I don't think I'm moving the goal posts, just addressing points as you introduce them to the conversation.
To be honest, I don't really understand your position. It seemed like you were claiming that Society has already decided what's best and now you say that the will of the people be damned. Who is the 'we' that knows what's best and how do you contrast that with the will of the people.
>We have very good, very fleshed out reasoned arguments about what would be best for most people.
>If it is agreed that there are universal human rights and country specific rights
which is something already agreed upon by society
The only way that I can make sense of it is that the 'we' you talk about is simply people that hold your belief system. It seems like you're saying that a competent government would simply do what you want and steamroll anyone who doesn't agree with you.
I get that the idea of a tyrannical government that supports your personal views sounds attractive. You might even think you know what's best for other people. The conceit with this approach is that you don't actually know what other people want, just what you want.
This is a terrible attitude to have. Basically what your suggesting is that the government should be all powerful and then dole out rights to people as it sees fit. This is a completely unacceptable way for a free society to function.
I think what he means is that government derives its authority from people respecting its authority and following its laws. If everyone in the US woke up tomorrow and agreed that we were better off if we just abolished the government, it would cease to exist. The fact that that hasn't happened suggests that people on some level feel that we're better off if we don't do that. I don’t think this is a very strong argument though; e.g. in a place like North Korea, it’s very difficult to overthrow the government even if a lot of people might feel that would make them better off.
I agree that people don’t “consent” to being governed just by virtue of being born, but I don’t think it’s possible to have a world where people consent to being a part of every power structure they’re forced to participate in, nor to have a world without such power structures.
This argument boils down to: "People don't know what's best for themselves, so we shouldn't give them what they clearly want." I can sympathize with that somewhat, but I think that's a dangerous direction for a government to go in.
But that’s the point—there will always be people who do want to live in a state where something is being done about CSAM down to their personal devices, while there will always be people who don’t. So which of the two groups are objectively right to have things done their way? It’s neither, and whoever wins on the policy level is a matter of politics, not of objective moral correctness.
So then since you can’t always have it your way when you’re living in a society, isn’t it that the only other option to have things your way is for you to live alone, all consequences entailing? Therefore, isn’t the argument for the full exercise of individual freedom an argument for the dissolution of society and ergo government? Because this topic seems to me about the full realization of individual freedoms and not making any compromises at all.
Frankly I think you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting my positions. We have been arguing from efficiency right along, but you're now shifting to an argument from morality. You posit that it's acceptable for the state to take ownership of its citizens (subjects at that point?) Ultimately that's a position I have to entirely reject. There comes a point where the removal of autonomy to improve a person's life deprives them of what it means to be alive. Your elitist position that you and your experts know so much more than the little people that you can't "allow" them to make their own choices comes off rather poorly. It also comes off as rather short sighted, as politics is often inherently unstable, and all it takes is a "bad politician" to take your well-meaning but authoritarian system and take it full-blown authoritarian.
I appreciate your extrapolation on your ideas. While I'm sure neither of us have changed our minds, I find your position interesting and I'm sure others reading have been able to see a small amount of the breadth of the topic at hand.
There are two theories of government: One says that they rule by divine right, the other says that they rule by the consent of the governed. One does not recognize human rights, the other does. I know which one I want to live under; I hope that those that argue the other never have the misfortune of experiencing their wish.
There are still disagreements within a genuinely free society, and those are what the government exists to adjudicate.
We The People do have the power, but to exercise it in one's preferred direction, one needs to get most of the People to agree on the same direction and priorities. That is not easy to do, regardless of how self-evident the benefits of a particular policy direction might appear to oneself individually.
What do you feel is the appropriate role for government?
I’d implore you to also not jump to conclusions about what my beliefs are by extrapolating to positions I haven’t explicitly defended. Your posts are coming across like you are actually having an argument with someone else. You seem more inclined to tell me what I think rather than ask
Finally, some honestly; yes it's frustrating, but given that the vast majority of the population aren't like you, it makes sense that they set up a society to cater to their needs, and it's pretty clear most prefer a paternalistic government simply to remove the need to think about so much stuff. Most people don't want a world where a bad decision about something they don't have the knowledge to even make correctly can kill them.
For starters, our government is elected by the people and so regardless of what we allow them to do, as long as it doesn't affect the ability of people to fairly vote for their representation, they'll ultimately be accountable to the people. You may not agree with what the majority of people want, but that's different than saying "the people" are subservient.
Additionally, I believe that you can carve out enough forbidden legislation to satisfy almost any desired level of personal freedom by carving out wide categories of things that can't be legislated.
Your alternative presumably is the current system, where a few self-selected people, kept in power exclusively by wealth, caste, and social connections - often in defiance of real wisdom or foresight - force everyone else to act in ways that benefit that self-sustaining governing class at the expense of everyone else.
I never said society == government, then I wouldn't have said "society's government".
Government is a PART of society. Along with other norms (like what we consider acceptable in social situations).
Also, government is set up to protect from rape and theft. You're right, government often has immoral shortcomings, but most people believe it is better than anarchy. No one was signing this contract? Most people agree with the need for cops.
I'm not saying government does its job ideally. I'm not saying the majority wanting something makes it right. All I was saying in the comment was that if society wants something, and you disagree and want to be isolated from, while living with, that society, then there will be problems. If, on the other hand, you just want the society to not have a government (either at all or just not the current incarnations) then that is different.
Many believe common people do not know what's good for them and that it's ok for special groups of people (governments) to impose their choices by force on the common people for their own good.
It's clearly not as simple as that, since there is such a thing as tyranny and perversion of justice. Now, you may be the kind of person who would approve of what his government does, whatever it does, and you may even be in the majority, but that doesn't make you right. I also imagine that, like most people with such views, you have cognitive dissonance. I.e., there are some governments that you think should change their behavior, on moral grounds.
I would have said that the responsibility of government is to act on behalf of the people. The people may have different ideas than what is technically the best outcome for society.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about how to design a society, I'm talking about a necessary aspect of the relationship between government and the governed. Simply, the government cannot force you to do what it wants all the time. It's impossible, even for brutal totalitarian governments. A few slip through the nets.
For a light example, think about speeding, or carpool lane compliance. Most of the time, there is actually no one to stop or punish you for speeding or driving in the carpool lane with the wrong number of people. Most people do the right thing anyway. This is good.
So any compliance with its laws is largely voluntary, based on, among other things, the value provided by the government and the obvious benefits to everyone if everyone follows the law.
To be honest, I don't really understand your position. It seemed like you were claiming that Society has already decided what's best and now you say that the will of the people be damned. Who is the 'we' that knows what's best and how do you contrast that with the will of the people.
>We have very good, very fleshed out reasoned arguments about what would be best for most people.
>If it is agreed that there are universal human rights and country specific rights which is something already agreed upon by society
The only way that I can make sense of it is that the 'we' you talk about is simply people that hold your belief system. It seems like you're saying that a competent government would simply do what you want and steamroll anyone who doesn't agree with you.
I get that the idea of a tyrannical government that supports your personal views sounds attractive. You might even think you know what's best for other people. The conceit with this approach is that you don't actually know what other people want, just what you want.
reply