Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
In 1780, John Adams succinctly defined the principle of the Rule of Law in the Massachusetts Constitution by seeking to establish “a government of laws and not of men”. This reflects the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution’s preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The very foundation of our legal system says that the law should work for us all, not just a select few.
This raises the question of what is a good law that serves the majority of society and what is a bad law that doesn’t serve the majority of society?
This idea is further bolstered by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The latter addition of the 14th Amendment as well as the Preamble of the Constitution both reflect the spirit in which this country was founded as set forth in the Declaration of Independence: “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Clearly, the pursuit of the Rule of Law under the Constitution as informed by the Declaration is a pursuit of the Utilitarian concept of the right course of action is the one that maximizes the overall good consequences of an action; what is in the best interest of greatest numbers of We the People is in the best interests of the country.
Utilitarianism is a quantitative and reductionist philosophical form. Utilitarianism, however, is not a unified philosophical view. It comes in different flavors with the two primary flavors being Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism. Strong Rule Utilitarianism is an absolutist philosophical view and rules may never be broken. Like any absolutist view does not take into account that reality occasionally presents situations where breaking a rule results in the greater good. For example, the strong reductionist rule that murder is bad is countered by the exceptional example of murder is not bad if performed in self-defense or the defense of others. This result of practical application is reflected in what John Stuart Mill called Weak Rule Utilitarianism. It becomes apparent that since not all rules are absolutely enforceable when seeking the common good and exceptional circumstances require flexibility in the law, that the Utilitarian pursuit of the Rule of Law must be in Mill’s Weak Rule formulation of Utilitarianism. But is considering the greater good and circumstantial reasons for breaking or modifying rules the best way to judge whether a law is good or bad?
If one considers Kant’s Categorical Imperative – “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” – then any law not universally applicable should not be a maxim worthy of being recognized as universal. This is contrary to Utilitarianism in general as well as Weak Rule Utilitarianism specifically, but while Kant’s view takes subjectivity into account when dealing with circumstances it does not take into account that there can be objective differences in circumstances as well. It is part of the judiciaries role as a trier of fact to consider not only subjective differences but objective differences in circumstances in formulating the most equitable and just solution to a case at bar. In seeking to be universally applicable in defining maxims, Kant is an absolutist as surely as Strong Rule Utilitarians are absolutists. As a consequence of reality not being neatly binary in nature and thus not often compatible to absolutists approaches to formulating laws for practical application, what can be done to keep Weak Rule Utilitarianism from degenerating into Act Utilitarianism where actors will seek the greatest personal pleasure when presented with a choice rather than the greater good? Utilitarianism conflicting with the Categorical Imperative? Is there a unitary philosophical approach to evaluating whether a law is good or bad?
The answer seems to be no. If there is no single view, absolutist or otherwise, that leads to a practical system for evaluating whether a law is good or bad, then there is only one option for building a framework for evaluation. That option is synthesis.
Consider that absolutist systems as they are not applicable in reality should be confined to being considered theoretical boundaries rather than practical boundaries. This does not negate the value of considering systems like Strong Rule Utilitarianism or Kant’s Categorical Imperative, but rather puts them in the place of aspirational goals rather than practically attainable goals in every circumstance. Given that Mill’s Weak Rule Utilitarianism can degrade into Act Utilitarianism and that degeneration can be compounded by the number of exceptions there are to a rule, are there ways to minimize the defects of using only Weak Rule Utilitarianism to determine the societal value of a law? What supplements can be made to that framework?
I submit that one such supplement is found in the form of Negative Utilitarianism. Negative Utilitarianism is exactly what it sounds like; the inverse function of Utilitarianism. Whereas Utilitarianism is the basic proposition that the right course of action is the one that maximizes the overall good consequences of an action, Negative Utilitarianism is the basic proposition that requires us to promote the least amount of evil or harm, or to prevent the greatest amount of suffering for the greatest number. If one takes both into account in evaluation of the social value of a law (a synthetic approach), the test becomes a balancing act. On one side of the scale is the societal value of overall good consequences, on the other side is the societal value of preventing overall harm. This proposition suggests the following framework for evaluation of whether a law is good or bad.
