ddw@cornell.UUCP (06/24/83)
From: ddw (David Wright)
To: net-politics
Thank goodness for Tom Craver and those like him! Without them, who would
we flame at? Well, anyway, here we have Tom saying (a few spelling mistakes
in subsequent quotations have been fixed):
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.
I can see many objections to this already. First, more than four people can't
usually even decide when to have lunch, much less what kind of laws they need
to have. Majority consensus (51% or 66% or 90% or whatever threshhold you
like) seems to be the only alternative to complete stagnation. Why should
one person be able to hold up something vital to 99 others, particularly
if that person is doing it to lever some concession out of the 99? (I do
recognize that this happens in the Senate at times.)
As a second objection, suppose my friends and I formed our government under
the unanimous agreement that we'd go by majority rule? The main point is
to avoid stomping the minority.
Finally, what's wrong with compromise? Sure, there are some issues on which
compromise is bad, but frequently it simply isn't possible to give everyone
everything they want. Politics has been described as "the art of the
possible," and regardless of what you may think of politicians, there is
something to this. For that matter, what's the difference between "rational
agreement" and compromise?
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.
This is what we're supposed to have under the Constitution. Of course, we
have all of these rule-making bodies that are part of the Executive branch,
but at least in theory the Congress does make the laws. Are you under the
impression you were onto something original here?
This business of "the purposes of laws" does come into the courts, particularly
on Constitutional rights cases and things like that. It's not always simple
to decide what the purpose of a law was when you get into the gray areas.
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". E.g. "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).
Oh, I don't know. What if the rich are deliberately impoverishing the
poor? Think of it as recycling. Seriously, "the common good" seldom
applies to absolutely everyone, but there are certainly things that help
virtually everyone. Where do we draw the line? Absolutely everyone?
Again, I doubt that anything would ever happen.
I can, (and have, in previous notes) presented the basis for individual
rights and a government limited to protecting them.
Unfortunately, the notion of what constitutes "rights" and what measures
should be taken to protect them is far from simple. The whole civil rights
movement and the maze of court decisions around it is proof of this.
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".
Your long wait is over. Here's an example: suppose there is a highly auto-
mated factory, completely run by its owners (of whom there are, say, six)
which emits vast amounts of pollution and is slowly killing the people who
live near the factory. (The owners live in air-conditioned comfort inside
and are not injured by the pollution.) As long as we're taking "life, lib-
erty" etc. as something desirable, and life is being destroyed by the
factory, is government justified in stepping in and forcing the owners to
either shut down or clean up? Don't know about you, bub, but if I lived
in the area, I'd sure think it was!
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.
And you do? Well, I used your criterion, so I guess I must be using reality
and human nature. Sure is nice that we've got someone on the net who has
the Truth.
David Wright
{vax135|decvax|purdue}!cornell!ddw
ddw@cornell