|
Post by robeiae on Nov 16, 2016 8:21:39 GMT -5
What is political obligation? Well, it's the idea that one will--for one reason or another--agree to follow or otherwise accept the laws and rules of a given civil society. It is--in the words of TH Green--"the true ground or justification for obedience to law." For instance, one doesn't steal because one is politically obligated to not steal, one is politically obligated to obey the law that limits such behavior. Why? That's the question. Here's the Stanford Encyclopedia's entry on the subject: plato.stanford.edu/entries/political-obligation/It opens--as it should--with Socrates (Plato) explaining why he must accept his imprisonment and punishment ( from Crito). Socrates, in his explanation, touches on several categories of theories of political obligation: 1) consent, 2) gratitude, 3) fair play, and 4) utilitarian. The first is typified by theorists like Locke and Hobbes: it is social contract theory. The second is a nuanced argument that hinges on the idea of benefits: people receive benefits from the state, therefore gratitude for the same compels them to protect the interests of the state and to therefore follow the laws of the state. The third is typified by John Rawls' view, wherein a "reasonably just" and cooperative enterprise imposes these obligations on its participants (not the opening left by Rawls: if the enterprise is not "reasonably just," the obligations are no longer such). The last is of course just the principle of utility: following it means maximizing utility for society. There are other categories, as well. There is divine command (which of course is the justification under divine right theories of the state). There is also simple associative obligation theory, which is not conditional on the nature of membership and holds that such membership alone compels obligation. Obviously, I think, many of these categories slide into each other, apart from divine command (thus summoning the spectre of Wittgenstein). And within each there are many specific theories advanced by different political thinkers/philosophers. Which angle do you favor (if any)? Why?
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 22, 2017 6:15:47 GMT -5
None. I don't understand why anyone would think that because one is born into a particular territory by accident of birth, that one is beholden to the political class of that realm, susceptible to detention, incarceration, theft of goods, or even death if the political class so declares.
To take just one point, consent: The "social contract" is neither social, nor a contract.
Society is the aggregate of people living and interfacing together voluntarily; government is a coercive organization that claims the power to force involuntary actions on some of the people to the detriment of other people. Newsflash: coercion is not social.
A contract requires five elements: (1) offer; (2) acceptance; (3) consideration; (4) mutuality of obligation; (5) competency and capacity.
1) I was never offered an opportunity to approve the "social contract." 2) I never accepted, either implicitly or explicitly, the "social contract." 3) There is no defined consideration. Promises that may or may not be kept, in return for an oath of fealty, doesn't qualify as consideration in my book, at least. YMMV. 4) Mutuality of obligation? Government has no obligation toward its citizens, as has been shown repeatedly by said citizens being blown away or robbed blind, and the government functionaries responsible for those supposedly illegal actions walk, time after time. Even the Supremes have ruled that the police have no obligation to protect any individual. Yet fail to dot an I, cross a T, or submit your required payments to the overlords, and see how quickly your so-called obligations are used to severely restrict your freedoms or take your stuff. 5) Agreeing to such a one-sided agreement as the so-called "social contract" is testimony to the level of competency and capacity demonstrated by the accepting party, IMO.
Therefore, there is no "social contract" as the term is used today. It's fully as legitimate as "original sin."
Now here's a Social Contract, and it's one I would willingly sign and be held to. An open-ended promise to do whatever I'm told, and placing my life in the hands of the state? No thanks.
Social Contract:
The undersigned agrees:
1) to participate voluntarily in any activities he or she chooses to engage in with other members of the community, and to allow other to participate voluntarily in any activities he or she chooses to engage in with other members of the community, as long as the remaining points of the contract are not violated. 2) to engage in productive activities of one's own choosing, and to exchange the goods and/or services so produced with others voluntarily, at exchange rates mutually agreed upon by the parties of the exchange 3) to recognize and respect the concept of personal property 4) to not prevent other members of the community from participation in the societal activities they choose 5) to not take personal property of other members of the community by force or guile 6) to not cause physical harm by force to other members of the community, or to the property of other members 7) to not use fraud as a way to accomplish any of those actions forbidden in clauses 3-5 8) to use any of the various dispute-resolution services established by members of the community in cases of dispute, and to abide by the ruling of the arbitrator in any particular dispute, or appeal for a review by the Council of Arbitrators. Decisions by the Council of Arbitrators are final. 9) in the case of dispute resolution, to voluntarily comply with such penalties as may be called for by the arbitrator to rebalance the inequity defined during the dispute resolution.