- How many people benefit from the good consequences of a law?
- How many people benefit from the reduction of harm as consequences of a law?
- Does the benefits from promoting good consequences outweigh the costs of reduction of harm?
- Does the benefits from reducing harm outweigh the costs to the greater good in taking no action?
- Are the net consequences of a law perfectly knowable from either perspective or does the possibility of unforeseeable consequences exist? Can the unforeseeable risks be minimized either by construction of the law(s) to allow for contingencies or by regulating other risks or contributing factors?
- Do solutions from either perspective negatively impact human and/or civil rights? Do those negative impacts outweigh the positive effects to the greater human and/or civil rights of all?
This is but one way to evaluate whether a law is good or bad for society. What are other methods? Are there ways to improve this method? What do you think?
“in fact the founders did not believe that the Federal Government has the right to build canals”
Constitutional citation?
““Your police protection from a private contractor?”
This right was delegated to state government. Another enumerated power”.
If solely a State problem then why shouldn’t a criminal who commits a crime in one State be able to go to a second State and be free from prosecution. Jesse James is a good historical example. We both know the answer to this, but its’ implication does give the Federal Government a stake in “police power”. The private contracting of a police power has always historically led to the violations of citizen’s rights. Note the history of the Pinkerton Detective Agency, which was assassinating labor leaders in many key strikes.
“Private fire companies exist and we are quickly seeing that government run fire companies are not cost efficient.”
To view fire departments from a cost efficient perspective is not viable, but since you make the statement can you provide evidence of this cost efficiency?
““If they come by rail, road or air they all got to you based on infrastructure built and owned in the common good by the government.”
In some cases unconstitutionally.”
Could you explain in which instances this infrastructure is unconstitutional?
“Otherwise, the special interests are intended to battle it out. This is not a perfect solution, but no one has found a better one yet.”
If this is the case, then would you say in your vision it would be perfectly legal for a Corporation to use any means possible to eliminate competition in its’ market? If so why not? If this led to various markets like energy, food,
water, manufacturing, etc. controlled by one large entity, would you consider this not the business of government. If it isn’t then where goes the free market?
@Gene H: Good posts.
@Roco: The mistake your making is a technical one in algorithmic science, you are assuming the “Public Good” can be found by a Greedy Algorithm.
(That is not intended to be insulting, it is the actual scientific name.)
In this case, you believe that the greatest good for individuals (what algorithmic scholars call the “locally optimal solution”) will automatically lead to the greatest good for the group (what we would call the global optimum).
However, not all problems will yield to a Greedy Solution, particularly when the locally optimal solution (or choice) will change or influence other solutions or choices.
The classic Greedy Algorithm example is making change with the minimum number of coins. In our actual system of coinage (1c, 5c, 10c, 25c, 50c), one can always take the largest coin possible out of a sum (the locally optimum choice) repeatedly, and end up with the actual minimum number of coins that represent that sum (the globally optimum result).
But that is a result of the mathematical structure of these particular denominations. Suppose we add a 7c coin to our currency: Then our Greedy Algorithm fails. If I need to make change for 14c, the Greedy route produces (10c, 1c, 1c, 1c, 1c) which is five coins. But I could make the change as (7c, 7c), which is two coins. Using the greedy algorithm here does NOT produce the desired optimal global solution, because the mathematical structure of the denominational choices has been destroyed with the addition of the 7c piece. Notice that this was MORE choices, we did not eliminate any coinage.
Greedy algorithms are pervasive in both human and animal psychology; in fact it is a good general rule that in hunting and trapping animals, we exploit their locally optimal choices to produce a globally disastrous result. The rat smells cheese, determines it is unguarded, and tries to eat it, but triggers a trap that results in a disaster. Or, the buffalo stampede away from a local danger into a series of leg-breaking pits, or off of a cliff.
In humans, the Tragedy of the Commons shows the same thing. The locally optimal choice for each sheep herder is to use the free Common grazing field; but the sum total of grazing destroys the Commons, because it can only sustainably feed (to make the example concrete) half the sum total of sheep. The globally optimum solution (without engaging in flights of fancy) is to have the Commons somehow be used to feed all the sheep it can and no more: It produces an ongoing renewable benefit. But the global optimum solution does not admit a greedy heuristic.
