Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (15620)	9/4/2001 2:36:14 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

I am as guilty of doing this as anyone but when we talk about the theoretical duties of government we really should be more specific about what level we are talking about. For example, in this one sentence you cite a duty of the Federal Government, and without hardly a breath, follow with a duty of a local city or town. There is no good way to decide how much people benefit from having the American Navy keep the sea lanes free, or having patrol cars go through their neighborhood. Yes, government must fulfill both of those functions, but states must not be in the business of patrolling international waters, and the Federal Government MUST NOT be in the local police business (though they are trying to be). I don’t think I am being picky in pointing this out. I have seen a lot of pointless arguments hinged on a misunderstanding of this point.

To: Neocon who wrote (15620)	9/4/2001 2:51:52 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

It seems to me that the only way you can avoid being deemed a part of the contract is if you remove yourself from human society. Otherwise, Socrates's argument in The Crito comes into effect: that having lived under and taken advantage of the laws of the polis, you owe them (the Laws) even when they appear to disfavor you. (Need I remind you, I am talking abstractly, and not considering severely oppressive laws). Thus, if you live in society, you have acquiesced, unless you are actively rebelling. Society is not an independent thing it is an organization of individuals and it exists for the individuals not the other way around. If other individuals acting by themselves or as part of some greater organization give me some benefit that I did not specifically contract for then I an not rightfully obligated to pay for it. I may feel it is the right thing to do but that is not the same as them having a right to force me to pay. I did not move in to this society and sign myself to be under it to get permission to get inside the gates. I'm talking very abstractly here. I am a person. The rest of society besides me is a number of people. If they decided to force something on me, and I either don't care enough to fight or am to afraid to fight, or think the thing is bad but that the fighting will be even worse that doesn't mean I have accepted that what society chooses to do is by default just, or that others have a right to take from me. I agree that government is sui generis in the sense that it is somewhat unique but I don't think it is of a totally different nature then other organizations. It is just the most powerful one in a particular country. As a practical matter I might pay my taxes either for the benefit that paying taxes allows the prevention of a likely violent anarchy or because the government is strong and it insists on the taxes, but I consider government just a useful tool not a specially privileged organization that is innately superior to any other group or even a single individual. We make decisions about the level of services and how to pay for them collectively. That is what democracy is about..... Democracy is only one form of government. I was talking about government in general. In democracy you have the benefit that atleast in theory the government can not consistently act against the wishes and interests of the majority but when it moves against the minority the effect can be little different then when a dictatorship moves against some segment of society. In practice democracies might tend to respect minorities a bit more then many dictatorship, but I am talking more in the abstract. I am also talking about unjust actions of governments now how the decision to act is made. Democracy is a more just way to make the decision then having it be made by a dictator who is not answerable to the people but even with a fair and just process you can have an unjust outcome. Tim