Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Towards a Free government and moral relativity?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 8 (282387)
01-29-2006 8:47 PM


Column #2 - Ben and Holmes for input?

Preamble Ramble

I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have.
Thus begins the 1849 Henry David Thoreau essay "Resistance to Civil Government" - best known as "Civil Disobedience" - and often studied in high school. Less well remembered is that this was in response to the blatant (unprovoked) invasion of Mexico by the Usof(N)A as a land grab, which resulted in (among other things) Texas becoming a state (a small bit of irony there eh?) and ultimately the Civil War (as people fought over whether the new states should allow or prohibit slavery).
He goes on to say, among other things (these are 'quote mined' excerpts):
... government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.
But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at one no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.
I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.
Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?
I meet this American government, or its representative, the State government, directly, and face to face, once a year--no more--in the person of its tax-gatherer; ...
I have never declined paying the highway tax, because I am as desirous of being a good neighbor as I am of being a bad subject; and as for supporting schools, I am doing my part to educate my fellow countrymen now. It is for no particular item in the tax bill that I refuse to pay it. I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually.
The reason Thoreau refused to pay is poll tax was as a protest against the government's invasion of Mexico: it was his way of withdrawing support from a government that was taking an action that he felt was wrong, and where he felt that relying on normal political action would be too slow. Many think this was the beginning of non-violent protest as a means of achieving political change in the USof(N)A, if not many other areas of the world. We do know that Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr both referenced this essay in the development of their thoughts on non-violent protests.
Let us first take the concept of the right to withdraw support from an organization that takes actions or behaves in a manner with which you do not agree.

The Right to Withdraw Support

Certainly this right pertains to any organization that you join voluntarily, usually with the understanding that membership in the organization is also terminated.
This right also pertains to any organization that employs your services (whether by direct hire or by contract or purchase), along with the understanding that monetary compensation and other benefits will also be terminated.
This right also pertains to any organization that you do business with: if you buy products from China you are supporting the Chinese production of the product, and thus (tacitly) the Chinese Government; you can withdraw this support by refusing to buy products from China until they meet your standards of freedom and justice. You can also withdraw your support of "American" businesses that sell products from countries like China, and that are more concerned with bottom line profits than with basic freedoms and social justice. Failure to do so enables the unjust behavior to continue.
As far as government goes, it is possible (usually) to move to another country, become a citizen thereof, and renounce citizenship in the offending country (the "love it or leave it" option), to invest in political action to end the wrong behavior (the "Green Party" option), or to actively protest in such manner as to "transgress" the government behavior and suffer the legal consequences (the "Hell No I Won't Go" option employed in the 60's). In regard to this last solution, Thoreau also said ("Civil Disobedience"):
Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.
Probably the most famous American to take this course of action during the Viet Nam War was Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay), who forfeited his heavy-weight title as well.
This brings us to the question of whether a truly free government would be allowed to imprison people for disagreeing with what it does.