This is the crux of the problem I present you with repeatedly, that also does not admit a greedy heuristic: If a farmer can increase his corn farm yields with a pesticide that is a known carcinogen and dangerous for humans to eat, AND if he can successfully conceal that fact by mixing his corn in with that of hundreds of other corn farmers, then using a greedy heuristic he will. He can earn more money, and there are no consequences. The cancer rate among corn-eaters goes up, but cancer takes months to become evident, and nobody can trace the cancer back to him or prove he is culpable.
I am aware of only one solution: Regulation. Inspect and test HIS corn while we KNOW it is his corn and he CAN be held culpable.
The same applies to the Tragedy of the Commons. Somehow, the herders have to define “what is a fair share” of the Commons, and then enforce that upon others, for the Commons to produce the maximum benefit.
This is the difference between “society” and “individuals,” the maximum benefit to everybody is NOT the result of each person maximizing their individual gain, because choices by one impact upon the choices available to another.
“Corporations are merely a group of people acting together under their right to free association. If an individual has the right to do something, then the corporation does as well.”
This is not a correct statement in sentence one and that ruins the logic of sentence two. A corporation is an entity created by an individual, or group of individuals in order to limit their own personal liability, as a result of this entities actions. It is therefore an artificial legal fiction granted by the government. Despite SCOTUS’ current rulings it, the entity does not have the same standing as an individual and therefore should not have the same rights of an individual. Now if you want to talk of partnerships, where the individuals do have legal liability, then the entity probably should be treated legally as an individual.
“If a government has not been given the power to do something then it cannot be influenced by a particular special interest.”
Because corporations are organized under the aegis of the government by necessity, then the government logically should regulate them due to the special status granted. In the alternative, if government with limited powers does not have the right to recognize the creation of corporations as legal entities, then corporations should not be legal or have legal standing.
Finally, if one considers the history of settlement in America and the pernicious role played by British and Dutch corporate monopolies, it is highly doubtful that the founders envisioned an economy run almost exclusively via corporations.
someone was just pwned by kderosa
<blockquoteActually what we see is small groups of individuals called corporations using their profit motives to promote their good over both the common good and individual rights through the use of economic force to distort the electoral and legislative processes. That they misuse the tools of utilitarianism and pragmatism to their profit driven ends is just another case of a tool being misused; in this instance for the profits of bad actors with no interest in you, your rights or the common good of society, but rather only their P/E statements and shareholder dividends.
Corporations are merely a group of people acting together under their right to free association. If an individual has the right to do something, then the corporation does as well. Individuals and corporations do not have the right to violate or infringe the rights or other people. (Do you see a theme here finally?) Individuals and corporations have the right (the duty) to maximize profits so long as they do not violate or infringe the rights or other people. It is as simple as that.
You are touching on the problem of faction (what we call special interests) which the founders dealt with by limiting the powers granted to government. If a government has not been given the power to do something then it cannot be influenced by a particular special interest. Otherwise, the special interests are intended to battle it out. This is not a perfect solution, but no one has found a better one yet.
No. this is meremly an end-around the Constituition. The Constitution governs the boundaries of what the majority may do. Doing something in the :”common good” or for any other reason does not permit the majority to exceed the powers granted to government or to trample on the rightes retained by the people.
“It’s in the interest of the individual good of a serial killer to kill as it feeds their psychosis and slakes their deviant desires and it is in their interests to avoid capture. It’s in the common good to find him and lock him up because he’s infringing upon the individual rights to others to live. The common good exists wherever a group exists.”
The right to use violence against another individual (that doesn’t fall into one of the permissible exceptions, such as self defense) has been delegated to the states. The state now has the power to do harm to others under cedrtain circumsatnces. So, the serial killer has no right to do violance to any other person. It is a violation/infringement of the rights of others. That’s the end of the analysis. the benefit of the common good need not be reached. It is a superfluous analysis.
“And do you buy your roads from the local road merchant?”
Private roads do exist. States also build roads. The federal Government wsa never given this power and in fact the founders did not believe that the Federal Government has the right to build canals, the 18th century equivalent of roads and railways.
