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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (119200)	11/11/2003 1:05:57 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The issues you raised boil down to two things: the majority are due to undemocratic practices in a democratic society. For example, if you were to take a vote on if Americans agree with most corporate welfare programs (agriculture, steel, medicine, etc), they would turn it down. However since the corporate contributions to the politicians is so great, such issues are removed from the democratic process (or more accurately the democratic process has been corrupted by undemocratic interests). The remainder of your points were discussed in some details by Socrates, Plato, and later by Jean Jacques Rousseau. They have to do with how much you are willing to give up to the society in exchange for the benefits you get from being a member of it. So long as there are valid options available, you can't complain much about penalties for cutting down trees in your home (Socrates refused to escape his death sentence on the grounds that having loved, lived, and defended Athens all his life, he was could not betray its judgement when it was not to his liking).

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (119200)	11/12/2003 2:07:47 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

<A guy is being gaoled in New Zealand for cutting down sacred and mystical native trees on his own property in contravention of a court order.> One of the most basic freedoms, is freedom of religion. If a sacred grove is necessary for the worship of one group of people, then their freedom is being restricted, if the property-owner cuts them down. You see only the freedom of the property-owner being restricted, but you don't see the freedom of the tree-worshippers. Their claims are valid, too. What you see as a taking of freedom, is really a balancing act, where overlapping claims to freedom have to be compromised. Property rights are only one of a list of rights, and not always the most important. If you raise property rights above all other rights, and make them absolute, the result is the negation and neglect of all those other rights. In this case, probably the maximum freedom would be realised for the most people, if the sacred grove were public property, or the collective property of the tree-worshippers. That would mean forcing the existing owner to sell. Negating his freedom, in favor of the freedoms of a larger group. Negating property rights, in favor of religious freedom. Here is the paradox, Maurice: in order to maximise individual freedoms, there must be a government, and that government must have the power to limit freedom. There are many places all over the world, where there is no government power to restrict any individual freedoms. In these places, the only law in the Law of Claw and Fang. The only justice is Vigilante Justice. Violence becomes endemic. Every individual, every tribe and nation, defines their own freedom in ways that end up restricting other people's freedoms. Places like Congo and Afghanistan. Iraq seems to be slipping into this lawless state, as well. Unrestricted absolute freedom is anarchy. You make many cogent criticisms of illiberal democracy, the Dictatorship Of The Majority. I agree with most of them. But your solution only works in a society of angels, not a society of fallible selfish humans. I would also point out that even illiberal democracy, even the Dictatorship of the Majority, is preferable to what it has replaced: The Dictatorship of The Minority. The Dictatorship of The Proletariet (which, every time it was tried, really meant the Dictatorship of a Party that answered to noone). The Dictatorship of The Capitalists (rule by Robber Barons organized into cozy Trusts). The Dictatorship of The Man on Horseback, waving his sword, leaving heaps of corpses in his trail. The Dictatorship of The Clerics, who hear voices (the voice of God, they claim; but who knows?).