One of the largest problems with our democratic system is that people don't base their ideology on principled thinking. Too often we are led by emotion rather than principle. For instance, not to pick on democrats (or agree with Sean Hannity), but someone once said, "I am voting for Kerry, because he isn't Bush". Hannity responded with a question, "What makes Kerry better than Bush?" This individual was stumped. His distaste (feeling) for Bush (or just Republicans) was so strong that he didn't even bother to educate himself about Kerry (for all he knew Kerry was Stalin). I know this is one example, but if you talk to enough people you will realize it is fairly common.
We have all heard this: "I am voting for Obama because I want Universal Health Care". Why is that a good thing? I have heard interesting arguments, "Human beings are entitled to good health." I don't know what principle this is based on, I believe we are only "ENTITLED" to natural rights however you define them. I believe that God/Nature gave us 2 rights: Life & Liberty. I don't know that God/Nature gave us "free" health care.
Also we have all heard this: "I am voting for McCain because he will see Iraq through to the end." Why is that a good thing? What is the "END"? What principle do you base this on? That we should help other countries in need? So you are voting for McCain so that we will get involved in Iran, Sudan, Venezuela...?
Note: there may be great principled arguments for these issues, I am just unaware of them. If you know of any, please share.
So I am starting a list of principles and beliefs that I have in order to be more consistent and fair in all things political (I am trying to avoid the negative and focusing on a specific issue, i.e. "forced equality is bad", or "I am pro-marijuana", I should be able to list a belief or principle that explains where I stand with an issue):
Life and liberty are natural rights
Liberty and property are extensions of life
Life, liberty and property (pursuit of happiness) are inalienable rights
Life, faculties, production, individuality, liberty, property - this is man
Government's function is to protect life, liberty, and property
The Law of Supply and Demand is a natural law
People respond to incentives
Freedom encourages innovation
Profit encourages innovation and efficiency
Competition encourages innovation and efficiency
Profit measures utility/value; Dollars follow value
People act out of self-interest
Small government is less corruptible
Non-intevervention is within an entity's best interest
Free exchange creates wealth for individuals and nations
People are rational and know their best interest better than anyone else
Moral choice belongs to the individual
Freedom > Security
I will add more as I think of them. Feel free to post what you believe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I feel like the majority of the principles that you have listed are already codified into statute. In fact, our elected leaders are bound by statute to vote and comport themselves according to some version of the items on your list. Interpreting the principles is where it becomes messy. Something as simple as "Liberty" has become so diluted by interpretation that it is practically meaningless. I believe that most politicians would tell you that they vote according to the principles you have listed. But if you asked them to give you a definition or example of any of the things that you have listed, the spectrum is blown wide open.
Yeah, but practicing law you are coming at it from a whole new perspective. Attorneys have been known to debate the definition of "is".
It's very clear to me that liberty is the freedom to choose, without infringing on others' choices, and without having your choices infringed on by others. That's what I base my principle on.
In the real world, how do you choose without infringing on others' choices and without having your choices infringed on by others? It sounds nice in principle, but it seems idealistic at best.
As for universal health care (and for the record, I am not sure exactly how I feel about it as I see some good and some bad in it), couldn't one interpret the inalieanable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as being directly connected with ones ability to live and subsequently enjoy their other rights? If people know their best interests better than anyone else and they are able to determine their own moral orientation, it would seem pretty difficult to say their interpretation or prioritization of thier inalienable rights were wrong, wouldn't it?
"In the real world, how do you choose without infringing on others' choices and without having your choices infringed on by others?" - Lish
It's really easy. I don't decide anything for you, and you don't decide anything for me. I can AFFECT your choices (like if I take a job you want), but I should not be able to INFRINGE on your choices (through government make you pay for my health care, or education, or even exact "corporate" welfare which some see as a function of capitalism, when it is actually a perversion of it).
People do know their best interest. That is why you can't sacrifice one party's best interest for another's (lobby government to pass Universal Health Care. In this instance somebody's "best interest" is using government force to infringe on someone else's).
By definition, inalienable rights cannot conflict with one another (in this case right to quality of life cannot conflict with choice).
I guess I am having a semantics problem as I see "infringe" to mean something that encroaches, trespasses, or disturbs. I think that saying something that affects does not infringe is not wholly possible or correct (at least not according to my dictionary).
I also still do not see (not saying I disagree with it in principle, but again I am talking about practicality), given the current predicament, how we can simply say that inalienable rights cannot conflict with one another. How does that reflect reality? It seems nice, but it sounds, well, idealistic.
The other thing is the best interest thing. If I know my best interest and you know yours and they know theirs, how do we determine who gets to institutionalize, promote, protect, etc. their interests as it is highly unlikely they will all be the same or even able to coexist without repercussions?
K, let's throw out the word "infringe". By definition you are right, it can simply mean "affect" but in this context it means "affect using coercion and force".
I am not sure I understand the predicament. Which inalienable rights conflict with each other? Reality in the US is that we don't respect inalienable rights, not that they conflict with one other.
Nobody is to use government institutions to promote their best interest, they promote their best interest themselves. Government is there to enforce contracts and protect natural rights.
By the way. This is my ideal world. It can never happen because special interests are too powerful. I am fine with how the founders set things up. They intended states to experiment. If we want socialized medicine, push for it on the state level. If you don't like it, move to a different state. The federal government was never intended to have nationwide social programs. This is a bastardization of our constitution.
Sorry about the deleted comment, I accidentally posted before I finished writing. What I meant to say was:
There are already social programs so that people can receive healthcare even if they can't afford health insurance. So, even if the right to receive healthcare (even free healthcare, ask any of the illegal Dominicans in my hood if they have ever paid an ER bill), it is already covered under the current system. Take away private healthcare and you take away all incentive for progress. It all boils down to capitalism vs. socialism. One promotes progress, the other promotes complacency and elitism, under the guise of promoting equality.
Are those the same Dominicans that would peep preggers Reagy playing DDR with just a sports bra on?
I think infringe is a fine word. it comes from the latin "to break in" or "to damage." it is inherently a negative word that implies willful overstepping of bounds. Webster defines it as: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.
I think the reason nate said inalienable rights (i prefer natural rights but whatever) cannot conflict with one another is because natural rights must be negative as positive rights like a right to a job, house, healthcare, food, education, etc. WILL violate or infringe another's negative right to not be forced to do what he doesn't want.
My exercise of choice will obviously affect other people but it will not violate their right to be left to make their own decisions on what to say, worship, buy, sell, screw, smoke, etc. If my choices make it difficult or impossible for them to do what they want they are still free. As helvetius said:
The free man is the man who is not in irons, nor imprisoned in a jail, nor terrorized like a slave by the fear of punishment...it is not lack of freedom not to fly like an eagle or swim like a whale
A man does not lack freedom because he cannot buy a house anymore than I lack freedom because I can't dunk. I could lobby for hoops to be lowered to a hight i can dunk at but i have no right to be catered to. We all have the right to make due with reality, which is in part created by other's choices that are made without being coerced* and that don't coerce the choices of someone else.
coercion: from latin "to control, restrain" to compel to an act or choice. to achieve by force or threat.
sorry about the length.
Post a Comment