“Your military defense from the local arms dealer?”
This right was delegated to the Federal Governement. It is an enumerated power.
“Your police protection from a private contractor?”
This right was delegated to state government. Another enumerated power.
“How about your fire department services? ”
Private fire companies exist and we are quickly seeing that government run fire companies are not cost efficient.
“Who transports the goods to you that aren’t made locally and by what methods?”
This is interstate commerce–this right was delegated to the Federal Governement. It is an enumerated power.
“If they come by rail, road or air they all got to you based on infrastructure built and owned in the common good by the government.”
In some cases unconstitutionally.
“Like it or not, no man is an island, and any time you interact with other individuals period? You are taking a group or collective action.”
You are only dty bound not to violate or interfere with the rights of others.The group or collective action argument never need be reached.
“Your tomato transaction is a collective action of a group of two members. It’s still a group.”
It isn’t. It is a private contractual matter. It can be properly regulated but not prohibited. It is not collective in any sense, at least not legally.
“The War of Drugs example above is a perfect example of where that analysis wasn’t done properly and to both the detriment of the common good and individual rights. ”
There is no need to do a cost-benefit analysis. Individuals never gave up this natural right and the mere possession of intoxicating or therapeutic drugs does not violate any right of others (or society) and the use of these substanecs does not invariably violate the rights of others–although under some circumstances using some of these substances could create an unreasonable risk of harm to others, say by driving a motor vehicle while under the influence. As such, this area is a proper area for regulation, such as by setting permissible levels of substances in the body (e.g., slood alcohol levels). Howeer, it would not be Constitutional to ban either motor vehicles or drugs merely because the possibility exists that they can be misused. Further, the commerce of such substances can properly be regulated if necessary to protect the safety of buyers or sellers provided that such regulation (intrastate by each State; inerstate by Congress) is not merely the pretext for prohibition.
@GeneH, I’ll note yet another unprovoked personal attack that you’ve again woven into an ad hominem. Are your that insecure in the strength of your arguments, that you must always resort to such measures? Also, I will again remind you that you started this nonsense.
You’re getting off track again. Let’s slow down before you derail.
Do you agree or disagree that we surrender only some of our natural rights when going from nature to government? And, that the ones we surrendered are only those necessary to form government to “more effectually [provide] for the security of private rights, and the steady dispensation of Justice”? (In fact, I will show later, if you stick with the discussion, that the rights we surrender are the rights enumerated in the Constitution.)
Now, when you claim “Society is both a group and individuals. Government serves them both.” My response is so what? Until we know how the founders intended to serve both individuals and “society” this is a meabingless claim. You are going to claim that it is necessary to trample on (i.e., balance away or cost/benefit away) the retained natural rights of individuals to effect your grand plans for serving society and I am going to demonstrate to you that a) this is not what the founders intended and b) there is no need, in any event, to trample on our retained natural rights to serve society. I will further demonstrate that government retaining our natural rights is not “too high a societal cost[]” which is unproven by you in any event.
We are still quite far away from being able to answer your questions. But once you answer mine we can proceed.
kderosa,
You, like Roco, are only addressing half the issue. Society is both a group and individuals. Government serves them both. It’s a balancing act. Also, much like Roco, your quote bolsters what I’ve been saying: “The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situtation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved” is the very portrait of a balancing act. Cost versus benefit. The problem is that you don’t want your ideas subject to that level of scrutiny because it rapidly becomes apparent that the societal costs of your ideas is way too high.
Now how about you answering the two questions?
As for nonsense? I don’t care what you do but when I’m dealing with someone with a track record of making up the meanings to words and logical fallacies in abundance, calling what you do nonsensical isn’t ad hominem but rather accurate. Like I said, one semi-cogent post isn’t going to dig you out of your self-imposed hole.
***************
Roco,
“So I think he means that you enter into society for a protection of your rights. Why would you enter into society if the common good was greater than individual good? It would make no sense.”
