? [/quote]
At the bare minimum, an implied right to freedom of speech upheld by the judiciary?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
And since I am not for mob rule, I want to put some limitations on the state( as stated in the quote by me under. Limitations means basic liberal concepts such as: freedom of speech, to form non-violent Groups/gatherings, right to a fair trail etc. Also limitations in my view means that the state should not torture, execute, spy( Without good reason ) on People.
“…and that it has some limitation regarding what it can do towards its Citizens. In other Words a liberal-democratic state( A “demokratisk rettsstat” in Norwegian )…” ( quote by me )
Libral-democracy in this context simply refers to a democratic state( representativ ) wich is constrained by a constitution. The Norwegian term rettstat refers to the concept of the rule of Law.
I actually agree With this and ergo is Democracy a sensible form of government since it acts as an platform where this differences can be battled out in a non-violent way.
You asked I answered.
Edited to fix quotes.[/quote]
We differ on how to go about achieving those things. With competing factions in society who are at odds with one another, the best remedy is a system based around negative rights - a right to non-interference. As in, I have a right not to be forced to bake a gay cake or buy someone else’s abortifacients. As opposed to a system based around positive rights - as in, I have a right to force this guy to make me a gay cake or force this guy to pay for my abortifacients.
[/quote]
Regarding the cake issue I have mixed feelings.
Regarding the second I have no problem, since Your “forced” simply means taxation, I Guess you are not against the concept of taxes? But yes we disagree on what the state should do and use taxes on. I think when it comes Down to it we disagree more when it comes to the base( the economy ), rather than the superstructure( the state ).
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
At the bare minimum, an implied right to freedom of speech upheld by the judiciary?[/quote]
You are talking about EU? Leave at least Norway and Switzerland out, then. And Russia.
[quote]With competing factions in society who are at odds with one another, the best remedy is a system based around negative rights - a right to non-interference. As in, I have a right not to be forced to bake a gay cake or buy someone else’s abortifacients. As opposed to a system based around positive rights - as in, I have a right to force this guy to make me a gay cake or force this guy to pay for my abortifacients.
[/quote]
I would accept a system based around negative rights.
As long as it does include the past and future generations and the non-human species in the radius of its “non-interference”.
But i’m afraid the end result would not be a quasi-libertarian minarchist state.
[quote]kamui wrote:
I would accept a system based around negative rights.
As long as it does include the past and future generations and the non-human species in the radius of its “non-interference”.
[/quote]
Rights for non-human species? Like legally enforced veganism and manslaughter charges for stepping on an ant? No. Once you start granting “rights” to animals you quickly get lost in moonbattery. Animals don’t have “rights” but rather humans have moral and legal obligations to not be cruel to them. The obligation to not to be cruel to an animal should be enforced on threat of sanction. This is in accordance with divine law - ie, the Noahide prohibition on eating the flesh of an animal while it’s still alive.
It all depends on the ability of a “limited government” to maintain the monopoly of force both against internal and external threats. The rise of internal and external threats lead to increases in the size and scope of government - eg, internal threat: secessionism >> suspension of habeas corpus, martial law, mass conscription, war powers etc. and external threat: 911 >> patriot act, domestic surveillance, mass wire tapping, Homeland Security Dept, TSA colonoscopies etc.
A minarchist model is predicated upon an absence of internal and external threats. It’s also predicated upon stable economic conditions so the state does not need to overly regulate the market. These are not conditions achieved very often or that last very long.
Veganism and most of the current brands of “antispecism” are essentially irrational manifestations of anthropomorphism.
And this anthropomorphism makes them totally unable to propose a satisfying alternative to anthropocentrism.
A coherent “biocentric” system would simply try to preserve and promote biodiversity at an ecosystemic level.
Something that would obviously NOT attempt to transform the 3/4 of the biosphere into soja crops in the hope to “save” a few cute things of their naturally omnivorous predator.
For the record, i’m one these strange “green radicals” that are perfectly ok with nuclear energy, globalization and the development of megalopolis.
[quote]
Once you start granting “rights” to animals you quickly get lost in moonbattery.[/quote]
I’m inclined to think that the same thing happens once you start granting rights to humans.
Which make me think that the issue may lie within the concept of rights itself.
[quote]
Animals don’t have “rights” but rather humans have moral and legal obligations to not be cruel to them. The obligation to not to be cruel to an animal should be enforced on threat of sanction. This is in accordance with divine law - ie, the Noahide prohibition on eating the flesh of an animal while it’s still alive.[/quote]
I do agree that “objects of duty” make much sense than “subject of rights”.
A parliament of birds and trees would obviously be nothing more than a sinister farce.
But this alone would require to make huge changes to our current system.
Changes that are unlikely to happen anytime soon. And that would certainly not be sustainable at a large scale and at our current demographic levels.
[quote]
It all depends on the ability of a “limited government” to maintain the monopoly of force both against internal and external threats. The rise of internal and external threats lead to increases in the size and scope of government - eg, internal threat: secessionism >> suspension of habeas corpus, martial law, mass conscription, war powers etc. and external threat: 911 >> patriot act, domestic surveillance, mass wire tapping, Homeland Security Dept, TSA colonoscopies etc.
A minarchist model is predicated upon an absence of internal and external threats. It’s also predicated upon stable economic conditions so the state does not need to overly regulate the market. These are not conditions achieved very often or that last very long. [/quote]
Indeed.