Philosophical Discussions on Government

[GennGreymane]

Just because something was someway for thousands of years doesn't make it morally right.

Are you saying what those kings did was morally right? Even in their own time it was considered wrong to murder. They could just get away with it due to their power. The oldest recorded laws in the world, The Ur-Nammu, say it's wrong to murder or steal.

The argument seems to be that since we are sentient we choose what is right or wrong. Then why has it always, inb4 some esoteric example, been considered wrong to murder someone? Does this not lead us to conclude, that at the very least, we have the right to live? Are you seriously saying that the only reason we have the right to live is because a government says so?

who was doing the stealing? was the punishment equal for all, at least on paper? was everyone guaranteed the same rights? was it not an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth, and then something along the lines of if he is of a higher class he has to give 5 silver coins as compensation.
Never once did i say it was morally right. To them it was. To me no.

also consider those cultures, many even today have many excuses for murder. (honor killings) is it morally right? to me no it is not.

what rights did those citizens have? they could be made example of at any momment, there was no questioning the leadership, rarely was there a freedom of religion.

[apepi]

As of this post 20% of the people responded that governments are natural, but rights aren't.

To those people, you scare the hell out of me.

I think our government is natural and our feeling to have rights are natural but rights do not exist, they are an ideal. They are not physical.

[Deleted]

Our countries are different herds and our governments are the alpha males of the herd.

[Catta]

How would she know? It's not like psychopaths have green glowing eyes due to fel addiction or something.

Also some cultures that accepts this kind of violence to be normal would be more inclined to do it, probably, but generally speaking no. Humans are not very fond of killing other humans.

They were not so long ago. In Rome, the Mayan culture, old Nordic culture, several nations employing slavery, etc etc. Its only really in the modern day that it became something out of the ordinary in the western world. If you experience it a lot you become desensitized to it. If you live in a culture where it is not the norm - then you probably wouldn't be inclined to do it.

Taking up your example of wars - i dont think it takes very long for them to start shooting other people.

[breadisfunny]

i think government is a natural entity in that evolved humans will inevitably want to start a government to try and keep some semblence of order. i believe humans rights are natural and not government given. on a philosophical level. in reality humans usually rely on governments to dictate boundries for them that are somewhat similiar to the social norm of the time period.

[Theinquisition]

Well i guess you could go by the definition that we use in america as natural rights given to man by the creater

life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Those rights however are preserved by fellow men willing to do so.

[Grummgug]

To me, human rights seem to be based on the ability to organize and fight for rights, based upon the group's value to society.

National strikes can effect change, as society needs the common people to make the nation function.

But step forward 50 years from now. Robots will be better than a typical human in essentially every way. They will be smarter, more adept, more creative, and able to work tirelessly for no reward. That alters the paradigm in a way we haven't seen before. In theory, the common human will have zero value to society.

In this scenario, national strikes or work stoppages will have zero effect. If humans refuse to work, the elites will replace them with robots. If humans refuse to fight, they will replace them with robots. If humans riot and rebel, the robot army will crush them. The common man will then be at the mercy of the empathy of their elites. As long as the elites care deeply about the common man, they will be ok. But once elites with a robot army decide they no longer care about the common man, the common man will likely lose their rights and have no way to get them back. Elites may take several steps, including slavery, imprisonment, or genocide, to reduce the Earth's population until only a select few elites are left.

I believe intelligent robots will spell the end of socialism. Socialism can only exist when the common man has value to society. Intelligent robots probably also spell the end for capitalism, as trade depends upon people having value to society. Who wants to trade for things you have when a robot can make them and make them better?

Just my theory.

[Nakura Chambers]

Yeah but we know psychopaths exists.

Anarchists have been arguing for ages that this is how crime would be handled without government. Members of the community would come together and take care of people who violate another person's right to life, liberty or property.

[Catta]

Anarchists have been arguing for ages that this is how crime would be handled without government. Members of the community would come together and take care of people who violate another person's right to life, liberty or property.

Or people they think looks funny. It's called a lynching.

[Zhangfei]

Or people they think looks funny. It's called a lynching.

Mass hysteria is a physical phenomenon that disproves any claims to justice by mob rule like anarchists want.

[Spectral]

Anarchists have been arguing for ages that this is how crime would be handled without government. Members of the community would come together and take care of people who violate another person's right to life, liberty or property.

That's a great example of why anarchists should be ignored when adults are talking.

[GennGreymane]

To me, human rights seem to be based on the ability to organize and fight for rights, based upon the group's value to society.

National strikes can effect change, as society needs the common people to make the nation function.

But step forward 50 years from now. Robots will be better than a typical human in essentially every way. They will be smarter, more adept, more creative, and able to work tirelessly for no reward. That alters the paradigm in a way we haven't seen before. In theory, the common human will have zero value to society.