Again, that’s the rational reason, not the cost, of joining society. The common good and the individual good are co-joined. You cannot neglect either. One only becomes more important than the other by careful and reasoned cost/benefit analysis of the potential restriction or promotion of one over the other. The War of Drugs example above is a perfect example of where that analysis wasn’t done properly and to both the detriment of the common good and individual rights. To automatically default to the position that individual rights are prime in the analysis is to ignore the basic construct of society created by the social contract. It is not rational or reasoned, it is kneejerk, reactionary and thoughtless.
“Why would you enter into a society that did not believe in the protection of individual rights? You just left that environment in the state of nature.”
Yet people all over the world have done so. Look at the Chinese who have no respect for individual rights but yet have a government and a society. We are fortunate and it is part of what makes the American Experiment such a grand experiment is that our legal tradition specifically recognizes both individual rights and the common good. The American Dream is found in striking the right balance. If you sense our country is currently out of balance, you are not alone in that, however, you are wrong as to the causes of it. Both individual rights and the common good are currently under attack by those in Washington. That, however, is an aside and a conversation for another thread and another time. Or maybe just a little later in this post.
“Locke was not a collectivist.”
I didn’t say he was. I said he recognized the common good and the mutual protections it engenders as part of the social contract. Being in favor of individual rights did not mean he did not understand the collective nature of society. It means he thought protecting individual rights was important to the common good. Conversely he also thought that the promotion of the common good was in the best interest of the individual. Again, it is the balancing act.
“It seems to me as if you look at the benefit the individual derives from society. You seem to place society in a superior position to the individual.”
Without society, we are left with nothing but the state of nature – a state which you yourself admit is undesirable. Without society to protect the individual, there is only tyranny and the rights the strong can enforce for themselves and may do so without the concerns of justice or equity.
“But the benefit the individual derives is the association with other individuals. Not with society as a whole,”
Really?
“I dont buy my tomatoes from Washington, DC, I get them from the local farmers market. From the local farmer who is free to sell his tomatoes to me and I am free to buy them or not buy them from him. So we benefit as a society in that respect.”
And do you buy your roads from the local road merchant? Your military defense from the local arms dealer? Your police protection from a private contractor? How about your fire department services? Who transports the goods to you that aren’t made locally and by what methods? If they come by rail, road or air they all got to you based on infrastructure built and owned in the common good by the government. Like it or not, no man is an island, and any time you interact with other individuals period? You are taking a group or collective action. Your tomato transaction is a collective action of a group of two members. It’s still a group.
“But there is no common good, it is all individual good.”
There’s part of your problem right there. You deny something that comes about by the very function of operating as a group – the common good – by again focusing on only half the issue – individual good. It’s in the interest of the individual good of a serial killer to kill as it feeds their psychosis and slakes their deviant desires and it is in their interests to avoid capture. It’s in the common good to find him and lock him up because he’s infringing upon the individual rights to others to live. The common good exists wherever a group exists.
“How can what is good in common be good for the individual?”
See the above serial killer example.
“There are many individuals with different values and goals who make up a society, they all have different ideas about what the common good even is. Who determines what the common good is?”
Democratic process when not unduly burdened by corporatist influence.
“And how do you reconcile common good with what is good for the individual who disagrees with what some one else thinks is the common good?”
The courts or the democratic legislative process (again when not unduly influenced).
“As you can see you create strife with the conflicting ideas of the common good.”
So? No one ever said democracy wasn’t messy.
“Clearly what I think is the common good is at odds with what you think is the common good.”
No. You don’t think there is such a thing as the common good as you stated above.
“We go round and round like pit bulls or old billy goats fighting over a doe. The only way to have a common good is for one of us to whack the other on the head and say this is what is going to be the common good whether you like it or not.”
Or you could hold open free and fair elections and encourage legislative agendas by exercising your right to free speech and assembly.
“And there, at least in my opinion, is the contradiction of the common good. Once a society has to use force against an individual to promulgate its vision of the common good it has lost all credibility.”
You cannot have laws without law enforcement.
“But society is not doing the forcing, it will be a small group of individuals using your ideas of pragmatism and utilitarianism to promote the common good through force.”
