Re: Bad govt represents bad people?
Tim says:
To clarify my meaning, "people deserve the government they get" is short for saying that the evil, repressive, godforsaken government than everyone complains about is mostly their own doing. Majority rule, the will of the herd, etc.
I certainly wasn't saying that *all* people asked for it.
Right, and I was saying maybe not even majority rule or will of the herd, but a system with a dynamic of its own. People get the government they don't know how to stop. I don't know what to expect of everyday people when even the brightest anarchists haven't found a working solution. --Steve - - - - - - - - - - It is said a Shao Lin priest can walk through walls. Looked for, he cannot be seen. Listened for, he cannot be heard. Touched, he cannot be felt.
Steve Witham writes
Right, and I was saying maybe not even majority rule or will of the herd, but a system with a dynamic of its own. People get the government they don't know how to stop. I don't know what to expect of everyday people when even the brightest anarchists haven't found a working solution.
Actually several solutions were discovered long ago. After Athenian democracy self destructed, the various warring parties found that they could only have peace if they disowned omnipotent government. They put together a peace agreement that in part proclaimed limits to government, in part acknowledged inherent limits to what was proper for governments to do and in part guaranteed that the government would not go beyond what it was proper for government to do, that the majority could not do as it pleased with the minority, that not any act of power was a law, that law was not merely whatever the government willed. They did not agree on a constitution but agreed to respect an unwritten constitution that already existed in some sense. A similar arrangement underlies the American constitution (now defunct) and the English declaration of right (also defunct) The problem with such formal peace agreements is that they can only be put together after government has substantially collapsed. Some of us wish to try other possibilities in the event of collapse. The American constitution collapsed because of the rise of nominalist theories "The constitution says whatever the courts say that it says." If they needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, why did they suddenly decide that they did not need a constitutional amendment to ban cocaine and tommy guns? Despite frequent violations, the American Constitution was substantially observed for 150 years, and only was massively violated with the rise of nominalism. Rand's theory of concepts seems like hokum to me, but her argument that philosophy matters is absolutely true. Rights and sound philosophy are like condoms. The usual cause of condom failure is that you did not actually wear the condom when you should have.
Actually several solutions were discovered long ago. After Athenian democracy self destructed, the various warring parties found that they could only have peace if they disowned omnipotent government. They put together a peace agreement that in part proclaimed limits to government, in part acknowledged inherent limits to what was proper for governments to do and in part guaranteed that the government would not go beyond what it was proper for government to do, that the majority could not do as it pleased with the minority, that not any act of power was a law, that law was not merely whatever the government willed.
specifically what period are you referring to here? josh
I wrote:
After Athenian democracy self destructed, the various warring parties found that they could only have peace if they disowned omnipotent government.
joshua geller writes
specifically what period are you referring to here?
The guys that I praised were the same bunch as executed Socrates. Now you may well say that that shows that the new arrangement was seriously imperfect. But remember that Critias, Socrates disciple, had led the thirty. When they said that Socrates ideas had undermined society they were not talking about falling church attendance and teenagers screwing in the back seats. They were talking about the reign of terror, civil war, the massive destruction of property, and large scale massacres. Indeed it was clearly a violation of the "The ancient laws and customs of Athens" to execute Socrates, but after the peace agreement such violations were rare, whereas before the peace agreement massive violations had become routine and normal, eventually reaching such a scale that democracy became irrelevant before it actually fell. Of course bad philosophy should be fought with good philosophy, not by executing bad philosophers. I hope, and confidently expect, that after democracy collapses in the west we will remember that. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we James A. Donald are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. jamesd@netcom.com
participants (3)
-
jamesd＠netcom.com -
joshua geller -
sw＠tiac.net