Philosophy Now Forum

Some (meaning not all) people seem to be against the idea (at least in principle) of government intruding in their lives, forcing them to make choices they may not want to make. OTOH it seems like, at the very least, sometimes justice is best served by such interdictions.

One example: Suppose some parents are horribly abusing their child, subjecting the child to treatment that will undeniably damage the child's chances of growing up to live a decent healthy adult life. Shouldn't some authority intervene on the child's behalf?

Another example: Many scientists have gathered data showing that dumping vast amounts of pollution into the air, land and sea around us may have the effect of destroying the very environment that we thrive in. Shouldn't businesses have a minimal obligation by law not to grievously pollute our world?

Final example: Some people are just not competent to take care of themselves, whether they are severely handicapped or else perhaps at an age where they are not able to sufficiently provide for themselves; and relatives or others directly around them can't (or else won't) help them either. Or some people may find themselves utterly superfluous to the economy and therefore unemployed or underemployed as a result. Shouldn't there be social services for such people, rather than leave them by the roadside somewhere to die?

Of course there are many "borderline" situations which may lead to a "slippery slope" between serving justice versus committing some kind of evil or else disservice. And there is also the issue of what tasks are best achieved at the "local" level versus what tasks may need to be addressed at the highest level of governance.

There can be no such rule: governance is entirely situational. The best government is one that governs appropriately.

When a sound constitution has been enshrined in sensible legislation, law-enforcement and regulatory agencies are working well, the economy is stable and people are content, there is no need for government to do much.
When the nation is attacked, or a meteor strikes, or a blizzard whites out the eastern seaboard, government has to act quickly, decisively and effectively. In order to do that, government must be prepared: it must already have the capability, the powers, the resources, the personnel and the contingency plans - and that means, a lot of activity has taken place when there was no emergency.

How to balance those two: constant participation and investment of the citizenry in good government.

Gary Childress wrote:Some (meaning not all) people seem to be against the idea (at least in principle) of government intruding in their lives, forcing them to make choices they may not want to make. OTOH it seems like, at the very least, sometimes justice is best served by such interdictions.

It's the cost of living a society: everyone trades some autonomy for the benefits of co-operation.

One example: Suppose some parents are horribly abusing their child, subjecting the child to treatment that will undeniably damage the child's chances of growing up to live a decent healthy adult life. Shouldn't some authority intervene on the child's behalf?

Every society makes different provisions for the welfare of children. In some, a child is considered chattel to its parents (or whoever buys it from the parents); in some, a child is considered a full citizen from birth, entitled to all legal protections; in some, even a potential child is considered near-sacred, superseding the rights of its parents. Every legislative body is faced with the problem of translating into law some consensus of the electorate's convictions. This is difficult in any country; in a multicultural society, it's stupefyingly difficult, and the law has to be redrafted often to reflect changing attitudes.

Another example: Many scientists have gathered data showing that dumping vast amounts of pollution into the air, land and sea around us may have the effect of destroying the very environment that we thrive in. Shouldn't businesses have a minimal obligation by law not to grievously pollute our world?

This one shouldn't even be controversial. Government is charged with the safeguarding of the nation's assets. That includes resources, population, common-wealth and environment. Business is something a single citizen or small group of citizens propose to do, which affects their fellow citizens. They don't have to do it; they have no inalienable right to do it: they need their fellow citizens' permission. Government represents those citizens' interests and is empowered to act as their agent. Obviously, then, government has a duty to withhold business licenses from any enterprise that poses a danger to any of those assets, to regulate their operations and to stop infractions.

Final example: Some people are just not competent to take care of themselves, whether they are severely handicapped or else perhaps at an age where they are not able to sufficiently provide for themselves; and relatives or others directly around them can't (or else won't) help them either. Or some people may find themselves utterly superfluous to the economy and therefore unemployed or underemployed as a result. Shouldn't there be social services for such people, rather than leave them by the roadside somewhere to die?

Most societies have moved this function from the churches (unreliable and selective; often abusive) to the government, which is far more comprehensive and capable.... given sufficient support by the citizenry.

Of course there are many "borderline" situations which may lead to a "slippery slope" between serving justice versus committing some kind of evil or else disservice. And there is also the issue of what tasks are best achieved at the "local" level versus what tasks may need to be addressed at the highest level of governance.

Those are on-going issues. Government isn't a structure you build once and expect to work forever: it's a dynamic, interactive process.

"appropriately"' in my thinkin', always tilts toward 'less' (and focused).