Yeah, it's off the top of my head, has a lot of little holes to be filled, and uses a choice-friendly arbitration/collection model rather than the monopoly so popular with the ruling class, but it's a far cry from the "you were born here, now you belong to us" pretense of the "social contract" claimed by the ruling class.
As for the other three:
gratitude: for what? theft and waste of resources? Standing athwart progress, yelling "stop" to protect existing industries? Ruining people's lives for victimless crimes? Using identity politics to split society and set various groups at each other's throats? Running around the world making enemies that want to come to my land and kill me because of what my leaders have done? No gratitude here for any of that.
fair play: since when has that been a feature of the state? Damn near every story published here, or elsewhere, is about how the political class has fucked over someone to the benefit of someone else.
utility: All human progress has been the result of the efforts of individuals free to create, to share those creations, and to reap the benefits of that creation. There is no utility to society of creating a ruling class that has the power to stifle creation, control the results of that creation, and demand a share of such creations as are allowed to spread to society as a result. That's nothing but pure overhead, and its only utility is to make humankind poorer in the aggregate, while a few politically-connected get richer through collusion.
Where one gets a sense of "political obligation" from all this, I haven't the foggiest clue.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 22, 2017 7:40:52 GMT -5
So you only obey laws out of fear? There's no other reasons for you?
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 22, 2017 10:29:24 GMT -5
I obey laws that agree with my sense of morality and common sense, and/or those that breaking fail a cost/benefit analysis. I think most people act this way, even if the only rules they find "too obnoxious" are speed limits or jaywalking statutes on occasion. Most people have an amazingly high tolerance for being bossed about, I find.
I think this Heinlein quote is the best expression of my position.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 22, 2017 11:55:19 GMT -5
Well, laws are laws because those are how we're supposed to set the rules of society. Anyone can say, I never asked to be born in a country where rape and murder are illegal, so I'm under no obligation to follow those rules.
We're supposed to, at least in the US, be self governed. Meaning we make up the laws ourselves. But we don't all cram into a room and wright them out. We elect representatives to do it. Who are supposed to be answerable to the people. Of course, it doesn't work that way. And the majority of people don't have the time or inclination to pay enough attention to what's happening. But by the process of electing people, we're saying we're bound by what they come up with.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 23, 2017 17:02:44 GMT -5
I obey laws that agree with my sense of morality and common sense, and/or those that breaking fail a cost/benefit analysis. I think most people act this way, even if the only rules they find "too obnoxious" are speed limits or jaywalking statutes on occasion. Most people have an amazingly high tolerance for being bossed about, I find. I think this Heinlein quote is the best expression of my position. Well, that's consistent with a "Natural Duty" theory of political obligation (from Rawls, I think). So there you go, you do favor an angle.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 23, 2017 17:51:35 GMT -5
I obey laws that agree with my sense of morality and common sense, and/or those that breaking fail a cost/benefit analysis. I think most people act this way, even if the only rules they find "too obnoxious" are speed limits or jaywalking statutes on occasion. Most people have an amazingly high tolerance for being bossed about, I find. I think this Heinlein quote is the best expression of my position. Well, that's consistent with a "Natural Duty" theory of political obligation (from Rawls, I think). So there you go, you do favor an angle. Not really, as this synopsis of a George Klosko paper points out here. Natural Duties works for malum in se; for malum prohibitum? Not a chance in hell. ETA: From my point of view, natural duty may bring political support, but does not constitute political obligation -- two very different things. My personal example. I support government actions to the extent they protect persons and their property from the initiation of force or fraud, or obtain restitution from those who perpetrate such acts. I do this not out of any sense of political obligation but as a fellow traveler in search of a civilized society who recognizes full well that most people are more concerned with obeying laws than developing their own consistent personal philosophy. Nor do I recognize any obligation to go along with any of the other rulers' various schemes that violate instead of protect personal or property rights. Where the governing body and I agree, I have no trouble providing support without any sense of obligation.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 24, 2017 3:57:19 GMT -5
