rajeev@sfmag.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (12/21/85)
ut-sally!raghu writes: > Is it good for the state to have power in matters that represent individual > choice? ..... > .... there is a presupposition that the state knows what > is 'good' and that makes me uncomfortable .... (The meaning of 'good' is in the eyes of the beholder!) Although this discussion is about religion-based laws for Muslims, I think ut-sally!raghu touches on some rather large issues in his comments quoted above. I think he errs in assuming that the state is, of necessity, stupid/evil/'bad' (I know these are fashionable libertarian notions, but that doesn't make them true!) There are several facts I'd like to point out: 1) There are plenty of instances where the state has to protect citizens against themselves: e.g., attempted suicide is considered a criminal act in most societies, but it can be argued that it really is a matter of "individual choice", can't it? Somewhat more controversial, perhaps, are the 55-mile speed limit and helmet laws which both protect the individual and society by reducing the costs associated with accidents. 2) There have been many very progressive societies guided by an elite bureaucracy: (e.g. the Chinese under the Manchus: whence "mandarin" from "mantri"; the well-known example of MITI in Japan). 3) If left to themselves, individuals will usually make selfish decisions that are not in the long-term interests of the society they live in. In times of plenty, as in the 80's USA, this is probably fine because there is enough to go around. But when sacrifices have to be made (e.g. post-depression USA) there has to be a disinterested authority that has the common weal in mind. I think that the state does have a role (despite the Marxist rhetoric about its withering away) because in its absence, as for instance in Beirut, the law of the jungle prevails. There is a large number of rules and restrictions that the state imposes that nobody would disagree with, because they make life easier for everyone. What individuals disagree on is the point at which state intervention becomes an invasion of privacy. As an example, it could be argued that traffic laws violate a person's rights to drive as they please, but you know the chaos in streets in India (or in Boston!) Sri Rajeev ihnp4!attunix!rajeev
raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) (12/24/85)
In article <826@sfmag.UUCP> rajeev@sfmag.UUCP (S.Rajeev) writes: ------------------------------- >ut-sally!raghu writes: >> Is it good for the state to have power in matters that represent individual >> choice? ..... >> .... there is a presupposition that the state knows what >> is 'good' and that makes me uncomfortable .... ------------------------------------ >comments quoted above. I think he errs in assuming that the state ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >is, of necessity, stupid/evil/'bad' (I know these are fashionable ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >libertarian notions, but that doesn't make them true!) There are >several facts I'd like to point out: > I don't really assume that the state is, of necessity or otherwise, evil/ stupid/'bad' (despite the tempting fashionability of these libertarian notions!). All I wish to point out is that any regulation is with respect to a set of supposedly 'good' behaviour or values. My reservations are due to the fact that there may be no such characterization that holds across the board, and in any event, it is undesirable to give any group or entity (the state, for example) - no matter how well-intentioned - the right to enforce its views on what is 'good'. Rajeev goes on to point out (as did Subba Rao of Maryland, in an earlier posting) that it is often necessary to have a common order imposed by some (hopefully enlightened and 'disinterested') authority. I agree. I mean, to do otherwise would be to repudiate every law! (But wait a minute - that means no lawyers, right? The idea does have attractions ... :-)) The bottom line is, I think, that any law is a price we pay for some societal necessity. It is a price that should be examined very carefully.