Basic political theory/philosophy thread

[kingkilburn]

This thread is a place to discuss the basics of political theory and philosophy.

Questions like:
What is the role of government?
Are your rights given by the Constitution or did you already poses them?
Are people inherently good/evil/driven by instinct etc...

I guess I'll start off with the second one.


I believe that the rights outlined in the US Constitution as well as other natural rights(such as the assumed right of privacy) are rights we poses as humans. They are not given or granted nor protected by any document. We gain rights simply through existing and protect them through exercising them specifically against those that would take them away.


Can we please keep this a non-partisan discussion.

[inertiadrft]

Well, The rights stated in the US constitution are rights that should be applicable when you stand on US land. so if you don't stand on "The Land" then the rights dont apply.

Regarding "Natural Rights" there is non in my opinion, which is why written rights are Needed and must be protected at all cost.
It all depends on the Standpoint on which you stand, in the US we have the Pleasure to Believe in "natural rights", but not many others in other lands have the same luxury to even conceive such "rights".

Which brings me to this question regarding "Natural Rights"
When are we given the right to even be born? if any, and if so, to who is this right applicable to?
Answer: we have no right to be born, but there is no ban against being born, unless the Land, constitution and its rights don't protect the right that does not exist, it all depends on the Written rights that are set in place to Protect the "natural Rights" or the other way around.. But its up to Goverment and the people to make sure written rights are Protected, applied, and never taken for granted.. NEVER.

[kingkilburn]

I don't think that is what the writers of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence would think. They called the rights inalienable, that would mean that no one can take them. That implies that they are already yours and not given by anyone else. The purpose of the documents is to safe guard the rights so government can't take them, at least that is the idea behind a constitution.

I believe that everyone everywhere has these rights and more. The question is does some one else impose there will and usurp their rights. I know that cultural differences change what people think are their most important natural rights.

[renegade_ewok]

Well, instead of me espousing all I think and believe I'm just going to throw some shit out there thats on my current mind...

Political thoughts, motives, and ideals are not meant to be hinged on a single inflexible truth and rigid moralistic or philosophical ideals. The problem with having a single, inflexible platform that one operates off of or draws decisions from means that there is a lack of introspective acknowledgement.

While it may not make many people comfortable to have an individual making decisions on their behalf who has no distinct affiliation (which I think is BS anyway, the Black/White duality structure of what individuals are being sold as our political system is very strong electoral weapon if used correctly... creating a grandfalloon is REALLY FUCKING EASY), it is necessary for individuals to utilize their own mental capacities and understanding of cultural, social, individuals, financial, and judgemental factors in making political decisions on the greater behalf of a country, people, or group in general.

The people leading the country should be people with Ph.Ds and lifetime progressions in the field of understanding and philosophical knowledge. While I'm not saying that a civil engineer can't run the country, I am saying that the advisors should not have a vested private interest in the actions and decision making processes that they are inclined to make. Unfortunately, this is never really possible. Shit happens haha

Human bias, error, and predilections are nothing we can ever overwrite especially since we are especially comfortable in accepting their own heuristics and belief systems without sincerely questioning them. Although people like to appear as they never challenge their own internalized belief structure, they will never really leave their initial basic assumptions about things behind. This is a fundamental flaw about the human condition and its not necessarily a bad thing, but being able to recognize ones biases, regardless of truly altering your position will allow individuals in power to make more tempered and ultimately beneficial decisions.

This is very applicable to politics as people use rigid backing as the reason for their decisions.

Yeah, thats what Im thinking about now. Please don't let this thread turn into a clusterfuck, I would enjoy reading what other people have to say and actually go on in an eloquent way in stating these things... This is a philosophical debate partially and part of philosophy is genuinely and critically thinking about things.

One more thing; if this is going to start involving religion, as it inevitably will, I don't believe religion has any place in politics at all. Politics doesn't go on to tell religion what to do, so religion should not tell politics what to do. It should be about numbers, statistics, and proven processes although the last one is VERY easily debated.... The academic attitude needs to be in politics more... always learn, leave biases behind. Problem is people like voting for an icon or an idea rather than for a persons judgment. Obama is a step in the right direction in the intellectual realm of politics I believe, but what he's doing in government and policies I won't comment on. Remember, I am talking about the philosophical and psychological viewpoints in politics.

[aznpoopy]

it's all bullshit

in the real world, only two things govern human society and behavior

1) threat and/or consummation of violent force
2) a range of willing obedience (whether negotiated, indoctrinated, contracted, coerced, paid for, voluntary, etc.)

[kingkilburn]

renegade_ewok Well said.

aznpoopy Your first point is foreign policy while the second part is domestic.

[HalveBlue]

There is no such thing as an inalienable right.

All rights are given and taken by man.

There are, however, inalienable truths.

Truth: Any system of governance uses the monopoly of violence to enforce its will.

[aznpoopy]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

renegade_ewok Well said.

aznpoopy Your first point is foreign policy while the second part is domestic.

definitely not.

domestic:
willing obedience - civilly responsible US citizens who follow most laws
violence - police (and prison system, to a lesser extent)

foreign
willing obedience - coercion or cooperation via economic, defense oriented, or just aligned by common culture (US and UK for instance), etc. willing obedience does not have to be one way only. can be mutually beneficial arrangements
violence - hur dur. no need for explanation

Originally Posted by halveblue

Truth: Any system of governance uses the monopoly of violence to enforce its will.

that's not a common truth at all. the cost of maintaining an army against the general populace is hugely expensive, and such a state is basically crippled on an international stage because of fear of domestic rebellion. (case in point: ancient sparta)

an effective system of governance relies mainly on the willing obedience of the populace to enforce its will. any such system can project its power abroad without worrying about internal rebellion. as a result, these systems will invariably outcompete the above model in long run.

