trc@houti.UUCP (06/17/83)
Response to Guy Harris on the possibility of a small set of basic
laws to govern by.
You demand proof of my assumption that a small set of laws
to govern people is possible.
Consider what you demand - that I recreate for you, starting
from metaphysics and epistemology, and climbing through ethics to
politics, the entire chain of reasoning that leads to my claim.
Can you see that that would require a rather long news note!?! I
suggest that you read Ayn Rand's works, if you want a full
exposition. "Philosophy - Who Needs It?", "Capitalism - The
Unknown Ideal", and "The Virtue of Selfishness" have the basics.
So, rather than start at the bottom, I will start some place
in the middle, and merely sketch the argument.
Aristotle defined Man as "the rational animal". Human life
is the fundamental value for all humans, because preserving it is
necessary to preserve their nature. Reason is the only means of
survival available to humans. Support of one's own life is at
the basis of all morality.
The value of one's own life leads directly to rights. The
concept of "right" is that certain actions are morally correct,
and that no one may morally prevent those actions by fraud or
force. To violate another's right is to deny that life *is* a
right for humans, which in turn denies one's own right to life.
The only purpose of government is to protect individual
rights. Governments are given a monopoly upon the use of
retaliatory force, which it is to use rationally only to enforce
human rights. Government does not have any independent,
"natural" right to exist, or to wield force, because it is an
artificial organization created by humans. Its powers must be
assigned to it by the humans that accept its rule and it can only
govern or act for those people.
Law is the codification of the purposes and powers of a
government. It does not need to address every "point" in its
sphere of concern. It need only specify the boundaries. The Law
should state that the purpose of law and government is to protect
individual rights, and should list those rights that are to be
protected. It should state that individuals are free to do
anything that does not violate the rights the government is going
to protect.
In addition, to be practical, the law must define a rational
method of running the government. This could either be very
"high level", specifying only some ground rules, and letting the
government form itself; or it could be very specific but allow a
method of changing that form. (As in the game Nomic.)
Tom Craver
houti!trcsher@rochester.UUCP (06/18/83)
Tom, your claim that a small set of laws is all that is necessary for government can be far more easily proved than by the method you have chosen. Simply publish a set. It doesn't have to be perfect, just close and the combined intelligence of the net will act to perfect it. This would do more to help me understand your possition than any necessarily vague position. (Of course this might be a bit long if a small number is larger than 100). -David the blasphemer Sher
wex@ittvax.UUCP (06/20/83)
Mr. Craver makes some interesting points in his attempt to provide the basis for a limited set of laws. As a philosphy major, however, I think I have spotted a fairly serious flaw, to wit: He states that the foundation of morality is "suuport of one's own life." We assume that any morals that are to be enforceable by a government must be universal. Therefore, all persons should be moral. BUT, by the Craver system, if I have absolutely no regard for my own life, then I am completely outside the strictures of morality, and his government has no hold over me. Additionally, the argument can be made that his government has sway over my actions only to the extent that I am concerned for my own life. Does that mean that he cannot govern Vikings, whose concern for personal death was minimal to non-existant? This seems a very weak foundation on which to base any arguments. --Alan ittvax!wex or decvax!ucbvax!ittvax!wex@BERKELEY
tim@isrnix.UUCP (06/22/83)
The primary moral value is NOT to preserve an individual life-it is
to preserve the life of the species as a whole! Our own individual
lives are limited to our own morality -the life of the human species
hopefully can go on for many,many centuries unless we destroy
ourselves. If a mother and her child face the threat of death, which
will the mother choose, her own death or her child's death? Most
mothers will probably choose their own death-the child will live to
carry on the species. Is this "irrational" as Ayn Rand would have it?
NO! It is only rational that by loving and caring for each other,by
caring for something beyond our individual selves that the human
race has prospered and survived. That is why cultures have honored
heroes who were willing to sacrifice their lives to defend their
fellows-the Marathon messengers who carried the warning of the
Persian invasion for 23 miles and then died, those who died at the
pass at Thermopylae to give their fellow country-persons time to
reach safety, there are many such sagas throughout history.
And what is "rationality" to be the supreme value anyway? "Rationality"
merely means choosing the best means to attain certain ends. Who can
define those ends? They cannot be defined by "rationality"-is Love
rational? Undoubtedly not but many people find it a very important
end. But it is doubtful whether anyone who only values themselves
or the preservation of their own life above all others could ever
understand what love really means.
Tim Sevener
decvax|pur-ee!iuvax!isrnix!tim