There's also the matter of appropriate levels. A great deal of 'governance' (really, 'proxyhood') is best done on the local/municipal level where one can actually meet with a mayor or town/city councilman (and shoot him, if need be). Higher levels of government should be less important, generally less powerful, and far more narrow than the foundational.

Skip wrote:There can be no such rule: governance is entirely situational. The best government is one that governs appropriately.

When a sound constitution has been enshrined in sensible legislation, law-enforcement and regulatory agencies are working well, the economy is stable and people are content, there is no need for government to do much.
When the nation is attacked, or a meteor strikes, or a blizzard whites out the eastern seaboard, government has to act quickly, decisively and effectively. In order to do that, government must be prepared: it must already have the capability, the powers, the resources, the personnel and the contingency plans - and that means, a lot of activity has taken place when there was no emergency.

How to balance those two: constant participation and investment of the citizenry in good government.

Gary Childress wrote:Some (meaning not all) people seem to be against the idea (at least in principle) of government intruding in their lives, forcing them to make choices they may not want to make. OTOH it seems like, at the very least, sometimes justice is best served by such interdictions.

It's the cost of living a society: everyone trades some autonomy for the benefits of co-operation.

One example: Suppose some parents are horribly abusing their child, subjecting the child to treatment that will undeniably damage the child's chances of growing up to live a decent healthy adult life. Shouldn't some authority intervene on the child's behalf?

Every society makes different provisions for the welfare of children. In some, a child is considered chattel to its parents (or whoever buys it from the parents); in some, a child is considered a full citizen from birth, entitled to all legal protections; in some, even a potential child is considered near-sacred, superseding the rights of its parents. Every legislative body is faced with the problem of translating into law some consensus of the electorate's convictions. This is difficult in any country; in a multicultural society, it's stupefyingly difficult, and the law has to be redrafted often to reflect changing attitudes.

Another example: Many scientists have gathered data showing that dumping vast amounts of pollution into the air, land and sea around us may have the effect of destroying the very environment that we thrive in. Shouldn't businesses have a minimal obligation by law not to grievously pollute our world?

This one shouldn't even be controversial. Government is charged with the safeguarding of the nation's assets. That includes resources, population, common-wealth and environment. Business is something a single citizen or small group of citizens propose to do, which affects their fellow citizens. They don't have to do it; they have no inalienable right to do it: they need their fellow citizens' permission. Government represents those citizens' interests and is empowered to act as their agent. Obviously, then, government has a duty to withhold business licenses from any enterprise that poses a danger to any of those assets, to regulate their operations and to stop infractions.

Final example: Some people are just not competent to take care of themselves, whether they are severely handicapped or else perhaps at an age where they are not able to sufficiently provide for themselves; and relatives or others directly around them can't (or else won't) help them either. Or some people may find themselves utterly superfluous to the economy and therefore unemployed or underemployed as a result. Shouldn't there be social services for such people, rather than leave them by the roadside somewhere to die?

Most societies have moved this function from the churches (unreliable and selective; often abusive) to the government, which is far more comprehensive and capable.... given sufficient support by the citizenry.

Of course there are many "borderline" situations which may lead to a "slippery slope" between serving justice versus committing some kind of evil or else disservice. And there is also the issue of what tasks are best achieved at the "local" level versus what tasks may need to be addressed at the highest level of governance.

Those are on-going issues. Government isn't a structure you build once and expect to work forever: it's a dynamic, interactive process.

Very well stated, Skip. I think you make some very reasonable points, ones which I certainly won't argue with.

Your statement:

It's the cost of living in a society: everyone trades some autonomy for the benefits of co-operation.

Sounds very much in line with what early "liberal" philosophers (such as John Locke, et al. who so profoundly influenced the founders of the United States) advocated when they talked about human beings leaving the "state of nature" in order to form a "social contract" for the common benefit of all. It seems like many in the US have forgotten that aspect of early political theory (and how such theories influenced the founding of their own country--and mine).

It sometimes seems like it has become some sort of perverted American dream to be some sort of superhero (or entrepreneur/business tycoon) who never has to rely on anyone but him or herself and that everyone else around him or her is to be viewed as a contemptibly incompetent fool of some kind.

henry quirk wrote:"appropriately"' in my thinkin', always tilts toward 'less' (and focused).

There's also the matter of appropriate levels. A great deal of 'governance' (really, 'proxyhood') is best done on the local/municipal level where one can actually meet with a mayor or town/city councilman (and shoot him, if need be). Higher levels of government should be less important, generally less powerful, and far more narrow than the foundational.

Why on earth do you advocate shooting a town or city councilman?

C'mon, Gary, you know as well as me sometimes the cleanest political/cultural change comes out of the business end of a gun.