[HalveBlue]

Originally Posted by aznpoopy

that's not a common truth at all. the cost of maintaining an army against the general populace is hugely expensive, and such a state is basically crippled on an international stage because of fear of domestic rebellion. (case in point: ancient sparta)

an effective system of governance relies mainly on the willing obedience of the populace to enforce its will. any such system can project its power abroad without worrying about internal rebellion. as a result, these systems will invariably outcompete the above model in long run.

I'll disagree there.

While, theoretically, governance through mutual cooperation and/or obedience is possible, I know of no practical system (outside of a limited number of very small tribal societies) where this is the case.

Certainly, the monopoly of violence exists in all advanced societies.

How does the state enforce its laws if those who it expects to willingly abide by its decree, don't? That is to say, if there is disagreement and disobedience, what methods does the state have to enforce it's authority?

I would maybe even argue that the American Revolution, for example, can be reduced down to a struggle over the control of the monopoly of violence. Whereas before authority rested with king and parliament, after independence this control fell to a federal constitutional republic.

[aznpoopy]

Originally Posted by HalveBlue

While, theoretically, governance through mutual cooperation and/or obedience is possible, I know of no practical system (outside of a limited number of very small tribal societies) where this is the case.

its most of western society and probably some portion of everyone else. american government is all about consent via enfranchisement (regardless of whether one thinks its voting/party system is a fake sham or not). even in worst case its still willing obedience via being duped.

why do you obey your state and federal laws? its not out of fear that an army ranger is going to shoot you in the face. the majority usually agree with the law, the law abiding minority who disagree probably fear the consequences of the law relative to the benefits of violating it, which are backed 95% of the time with non-lethal non-federal military consequences (state police and judicial instead).

Originally Posted by HalveBlue

How does the state enforce its laws if those who it expects to willingly abide by its decree, don't? That is to say, if there is disagreement and disobedience, what methods does the state have to enforce it's authority?

if the state has to rely on threat violence to enforce its decrees, then the state is on the brink of revolution. if the state has to rely on open violence, then revolution is already underway. in either case the state has already failed.

Originally Posted by Halveblue

I would maybe even argue that the American Revolution, for example, can be reduced down to a struggle over the control of the monopoly of violence. Whereas before authority rested with king and parliament, after independence this control fell to a federal constitutional republic.

control over monopoly of violence is an artificial abstraction. it's not technically incorrect, but it is a distortion that masks what is really going on. willing obedience of the colonies had broken down. the only resort then is send in british troops. the colonists weren't initially loyal due to king's monopoly on violence. the colonists were initially loyal because they considered themselves british.

sidenote. federal government did not have monopoly on violence immediately after independence. continental army was initially disbanded, and for a short while, each state had controlled its own militia.

[HalveBlue]

Originally Posted by aznpoopy

...

Just a couple of notes.

The monopoly of violence isn't restricted to using military troops. It includes all law enforcement agencies, from the local all the way up to the federal level.

Also, I never said that voluntary compliance isn't an applicable factor. I'm sure that the majority of people more or less agree/comply with the laws we have on the books.

Nevertheless, you don't really have the option of choosing which laws you agree with and want to follow and which ones you don't.

Try it and see what happens.

You break the law, you get a fine. You don't pay the fine, you got to jail. You don't go to jail, and men with guns will come to your house to make you go to jail. You resist, they shoot. You die.

That is, in simplified essence, what the monopoly of violence is. Do you think this relevant and accurate, or not?

[aznpoopy]

it's just way too oversimplified. i dislike it because the end of this thought process is that the government enforces everything through violence. in reality any such government would be fucked.

even in cases where your argument would be much stronger, it's still not completely true. for example, augustan principate was legitimized at its root by military force and loyalty of the legions. but the princeps still had to maintain a republican veneer and institutions, and stood ostensibly as representative of the common folk against the aristocratic senate.

i.e. government and society form power structures and such to govern behavior. governance isn't limited to just the citizenry. government is controlled as well.

your hypo is a good example. if its a crime punishable only by a fine, they will probably put a lien on your property instead of throwing you in jail (and/or killing you if you resist). if you refuse to pay the lien you will never be able to legally sell your house. of course all these concepts are pointless to someone living in natural law where there is no ownership of property. but once the concepts of ownership and money come into play, your behavior is governed innately by the fact that few people are willing to outside society's bounds.

[KA24DESOneThree]

Every government does eventually escalate force. To violent force? Not necessarily, but to force nonetheless.

However, HalveBlue is more or less correct. The government wants its money, and it will get that money through fines or perhaps a lien. If you further refuse, you will die. The government first initializes force by threat of violence or theft, then overwhelms with its power. Very few fight this power because very few believe they can be found innocent in this so-called "justice" system. Laws are typically believed to be just by most, even if they are not.

I believe that no man should initiate force on another. Actions must be in reaction to shows of force; i.e. a man yelling at you and insisting you have had carnal relations with your mother is not a show of force requiring an escalation. A man raising a fist does require an escalation.

I need to continue this, but lunch is over.