A Truly Free Government

The Declaration of Independence says (in part):
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ...
(bold mine for emphasis)
Explicit in this document is the right, if not the duty, of people to withdraw support of a government that they believe no longer behaves in a just manner.
The Preamble to the Usof(N)A Constitution says:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The US Constitution does not take away the right to dissent and protest against actions or behaviors of the government that people find unjust or immoral, in fact it explicitly allows non-violent protests with the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
(bold mine for emphasis)
The constitution, if you remember, is really Plan "B" (after the failure of the "Articles of Confederation"), and it {was-is} an imperfect document (being, at best, "more perfect"), as is evidenced by it's several amendments, and that it included a means of addressing it's shortcomings (via amendments) - with the implicit understanding that people can take such actions as they can reasonably deem necessary to bring about change.
The extension of voting rights beyond the original white land-owning male population, the emancipation of slaves, womens suffragette, and civil rights, all are corrections to the original document with the intent of making rights more universally applicable to all people (amendments 15 and 19 are also wonderful in their simplicity in this regard: there is no equivocation). The constitution is a working document, created as such, with a means incorporated for working out the problems ... with the consent of the people.
"We the people ... establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
There are no rights that can be taken away by the passing of just laws or regulations, rights can only be given up by the people involved.
What we currently see in the world are a range of government forms, from relatively free to absolutely totalitarian. Within the relatively "free" countries we see a number of governments using a variety of democratic forms to chose leaders and pass laws, a constitution to document the rights of individuals and their relations to the government, and a series of laws and regulations that whittle away at rights, usually with relatively 'draconian' measures to coerce compliance from the general population (compared to the "crime"). These governments, thus, have limited freedoms, with the overall trend towards more limitations, and a reduction in legal recognition of the rights and freedoms of the citizens.
Since the time of the American (and French) Revolutions there have been no real experiments in new formations and organization of Free Governments. To truly measure the degree of freedom in various countries one would need a reference point for what a truly free government should be like. This has not really been addressed in the last 200 years or so. Perhaps it is time.
Some years ago, the State met me in behalf of the Church, and commanded me to pay a certain sum toward the support of a clergyman whose preaching my father attended, but never I myself. "Pay," it said, "or be locked up in the jail." I declined to pay. ... However, as the request of the selectmen, I condescended to make some such statement as this in writing: "Know all men by these presents, that I, Henry Thoreau, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any society which I have not joined." This I gave to the town clerk; and he has it.
("Civil Disobedience" - bold mine for emphasis)
People from within a country that are imprisoned for dissent, or for breaking laws because they feel the laws are unjust, are political prisoners, and a country that has political prisoners is not a free government.
People from outside a country that are imprisoned, as a result of political conflict with the country, but not for acts of war during a time of war (and hence {would-should} be prisoners of war under the Geneva convention) are political prisoners, and a country that has political prisoners is not a free government.
Countries that create new categories for imprisoning people for political purposes are intentionally making whole new categories of political prisoners, and a country that has political prisoners is not a free government.
"... all men are created equal ... with certain unalienable Rights ..."
Rights pertain equally to all people regardless of national origin, citizenship, faith, affiliation, sex, race, whatever. Any government that does not recognize this basic element of truly free government is not a free government.
The inescapable conclusion of all this philosophical rambling is that participation in a truly free government {could-would-should} ultimately be optional, that people should have the right to opt out of any government programs they feel are unjust or just plain wrong and to opt in to any government programs they feel are just and right.
One basic quandary, then, is how a person can distinguish support for {just-moral-good} programs from support for the {unjust-immoral-bad} ones, when the tax (for instance) is collected without any reference to approval of any specific government programs. How can a person really support a representative that only does a better job of representing the positions of a person than any other representative? Where does support end when there is no means to delineate it?

