Philosophy Now Forum

Government
When the police do not act for society according to the law, for fear of upsetting a particular cultural-religious group, we are one step nearer Anarchism [not chaos]. Anarchism based, not on the individual in this instance, but on social groups.
No country has ever been absolutely anything, in ethical terms. Society does not jump from one extreme to another, but moves by muddled degrees. Even a place like North Korea today, is not absolutely totalitarian, from grass roots upwards. That will not happen until everyone is implanted with a 'chip' by courtesy of who or whatever is in control.
In the democratic 'West' which means most particularly the Western European nations of the world, and their progeny. There is a muddled democracy, which is in danger of signifying nothing more than populist control of government. As if a democracy can vote for tyranny [Hitler] as an expression of democratic will. Popular support is the stuff of tyranny, instilled by education and general social control.
It is unfortunate, for would be altruists, that the United Nations has its Human Rights so closely based on the individual. As if national states, and societies at grass roots, are there merely to create a Global Society of Semi-Autonomous Individuals. Practically this is not so, although politicians persist in talking as if it were. An absolute individualistic value is nonsense, since values as a whole cannot be absolutist.
There is one value that is today used in a way that is at best anarchistic. That is Tolerance. Here again it tends to be employed in virtual isolation, with almost anything to be tolerated and then made an egalitarian right, as long as society is peaceful and law abiding. When employed in conjunction with other values, within altruist society, it is only cultural variety that can be entirely tolerated and indeed encouraged internationally. Tolerance beyond that must be limited only to allow for human ignorance and uncertainty.

Stop smoking weed.

RWStanding wrote:Government
When the police do not act for society according to the law, for fear of upsetting a particular cultural-religious group, we are one step nearer Anarchism [not chaos]. Anarchism based, not on the individual in this instance, but on social groups.

How is that Anarchism, or even anarchy? It sounds to me more like tribalism or factionalism.

In the democratic 'West' which means most particularly the Western European nations of the world, and their progeny. There is a muddled democracy, which is in danger of signifying nothing more than populist control of government. As if a democracy can vote for tyranny [Hitler] as an expression of democratic will.

Historical point of order. Hitler wasn't elected dictator. He seized power by direct armed intimidation of the parliament.

Popular support is the stuff of tyranny, instilled by education and general social control.

This is a bald statement. You have not made the case. In North Korea and elsewhere this may apply in practice, the education and popular support are backed by armed force. Indeed, the "populist" movement in today's[sic] US does a good deal of gun-waving.

It is unfortunate, for would be altruists, that the United Nations has its Human Rights so closely based on the individual.

"A human" being the basic unit of "humanity", what else have they got to base it on? Family units are not necessarily cohesive or conducive to the welfare of all members; tribes or states are far too disparate to apply a single rule or characteristic or requirement or definition to.

As if national states, and societies at grass roots, are there merely to create a Global Society of Semi-Autonomous Individuals.

That would certainly cut down on the warfare! It's a whole lot easier to subdue a couple of guys engaged in fisticuffs over their property line than two nations having at each other's civilian population with bombs and tanks.

Practically this is not so, although politicians persist in talking as if it were.

So long as each individual has a single vote and income tax return, that's the only way they can approach their constituencies.

An absolute individualistic value is nonsense, since values as a whole cannot be absolutist.

This is true. Yet people manage to unite under a religious doctrine or a national constitution that enshrines a particular set of values that all members of a group subscribe to - at least, in theory.

There is one value that is today used in a way that is at best anarchistic. That is Tolerance. Here again it tends to be employed in virtual isolation, with almost anything to be tolerated and then made an egalitarian right, as long as society is peaceful and law abiding.

What's this "almost anything" that must be tolerated. Last I saw in any constitution, the mandated tolerance was directed only at identities, property and lawful activities that do not negatively affect other people.
I see no way for a diverse population to operate without tolerance. Enshrining equality in the legal and ethical system does not cause isolation in a society; if anything, it ought to promote communication and interaction. (However, it is easier, in a multicultural society, to exploit differences for political friction than commonalities for co-operation.)

When employed in conjunction with other values, within altruist society, it is only cultural variety that can be entirely tolerated and indeed encouraged internationally. Tolerance beyond that must be limited only to allow for human ignorance and uncertainty.

You didn't explain anything about this assumed "altruism".
It's possible that the world of humans can't function in federations, and needs to break down into its component tribes, either organic or voluntary.
It's possible that very thing is about to happen in the USA.
This is never a peaceful, altruistic or tidy process.
Therefore, I countermand TSBU's recommendation and prescribe all the weed you can get your hands on. In some places, perhaps legally.