Actually what we see is small groups of individuals called corporations using their profit motives to promote their good over both the common good and individual rights through the use of economic force to distort the electoral and legislative processes. That they misuse the tools of utilitarianism and pragmatism to their profit driven ends is just another case of a tool being misused; in this instance for the profits of bad actors with no interest in you, your rights or the common good of society, but rather only their P/E statements and shareholder dividends.
“Which is what we see now, small groups vying for power to promote their vision of the common good.”
Yes. You’re just wrong as to the how and the why.
***************
Grossman,
You’ll have to do better than trying to create a false equivalence between fascism and socialism that any first year poli sci student would laugh at. They aren’t even remotely the same kind of doctrines either in principle or execution. Not only are you a religious fanatic, but a poorly educated one at that. No one should take what you say seriously. It’s borderline gibberish.
Roco
>I would like you to speak to the Fascism/Socialism issue
“Fascism and Communism/Socialism
For many decades, the leftists have been propagating the false dichotomy that the choice confronting the world is only: communism or fascism—a dictatorship of the left or of an alleged right—with the possibility of a free society, of capitalism, dismissed and obliterated, as if it had never existed.
“The Presidential Candidates 1968,” The Objectivist, June 1968, 5.
[Some “moderates” are trying to] revive that old saw of pre-World War II vintage, the notion that the two political opposites confronting us, the two “extremes,” are: fascism versus communism.
The political origin of that notion is more shameful than the “moderates” would care publicly to admit. Mussolini came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Italy. Hitler came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Germany. It is a matter of record that in the German election of 1933, the Communist Party was ordered by its leaders to vote for the Nazis—with the explanation that they could later fight the Nazis for power, but first they had to help destroy their common enemy: capitalism and its parliamentary form of government.
It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?” into “Which kind of dictatorship?”—thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice—according to the proponents of that fraud—is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).
That fraud collapsed in the 1940’s, in the aftermath of World War II. It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory—that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state—that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders—that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique—that fascism is not the product of the political “right,” but of the “left”—that the basic issue is not “rich versus poor,” but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government—which means: capitalism versus socialism.
“‘Extremism,’ or The Art of Smearing,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
Both are from Rand as quoted in the online Ayn Rand Lexicon. There is more there on this issue. Both substitute the group for God, with socialists
more for society and often rationalist (ideas w/o concretes) and systematic and fascists more for nation and state and always, I believe, empiricist (concretes w/o ideas), even irrationalist, and pragmatic. In _Atlas Shrugged, the growing statism was fascist ,not socialist, because Rand recognized the growing irrationalism of the culture as Kantian nihilism spread.
Gene H:
“yet it being only with an intention in every one the better to preserve himself, his liberty and property; (for no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse) the power of the society, or legislative constituted by them, can never be supposed to extend farther, than the common good; but is obliged to secure every one’s property,”
So I think he means that you enter into society for a protection of your rights. Why would you enter into society if the common good was greater than individual good? It would make no sense.
Why would you enter into a society that did not believe in the protection of individual rights? You just left that environment in the state of nature.
Locke was not a collectivist.
Yes a group of individuals.
It seems to me as if you look at the benefit the individual derives from society. You seem to place society in a superior position to the individual.
But the benefit the individual derives is the association with other individuals. Not with society as a whole, I dont buy my tomatoes from Washington, DC, I get them from the local farmers market. From the local farmer who is free to sell his tomatoes to me and I am free to buy them or not buy them from him. So we benefit as a society in that respect.
But there is no common good, it is all individual good. How can what is good in common be good for the individual? There are many individuals with different values and goals who make up a society, they all have different ideas about what the common good even is. Who determines what the common good is? And how do you reconcile common good with what is good for the individual who disagrees with what some one else thinks is the common good?
As you can see you create strife with the conflicting ideas of the common good. Clearly what I think is the common good is at odds with what you think is the common good. We go round and round like pit bulls or old billy goats fighting over a doe. The only way to have a common good is for one of us to whack the other on the head and say this is what is going to be the common good whether you like it or not. And there, at least in my opinion, is the contradiction of the common good. Once a society has to use force against an individual to promulgate its vision of the common good it has lost all credibility.
But society is not doing the forcing, it will be a small group of individuals using your ideas of pragmatism and utilitarianism to promote the common good through force. Which is what we see now, small groups vying for power to promote their vision of the common good.