In this scenario, national strikes or work stoppages will have zero effect. If humans refuse to work, the elites will replace them with robots. If humans refuse to fight, they will replace them with robots. If humans riot and rebel, the robot army will crush them. The common man will then be at the mercy of the empathy of their elites. As long as the elites care deeply about the common man, they will be ok. But once elites with a robot army decide they no longer care about the common man, the common man will likely lose their rights and have no way to get them back. Elites may take several steps, including slavery, imprisonment, or genocide, to reduce the Earth's population until only a select few elites are left.

I believe intelligent robots will spell the end of socialism. Socialism can only exist when the common man has value to society. Intelligent robots probably also spell the end for capitalism, as trade depends upon people having value to society. Who wants to trade for things you have when a robot can make them and make them better?

Just my theory.

there is only one thing that always confused me on this

if its all robots who make the stuff, and do the jobs
whos making the money to buy it?

[Zecora]

Anarchists have been arguing for ages that this is how crime would be handled without government. Members of the community would come together and take care of people who violate another person's right to life, liberty or property.

Yeah. and how would they do that? -Kill them? That would take away THEIR "right to life". -Imprison them? That would take away THEIR "right to liberty". -Fine them? That would take away THEIR "right to property". And in any case, members of the community would have to decide together, which means someone would have to take charge of keeping order and implementing what is decided. WHAM! You have government again!


Anyhow, on topic. Government naturally arises in any society, in diferent forms, granted, but there will always be someone with more responsibility and duties / priviledges than the rest. This is because human activity that encompass more than one individual is usually complex and benefits from (or even requires) someone co-ordinating and structuring the activity.

As for rights, they arise from the rights society (and by extension, government) decides that the individual has, and become culturally encoded into our perception of the world and other individuals. Some rights are more common than others, usually the most fundamental ones. But as is easily seen from comparison between different cultures, rights are culturally defined. If you grow up in a culture where property rights is non-existant, you will not regard "the right to property" as a right, but as an alien concept.
As such, there are no "natural" rights. The closest thing to it would be the "right to life", as most of us is biologically hardwired to avoid killing fellow members of our species, but even that is not a natural right, as it depends on others respecting that right (something that most will, but not all).

[bergmann620]

I see the basic rights as universal and as something more primal than government. At the outset, we created 'governance' as a survival mechanism- a hierarchy taxed with ensuring our survival. We then depended on government as a means to protect our rights/survival against outside groups. We now primarily have governments to protect our rights against internal groups.

I believe there are rights that exist in nature, without government- life, liberty, and property- we would have all of these rights were we stranded on an island. We also have 'contracted' rights in the U.S.- the right to a lawyer if arrested, for example, which depend on a government to provide. These are not 'natural' rights, because you don't have them unto yourself in a natural setting.

[starlord]

i dont see how rights exist in a natural setting. lions dont care for zebras rights. water doesnt care for stones rights.

[LilSaihah]

i dont see how rights exist in a natural setting. lions dont care for zebras rights. water doesnt care for stones rights.

Lions care for, or at the very least, respect other lions. To eat other lions would be to weaken oneself; you don't have a lion to help you hunt those delicious gazelles with. Humans are the same; we organise into tribes because life is far easier when you're in a group of people rather than living on your own. If you go around killing everyone, or pissing everyone off to the point that they eject you, you're not going to have a tribe. Might, a natural law, makes right.

Governments aren't a natural entity, they're a necessity to supersede Dunbar's number.

[starlord]

Lions care for, or at the very least, respect other lions. To eat other lions would be to weaken oneself; you don't have a lion to help you hunt those delicious gazelles with. Humans are the same; we organise into tribes because life is far easier when you're in a group of people rather than living on your own. If you go around killing everyone, or pissing everyone off to the point that they eject you, you're not going to have a tribe. Might, a natural law, makes right.

Governments aren't a natural entity, they're a necessity to supersede Dunbar's number.

thats not rights, thats just an instinct beneficial to the species. "might makes right" means there are no inherent rights.

[LilSaihah]

thats not rights, thats just an instinct beneficial to the species. "might makes right" means there are no inherent rights.

"Natural" and "inherent" are different words.

Rights, or at least the real ones, are a formalization of these "beneficial instincts". Rights do come from nature, but they aren't inherent.

[GennGreymane]

rights are very new in concept in all honesty this is why i assume they are not natural

[Deleted]

Gouvernment isn't a natural entity. Yes, in general people will make leadership ladders, but not neccesarily will the leadership make all the rules. The leadership is there to enforce the rules. But the rules are made by everyone, not the gouvernment alone.

However, the rules aren't natural either. In a natural state, someone would try to dominate the others forcefully. And this is why people made rules against it time and time again.

Example: industrial revolution, women's rights etc. It was not the gouverment who forced a change in the situations with these, it was the people, the people put pressure on the gouvernments and the gouvernments had to adapt or be removed.