And: I'm not advocating, just mentioning an option.

It sometimes seems like it has become some sort of perverted American dream to be some sort of superhero (or entrepreneur/business tycoon) who never has to rely on anyone but him or herself and that everyone else around him or her is to be viewed as a contemptibly incompetent fool of some kind.

We call that America's Big Lie.
Tycoons generally get their fortunes by using their fellow citizens, facilitated - and sometimes financed - by a government.Take all the commodities and hedge fund traders, all the CEO's and major shareholders, the heirs to fortunes and the patent thieves, give them a Swiss army knife each, and drop them off in the Alaskan hinterland. Let's see how self-reliant they really are.

henry quirk wrote:C'mon, Gary,

Crazy me. What was I thinking?

may the agents of the bureau of social justice have mercy on your grandchildren

utopia

-Imp

Impenitent wrote:may the agents of the bureau of social justice have mercy on your grandchildren

utopia

-Imp

Was not aware there was a "bureau of social justice". But I Googled the term and found an article in the National Review titled "Department of Social Justice".

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... n-lovelace

Governs the least merely means interfere only when it is essential, or only if that interference brings some betterment in one way or other, otherwise keep away.

Do not interfere just for the sake of interfering.

It does not mean that govern the least, irrespective of what is happening out there.

Least interference is as required as the necessary interference is.

with love,
sanjay

zinnat13 wrote:Governs the least merely means interfere only when it is essential, or only if that interference brings some betterment in one way or other, otherwise keep away.

Do not interfere just for the sake of interfering.

It does not mean that govern the least, irrespective of what is happening out there.

Least interference is as required as the necessary interference is.

with love,
sanjay

These are really good points, Sanjay. Of course the phrase "only if that interference brings some betterment in one way or other," leaves the door open for interpretation as far as what active roles government is allowed to take in our lives in the name of "betterment". It's nice when government can help us improve our lives (such as when it provides us with needed public services) but not so great when government becomes a police state where citizens are constantly under surveillance or some form of discipline. In some senses the latter case does seem to describe our inner cities here in the US. It's very disturbing that the US has one of the highest incarceration rates of any country in the world. A significant portion of that can probably be contributed to the "war on drugs".

"Let's see how self-reliant they really are."

They wouldn't be...they aren't.

The wealthy are wealthy cuz they operate in an artificial enviroment, a crafted context.
Take 'em out of that, and they starve, or get eaten.

#

"public services"

Which ones?

Where I am: water, electricity, natural gas, garbage pick up, are private concerns and are done well. Roads and cops are public concerns and are done poorly.

Gary Childress wrote:Of course the phrase "only if that interference brings some betterment in one way or other," leaves the door open for interpretation as far as what active roles government is allowed to take in our lives in the name of "betterment"

It certainly leaves the door open, and that should be kept open too. In the name of betterment depends on the intention of the implementer. This issue cannot be solved without getting the intent right from both sides, otherwise one side, or both sides will always keep complaining.

Having said that, still,let us shut the door completely and forever is even worse alternative than let the door open even if may be misused.

Total regulation is always better than total freedom.

Gary Childress wrote: It's nice when government can help us improve our lives (such as when it provides us with needed public services) but not so great when government becomes a police state where citizens are constantly under surveillance or some form of discipline

True.

Gary Childress wrote: In some senses the latter case does seem to describe our inner cities here in the US. It's very disturbing that the US has one of the highest incarceration rates of any country in the world. A significant portion of that can probably be contributed to the "war on drugs"

That may be true, but you are forgetting that the some people from the same US also demand drugs that like marijuana should be freed from all restrictions. These types of demands provide excuse/justification to the line crossing to the other side (government) too. The intent/wisdom has be shown from both sides, otherwise this confrontation will continue.

with love,
sanjay

zinnat13 wrote:

Gary Childress wrote: In some senses the latter case does seem to describe our inner cities here in the US. It's very disturbing that the US has one of the highest incarceration rates of any country in the world. A significant portion of that can probably be contributed to the "war on drugs"

That may be true, but you are forgetting that the some people from the same US also demand drugs that like marijuana should be freed from all restrictions. These types of demands provide excuse/justification to the line crossing to the other side (government) too. The intent/wisdom has be shown from both sides, otherwise this confrontation will continue.

with love,
sanjay

Hi Sanjay,

I am aware that there are those who want all restrictions on drug use removed. However, as I pointed out the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world and that much of it can probably be attributed to the "war on drugs". Are you suggesting that the "war on drugs" in its present form is justified despite these appalling facts?