@GeneH, I’ll let that last ad hominem slide for the time being. I’m curious to see if you are capable of stopping this childish nonsense of yours.
Let’s pick it up where you left off with Rock.
One surrenders only a part of our natural rights while retaining the others. Only those rights whose alienation is necessary to form a government are yielded. Here’s what Madison said in the official letter to the Congress by the members of the Constitutional convention:
So at the time of the founding, almost no one claimed or believed that one surrenders all one’s natural rights up to government, but only those rights necessary. One cannot infer, then, from the fact that some rights are surrendered up, that other rights still retained by the people can be denied or disparaged with impunity.
Rather, the rights that are retained remain the measure of whether government is acting properly or improperly in the exercise of delegated powers. As Madison explained to the Constitutional Convention, though the national government was formed a variety of objects, first among them, and this is the important bit, was “the necessity of providing more effectually for the security of private rights, and the steady dispensation of Justice. Interferences with these were evils which had more perhaps than any thing else, produced this convention.”
Which will bring us to civil rights but I don’t want to get to far ahead of the discussion.
kderosa,
Nonsense? When you stop acting nonsensical, people will stop noting your legitimate nonsense. Don’t be too shocked if I don’t take your reply seriously either. One semi-cogent post does not dig you out of your self-imposed hole.
Roco,
“There is no society without individuals.”
There is no society without a group either. You want your cake and to eat it too. That’s not how it works.
Also, I don’t think you realized your quote just said what I’ve been saying. Just because you’ve read or can copy Locke doesn’t mean you understand him.
He’s saying that the purpose of society is to preserve lives, liberties and estates (which he groups together as property), but acknowledging that the mutual protection of such things comes at the price of some of your absolute freedoms under the state of nature: “[T[hat though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others; for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason”. Security comes at a cost and that cost is absolute freedoms found under the state of nature.
And how are these sacrifices to be directed? “[A[ll this to be directed to no other end, but the peace, safety, and public good of the people.” In other words, the general welfare.
“So basically you dont give up rights to enter into society,” – Yes, you do according to Locke – “you enter into society to better protect your rights.” – According to Locke, that’s why you rationally enter society, not the cost of entering society.
Gene H:
And that is your opinion.
But at the core of all of those definitions are individual men and women. There is no society without individuals.
Ҥ 123.
If man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to nobody, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up his empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others; for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates, which I call by the general name, property.”
Ҥ 131.
But though men, when they enter into society, give up the equality, liberty, and executive power they had in the state of nature, into the hands of the society, to be so far disposed of by the legislative, as the good of the society shall require; yet it being only with an intention in every one the better to preserve himself, his liberty and property; (for no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse) the power of the society, or legislative constituted by them, can never be supposed to extend farther, than the common good; but is obliged to secure every one’s property, by providing against those three defects above mentioned, that made the state of nature so unsafe and uneasy. And so whoever has the legislative or supreme power of any commonwealth, is bound to govern by established standing laws, promulgated and known to the people, and not by extemporary decrees; by indifferent and upright judges, who are to decide controversies by those laws; and to employ the force of the community at home, only in the execution of such laws; or abroad to prevent or redress foreign injuries, and secure the community from inroads and invasion. And all this to be directed to no other end, but the peace, safety, and public good of the people.”
So basically you dont give up rights to enter into society, you enter into society to better protect your rights.
@GeneH
Just checking. I get accused of enough nonsense in this forum. I will respond to you after the baseball game.
Roco,
You are making up definitions to words when you say “society is individuals.”
The definition “society” is (in relevant parts):
By definition, society is a group of individuals. A group is defined as (in relevant part) as:
“There is no valid societal interest/function but the protection of individual rights.”
This is merely your opinion and a wrong opinion at that. That you fail to understand this shows you fail to understand Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. So your opinion in this instance isn’t only wrong, but uniformed as well.
kderosa,
You are correct. That’s actually from a post on another website and another argument altogether. It must have been an artifact in the buffer. I’ve seen that happen before but the result is usually readily apparent gibberish. That it copied as a coherent sentence is simply astounding.
Bad computer!