Re: Bad govt represents bad people?

Tim says:

>To clarify my meaning, "people deserve the government they get" is
>short for saying that the evil, repressive, godforsaken government
>than everyone complains about is mostly their own doing. Majority
>rule, the will of the herd, etc.
>
>I certainly wasn't saying that *all* people asked for it.

Right, and I was saying maybe not even majority rule or will of the herd,
but a system with a dynamic of its own.  People get the government they
don't know how to stop.  I don't know what to expect of everyday people
when even the brightest anarchists haven't found a working solution.

 --Steve

 - - - - - - - - - -
It is said a Shao Lin priest can walk through walls.
Looked for, he cannot be seen.
Listened for, he cannot be heard.
Touched, he cannot be felt.

Steve Witham writes
> Right, and I was saying maybe not even majority rule or will of the herd,
> but a system with a dynamic of its own.  People get the government they
> don't know how to stop.  I don't know what to expect of everyday people
> when even the brightest anarchists haven't found a working solution.

Actually several solutions were discovered long ago.  After Athenian democracy
self destructed, the various warring parties found that they could only
have peace if they disowned omnipotent government.  They put together a 
peace agreement that in part proclaimed limits to government,  in part
acknowledged inherent limits to what was proper for governments to do
and in part guaranteed that the government would not go beyond what 
it was proper for government to do, that the majority could not do 
as it pleased with the minority, that not any act of power was a law, 
that law was not merely whatever the government willed.

They did not agree on a constitution but agreed to respect an
unwritten constitution that already existed in some sense.

A similar arrangement underlies the American constitution (now defunct)
and the English declaration of right (also defunct)

The problem with such formal peace agreements is that they can only be put 
together after government has substantially collapsed.  Some
of us wish to try other possibilities in the event of collapse.

The American constitution collapsed because of the rise of nominalist
theories "The constitution says whatever the courts say that it
says."

If they needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, why did
they suddenly decide that they did not need a constitutional amendment
to ban cocaine and tommy guns?

Despite frequent violations, the American Constitution was substantially
observed for 150 years, and only was massively violated with the 
rise of nominalism.

Rand's theory of concepts seems like hokum to me, but her argument 
that philosophy matters is absolutely true.

Rights and sound philosophy are like condoms.  The usual cause
of condom failure is that you did not actually wear the condom
when you should have.

>   Actually several solutions were discovered long ago.  After Athenian 
>   democracy self destructed, the various warring parties found that they 
>   could only have peace if they disowned omnipotent government.  They put 
>   together a peace agreement that in part proclaimed limits to government,  
>   in part acknowledged inherent limits to what was proper for governments 
>   to do and in part guaranteed that the government would not go beyond what 
>   it was proper for government to do, that the majority could not do 
>   as it pleased with the minority, that not any act of power was a law, 
>   that law was not merely whatever the government willed.

specifically what period are you referring to here?

josh

> 
> 
I wrote:
> >   After Athenian 
> >   democracy self destructed, the various warring parties found that they 
> >   could only have peace if they disowned omnipotent government.
> 
joshua geller writes
> specifically what period are you referring to here?

The guys that I praised were the same bunch as executed
Socrates.

Now you may well say that that shows that the new arrangement
was seriously imperfect.  But remember that Critias,
Socrates disciple, had led the thirty.  When they
said that Socrates ideas had undermined society they were
not talking about falling church attendance and teenagers
screwing in the back seats.  They were talking about
the reign of terror, civil war, the massive destruction
of property, and large scale massacres.

Indeed it was clearly a violation of the "The ancient
laws and customs of Athens" to execute Socrates, but
after the peace agreement such violations were rare,
whereas before the peace agreement massive violations
had become routine and normal, eventually reaching such
a scale that democracy became irrelevant before it
actually fell.

Of course bad philosophy should be fought with good
philosophy, not by executing bad philosophers.  I
hope, and confidently expect, that after democracy
collapses in the west we will remember that.



-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we              James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.                jamesd@netcom.com