Optional Participation

Foreign to all the supposedly free governments of the world is the concept of citizens having the right to opt in or out of any government programs. It is a simple concept: if a person feels that a war in Iraq, for instance, is {unjust-immoral-wrong} they should, under a truly free government, be able to remove their support of that program and not have any of their tax monies spent on programs that support such a {action-behavior} by the government - or of having any other tacit or implied support of the program taken.
Further, the default position on participation in government programs should be to exclude people unless expressly stated otherwise that they want to opt in to the program (presumably after they reach an 'age of majority' and are no longer covered by the dictates of parents or guardians). One should not be forced to specify withdrawal of support from an organization they have not explicitly joined.
"Know all men by these presents, that I, Henry Thoreau, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any society which I have not joined."
This would, of course, also logically extend to any and all social and other programs, from Social Security, to Welfare, to universal Health Care, to whatever has been foisted on us down through the years.
All such programs {could-would-should} become optional, supported only by those that feel they are good and proper, and only applicable to those that choose to join them (we see a beginning of this concept already in the US's "all volunteer" army ...except that it is difficult to opt out as yet). Further, they would not need to be optional government programs, but voluntary programs of associations or societies or unions that people would join or organize as they saw fit (with membership fees to pay for the costs, and rules and regulations for members).
Theocratic types could have an association based on a religion, with members agreeing to abide by the rules and regulations of the religion, even to have education based on their religious precepts, and pay membership fees to pay for the costs (we could call them "churches" ...).
Socialist types could have an association that provides universal health care to all members, to hire health care providers necessary and have fees to pay for the costs.
Unions as we know them {could-would-should} become obsolete, as they would not pertain to any one business or kind of business, but to the relationship of the employee to the employer and the just (equal, fair, respectful) treatment of people.
All such {groups-associations-unions-societies-etcetera} (hereafter simply refered to as "organizations") could have terms and conditions for joining, that would include compliance with their specific rules and regulations (with loss of membership, and compensations for benefits received, as punishments for disobedience or noncompliance) and they could be as exclusionary as they choose, because membership would be voluntary, with the caveat that other organizations could be formed on exactly the same lines without such exclusions.
Thus organizations like Boy Scouts could continue to exclude males that do not believe in (any) god and all juvenile females. They could also have whatever oaths of allegiance they deemed appropriate.
The inevitable natural conclusion of this position, is that a truly free government would:
(1) Be totally optional, that any person could join that agreed to abide by the {laws-regulations-programs} of the government, that no person that did so agree could be excluded for any reason whatsoever, because the truly free government would also be ...
(2) Be reduced to the barest minimum {laws-regulations-programs} that all people would support (leaving all other {laws-regulations-programs} to the purview of optional\voluntary organizations) ... but that it must, at a minimum, ...
(3) Necessarily include the just (equal, fair, respectful) adjudication of disagreements between people with different sets of organizations, an adjudication that must be secular (to avoid any favoritism to any religion or groups of religions), and independent of government {laws and regulations}, and inclusive of all {rules-positions-views-beliefs} of all the people involved. An adjudication that does not depend on the "constitutionality" of the various {laws-regulations-programs-rules-positions-views-beliefs} of either the government or the different organizations, but on basic {human} rights and the least infringement thereof.
Such adjudication could only be just (equal, fair, respectful) if it is above and independent of government {laws-regulations-programs} and the {rules-positions-views-beliefs} of all organizations.
Inevitably there will be conflicts between people with different sets of organizations, based on their personal moral systems and their behaviors, and it would be the duty of the adjudication system to determine which course of action infringed on the involved individual human rights the least ... the Pandora's box of different values in conflict.

Moral Relativity

Within any organization the moral {standards-values-precepts} would be fairly distinct and defined by the organization, and thus they would be easy to judge within the context of the organization {rules-positions-views-beliefs}.
The problem comes when there are cross-overs from one group to another, with overlaps between slightly different organizations.
In this regard I can see a series of essays discussing the relative morality of any number of issues. For starters:
  • body piercing - from ear to lips to teats or what-ever - done by parents or by the individual
  • body mutilation - from circumcision to pattern scars to tattoos - done by parents or by the individual
The essence of a truly free government system as thus envisaged, would be that within a organization you could have a set of {rules-positions-views-beliefs} which people within the group are expected to abide by (to maintain membership), but that they cannot apply to people outside the group (because they are not voluntary members).
Thus a organization could decide that ear piercing of two year old girls and circumcision of newborn boys is part of their "cultural heritage" while others could conclude that they are barbaric child abuses and forbid them, while others could leave it up to the individuals to have the experience voluntarily.
People moving from one organization to another (or making a new one) can chose to remove their support of one organization and to abide by the {rules-positions-views-beliefs} of the (new) other organization.
While this may be difficult for "undoing" certain operations, the issues become more complex when you get into things like:
  • sexual control - from preventatives, contraceptives, and morning after pills to late term abortions - decided by a organization or by an individual
  • euthanasia vs life support - decided by a organization or by an individual
  • war\killing - decided by a organization or by an individual
Thus an abortion doctor could move to a prohibiting organization and would no longer be able to perform abortions, a pregnant female could move to an allowing organization and have an abortion, people that chose to belong to "right to die" organization can join Oregon, while others that want to belong to a organization that keeps brain-dead meat alive can form a organization for the purpose, and someone that just wants to kill others can form a "death-pact-kill-or-be-killed" organization (like Florida, with Jeb's new gun law?) or join one of two or more "War-In-Iraq" organizations or whatever fits their rationals.
But a organization would not be able to impose their {rules-positions-views-beliefs} on an individual or another organization without infringing on the rights of the individuals to withdraw support from any organization.
Thus an anti-abortion organization could not in any way infringe on the free exercise of abortions within a pro-abortion organization, and a pro-abortion organization could not force an anti-abortion organization to provide abortion facilities, the killing of an individual that does not belong to a "death-pact" organization is murder punishable by the victim's {rules-positions-views-beliefs} - whether life imprisonment or lethal injection or hanging until dead - and wars of invasion by one organization on another are wrong, but wars of mutual destruction between two consenting organizations would be allowed as long as they did not infringe on individuals not belonging to either organization - chose your battlegrounds eh?

