- #1
billy_boy_999
- 131
- 0
to begin with, i have formulated seven precepts that i believe are fundamental to just government. feel free to rip them to shreds but please, can we be spared the reactionary social darwinist and/or social moralist platitudes that so often pass for political discussion? thanks.
1. creating and maintaining property and exercising free will is an individual's liberty.
2. a public capital market is a necessary consequence of #1.
3. creating and maintaining public order and public justice is a society's liberty.
4. a public government is a necessary consequence of #3.
5. whenever and wherever the interests of private liberty affect of conflict with the interests of the liberty of society there is always required some form and degree of objective regulation or rule of law.
6. the mechanism with which this regulation is carried out is called government.
7. politics is the mechanism by which the form and degree of this regulation is itself observed, affected and adjusted according to the demands of society.
the sixth rule is well understood in a pragmatic and practical light. private enterprise cannot be allowed to dictate morality to a society, neither can individuals. we would think this patently unjust. individuals cannot impose beliefs, customs or morality upon society at large - this would be in violation of #1.
but we also see the theoretical and inevitably practical problem of now having given society and it's mechanism for interpreting public will and morality sway to dictate that morality (interpreted accurately or otherwise) upon the private liberty of the individual. one can readily imagine a lopsided scenario where widely held social morality soon trumps individual liberty to an astonishing degree. in fact twentieth century history is hardly bereft of relevant examples - the mechanism may in fact be abused or public morality misinterpreted. public liberty cannot be given unchecked power over private liberty and vice versa.
however, we must give the authority to discern and resolve apparent conflicts between public and private morality to society at large because society also has liberty to steer itself in a just and moral direction - societal liberty is no more or less important than the liberty of the individual.
conflicts between individual liberty and societal liberty are perpetual and ubiquitous.
so what mechanism of government can then effectively resolve or mitigate these conflicts between individual and societal interests on behalf of a society of individuals? how can such a mechanism be said to be an 'objective regulator'?
any input welcome and appreciated
1. creating and maintaining property and exercising free will is an individual's liberty.
2. a public capital market is a necessary consequence of #1.
3. creating and maintaining public order and public justice is a society's liberty.
4. a public government is a necessary consequence of #3.
5. whenever and wherever the interests of private liberty affect of conflict with the interests of the liberty of society there is always required some form and degree of objective regulation or rule of law.
6. the mechanism with which this regulation is carried out is called government.
7. politics is the mechanism by which the form and degree of this regulation is itself observed, affected and adjusted according to the demands of society.
the sixth rule is well understood in a pragmatic and practical light. private enterprise cannot be allowed to dictate morality to a society, neither can individuals. we would think this patently unjust. individuals cannot impose beliefs, customs or morality upon society at large - this would be in violation of #1.
but we also see the theoretical and inevitably practical problem of now having given society and it's mechanism for interpreting public will and morality sway to dictate that morality (interpreted accurately or otherwise) upon the private liberty of the individual. one can readily imagine a lopsided scenario where widely held social morality soon trumps individual liberty to an astonishing degree. in fact twentieth century history is hardly bereft of relevant examples - the mechanism may in fact be abused or public morality misinterpreted. public liberty cannot be given unchecked power over private liberty and vice versa.
however, we must give the authority to discern and resolve apparent conflicts between public and private morality to society at large because society also has liberty to steer itself in a just and moral direction - societal liberty is no more or less important than the liberty of the individual.
conflicts between individual liberty and societal liberty are perpetual and ubiquitous.
so what mechanism of government can then effectively resolve or mitigate these conflicts between individual and societal interests on behalf of a society of individuals? how can such a mechanism be said to be an 'objective regulator'?
any input welcome and appreciated
Last edited: