trc@houti.UUCP (06/27/83)
Response to Mike Kelly on government interference: You state that "all advanced countries have established governments which make policies in what *they* see as the best interest of the general population." [emphasis added by me - trc] Do you mean to define the nature of an advanced government with this statement, or to infer that making policies in the "common interest" is the action of an advanced type government? If the former, I simply disagree with your idea of advanced - since Russia and all communist countries can claim this. If the latter, by what standards do you judge a government to be advanced? My idea of a good government is one whose only function is to protect individual rights and hence freedoms. Very few modern governments are advanced by this standard. The US is more advanced than some, but nowhere near perfect. I do not favor governing by either consensus or participatory democracy. I favor a government created by rational agreement (not compromise - which consensus implies) by those who will be its citizens. If a government is flawed, it must be either changed (in which case it ceases to be, and the modified government takes its place), or those wishing the change should quit the government and either join or form another. Changes to the law of an existing government should only be done with unanimous consent of the governed. Administration of the laws must be very strictly limited by the law to insure that the purposes of laws are met. The number of laws would be limited, and well enforced. Those administering the laws would have no power to create new laws or nor motive to change the meaning of the laws. I do not reject the notion that some things are good for all humans - life, freedom, material property, happiness, etc. I do reject the idea of "the common good", which is not the same thing. When someone uses this phrase, they often mean "whatever *I* believe is good for everyone", not "what is good for everyone". Or, frequently, they mean "the greatest good for the greatest number". EG, "it is in the common good to tax the rich for the benefit of the poor". This is hardly to the benefit of the rich (and in the long run is not good for the poor). Not being a libertarian, I am not stopped in my tracks by your question about monopolies. In a proper government, coercive monopolies (those using force, rather than competitive skill to keep the monopoly) will not exist. Only the government should use force, and only in retaliation for violation of individual rights. "Laissez-faire" usually refers to economics, and does not preclude a proper rights-protecting government. It is not interference for a government to protect rights. People dont want criminals to be "left alone"! (And criminals dont deserve to be left alone.) I can, (and have, in previous notes) presented the basis for individual rights and a government limited to protecting them. Can anyone present a similar line of reasoning supporting a government that sacrifices some people for the benefit of others? I have never seen (and doubt I will ever see) any such argument that does not start at some high level concept of altruistic "morality". And a question that stops such arguments in their tracks is - "What is the basis of your moral ideal?" The only answers I know of are of the type "it has been revealed to me", or "everyone knows what is moral", or "*I* say what is moral" (mysticism, or tradition/ instinct, or dictatorship). None of these grant that there is any basis in reality and human nature for morality. Tom Craver houti!trc