Conclusions

For such a truly free government, the "national" boundary would necessarily include all of humanity, world wide.
The only difference between this and what we have today is that it clarifies the "rules of engagement" between organizations with different views and the rights of individuals to remove their support from any organization at any time.
We could call it "Enlightened Anarchy."
How does this impinge on the Creationism versus Evolution debate? Very simply: people have the right to form whatever organizations they like, including ones to educate their children according to their {rules-positions-views-beliefs} and free of the {rules-positions-views-beliefs} of other organizations.
Enjoy.
{added subtitle}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01*29*2006 09:39 PM

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2006 9:34 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 2 of 8 (282401)
01-29-2006 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-29-2006 8:47 PM


Re: Column #2 - Ben and Holmes for input?
Comments by email?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2006 8:47 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by AdminBen, posted 01-29-2006 11:47 PM RAZD has replied

  
AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 8 (282445)
01-29-2006 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by RAZD
01-29-2006 9:34 PM


Re: Column #2 - Ben and Holmes for input?
RAZD,
Please submit columns to me (for editing) @ adminben@ in a word file.
As for getting comments... I think the commentary you're looking for would be appropriate for discussion AFTER the email is posted. Feel free to contact people using email (if that's possible) if you wanted input / comments for any column you happen to be writing. Or to start related sub-topics here, if that will help you.
If there's any issue with that, please let me know and we can discuss it here. But that process seems like the cleanest and most productive to me.
Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2006 9:34 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2006 7:08 AM AdminBen has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 8 (282491)
01-30-2006 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by AdminBen
01-29-2006 11:47 PM


Re: Column #2 - Ben and Holmes for input?
cool.
I am now using OpenOfficeSuite but the files are compatable with word (even to track changes). May be some glitches, but those I want to find out about.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AdminBen, posted 01-29-2006 11:47 PM AdminBen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by AdminBen, posted 01-30-2006 8:23 AM RAZD has replied

  
AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 8 (282509)
01-30-2006 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
01-30-2006 7:08 AM


Re: Column #2 - Ben and Holmes for input?
I am now using OpenOfficeSuite
Me too. As long as what we do is ultimately compatible with Word, then we're fine. There's only a few features (such as comments) that I wasn't able to use last time. But maybe that changed with the update to version 2.0
Anyway, I'll await your email!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2006 7:08 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2006 8:30 PM AdminBen has not replied
 Message 8 by AdminPhat, posted 02-18-2006 3:40 AM AdminBen has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 8 (282704)
01-30-2006 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by AdminBen
01-30-2006 8:23 AM


Re: Column #2 - Ben and Holmes for input?
... a few features (such as comments) ...
it's there - {insert} {note ...} - but harder to use unless you do it as part of a deletion (or all you get is a highlighted space that is hard to see)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AdminBen, posted 01-30-2006 8:23 AM AdminBen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by AdminPhat, posted 02-07-2006 1:09 AM RAZD has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 8 (284527)
02-07-2006 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
01-30-2006 8:30 PM


Re: Column #2 - Ben and Holmes for input?
BUMP

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2006 8:30 PM RAZD has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 8 (288012)
02-18-2006 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by AdminBen
01-30-2006 8:23 AM


Re: Column #2 - Ben and Holmes for input?
Ben, what do you wanna do with RAZD?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AdminBen, posted 01-30-2006 8:23 AM AdminBen has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024