Well, laws are laws because those are how we're supposed to set the rules of society. Anyone can say, I never asked to be born in a country where rape and murder are illegal, so I'm under no obligation to follow those rules. Perhaps later we can revisit how we're "supposed" to set the rules of society, but I'm much, much more concerned with people who say "I was born in a country where Asian-Americans must be robbed and locked up for the nation's good, and I'm under an obligation to follow those rules," or, for a more contemporary example in the Phillipines, "I was born in a country where drug dealers and their families should be slaughtered without due process, and I'm under an obligation to follow those rules." That has been the justification for crime after crime against humanity over the ages. Even more current: Look at the vitrole coming from the alt-right since they feel the election of Trump has legitimized their insanity. The warped mentality of a "leader" can only warp the whole of society if it is filled with willing followers who will substitute the morality of the state for their own. That's an abdication of one's responsibility to society, IMO. We're supposed to, at least in the US, be self governed. Meaning we make up the laws ourselves. But we don't all cram into a room and wright them out. We elect representatives to do it. Who are supposed to be answerable to the people. Of course, it doesn't work that way. And the majority of people don't have the time or inclination to pay enough attention to what's happening. But by the process of electing people, we're saying we're bound by what they come up with. Yeah, that's roughly the same fairy tale I got in government school. Although I never heard we were to be self-governed. (Check the meaning of that term; I would gladly be self-governed.) Instead, we are ruled by so-called "representatives" who most people have never and will never meet, who have no individual obligation to "represent" any individual, and who are primarily "chosen" based on non-binding "promises" they make to their constituency, which is, in turn, allocated on the most ridiculous basis imaginable, the location of ones' residence. By your own admission, these elected representatives, who are supposed to be answerable to the people, don't work that way! Furthermore, as you also recognize, people living productive lives have other, higher priorities than keeping up with the antics of the political class. Yet in spite of all that, you believe that because you step into a voting booth once in a blue moon and express your choice of a few of the members of the political class, you are bound to their dictates. Why? So do you unthinkingly obey every law on the books because it's the law? Never speed, or jaywalk, or use a loose interpretation of "income" to trim your taxes? Never pay cash for a discount, knowing full well the recipient will never record that transaction in their books? Or do you, too, "tolerate the rules you find tolerable and break the ones you find obnoxious?" It may help to clarify your position if you substitute "moral" for "tolerable" and "immoral" for "obnoxious." And do you do that because you have no morals, or because you recognize your moral obligation to yourself and to society to do so, in spite of claims by the ruling class that they should always be obeyed?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 26, 2017 16:06:33 GMT -5
I think very few people actually believe you should follow all laws unquestioningly because they are the law.
Most people also are not 100% honest all the time, but for the most part, I do try to follow the laws, even the ones I find obnoxious. Do I occasionally drive over the speed limit or jaywalk? Yes, because I can be selfish and in a hurry at times, but I believe laws against speeding or jaywalking are a good idea in principle, and if I choose to break them I accept the risk of consequence.
I don't cheat on my taxes. Even if I knew 100% that I'd never be caught, I'd still do my taxes, because I believe in things like public libraries and national defense and street repair. (And yes, I know my taxes go to other things that I don't approve of. Which is why we have a political process, because if you had your druthers, we'd have no public libraries, and if some people had their druthers, we'd have no military, and unfortunately we cannot have a functioning society in which everyone gets their druthers.)
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 26, 2017 20:50:29 GMT -5
So that's a vote for ""tolerate the rules you find tolerable and sometimes break the ones you find obnoxious," then. Got it.
I personally consider the War on Drugs, the surveillance/security/police state, half my tax dollars buying mass deaths across the middle east, and massively restricted personal freedoms (among a long laundry list of other reasons) a poor tradeoff for taxpayer-funded access to copyrighted material. YMMV.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 27, 2017 8:15:38 GMT -5
So that's a vote for ""tolerate the rules you find tolerable and sometimes break the ones you find obnoxious," then. Got it. That is not what I said. Because one without the other is obviously impossible. No peaceful society in the world has ever had public libraries.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 29, 2017 5:40:27 GMT -5
I live in Florida, so I break this law on a regular basis. Article here. So if you live in one of these states, are you obeying the law, or are you guilty of substituting your own morality for that of the state's? Is this tolerable or obnoxious? Should it be obeyed by conscientious citizens, or ignored or protested? Personally, these "lawmakers" can kiss my ass. And they should then incarcerate themselves for 15 years for breaking this idiotic law.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 29, 2017 19:48:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 29, 2017 20:02:58 GMT -5
Dang. I don't usually slip up that bad. Still doesn't change the fact there are a lot of those laws still on the books, though.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 29, 2017 20:14:06 GMT -5
It's sad that there are, and that it's apparently such a difficult process to just strike them out. And I'm quite sure there are some shits in those states who like them there, even if they are unenforceable. But unenforceable works in the interim, practically speaking.
Enjoy your next totally legal blowjob courtesy of FedGov.
|
|