While I don't have strong beliefs whether a government is absolutely necessary, or can be completely discarded, there are good reasons to believe that it might be possible that we don't need government in any form. The functions of the government might be subject to privatization, and this may lead to more efficient and flexible security implementations.
See those four videos that explain the possible mechanisms that government can be discarded. The first two videos are short straight to the point explanation. The third and fourth videos are complete lectures that provides additional insights how such a system can happen, and how this is already widely used in our current times.
1- Social Cooperation: Why Thieves Hate Free Markets
2- Law without Government: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society
3- Do We Need Government?
4- Anarchy and Efficient Law
Showing posts with label Social Order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Order. Show all posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
The Theory and Psychology of Honor
When talking about Honor there are various concepts that need to be identified: Valuables, Honor, Reputation, Honor Codes, and Honor Systems.
Lets make a rough definition of each of those concepts:
Valuables: It is a set of material possessions and conceptual values that are considered to be valuable for the individual, and an important asset to their survival value. The most common examples of valuables: Land ownership, houses and real-estate, family members, reputation, and livelihood.
Honor: Acts of aggression to anyone who takes or threatens those valuables. Common examples of honor acts include: A house owner who shoots a burglar who broke into his house, a person who revenges the murder of a family member, a husband who kills his wife for sexual infidelity, a person who kills another in self-defense.
Reputation: The knowledge of people that a person would act in a specific manner in response to a specific situation. Examples include: A person having a reputation of accepting bribes when offered one, a person having a reputation of engaging in violent fights when insulted, a person having a reputation for enacting revenge upon anyone who crosses his path.
Honor codes: The set of reputations of specific action tendencies in matters of Honor of a particular individual. Examples include: Action tendency to killing burglars if they break into your house, action tendency to kill a cheating wife, action tendency to protect your family in dangerous situations. To be more elaborate, honor code is not only the action tendency, but it also includes a declaration of those action tendencies. So in the example of killing the cheating wife, honor code is established when the husband lets his wife know beforehand that cheating will result in death, as this is the part where the reputation of action tendencies is created.
Honor system: The collection of honor codes of various individuals and the system that results from the various interactions of the individuals and their honor codes. Those individuals might have common interests, or conflicting interests depending on the specific situations.
Honor and reputation are very important concepts in terms of survival. It is the mechanism that creates penalty for attempting to take or threaten an individual's valuables. An individual's tendency to act aggressively makes him capable of protecting his own, and other people's knowledge of someone's capacity for hostile retaliation acts as proactive measure against being threatened in the first place.
Any serious discussion about Honor must address the issue of reputation. So, first, I will address the topic of reputation.
The theoretical basis of Reputation using Game Theory
Game Theory provides an understanding of the mechanisms through which reputation emerges. Economists, evolution theorists, and evolutionary psychology all use game theory for analytical models in those theories. I will provide few examples to illustrate this point.
Example 1:
First, let's take an example in Economics. This is a popular textbook example, and many people might be familiar with it. In this example, we hypothesize a situation where one company has a monopoly for a particular product or service. Assume that the monopolist has yearly income of 3 million dollars. One company is considering entering the market. At this point, the monopolist has two alternative strategies: Either to fight the entrant, by driving prices very low, at the risk of making no profit for that year. If the monopolist chooses this strategy, the entrant company will suffer losses of 1 million dollars, and will be forced to exit the market. The other strategy is to allow the competitor to enter the market, and sell products at a competitive price, such that the both companies would make 1 million dollars per year.
One thing the monopolist might do, is to announce to all companies that intend to enter the market that they will fight. Any competitor who actually believes that the monopolist will fight would not enter the market, because they know that the end result will be a net loss of 1 million dollars.
But some competing company might think: "Yes, they say they will fight, but that's just a scare tactic. However, if we actually enter the market, they will not fight us, because they want to create profit, so they will not fight because making one million dollars in profit is better than no profit at all!". So, lets say this company decides to enter the market.
What should the monopolist do? If they decide to fight, in the short-term, they will suffer because they are not making any profits. However, in the consequent years they will still make good profits, better than those they would have if they allowed competition to enter the market.
Another concern is: What if in the next year some other company decided to enter the market, should the monopolist fight them as well? Again, fighting in the short-term seems undesirable. But one thing is left out of the equation, which is reputation. Once the monopolist had enacted the threats they made, it is much less likely that another company will try to enter the market. The monopolist had made an example of that previous company, and anyone who suggests that the monopolist was bluffing will be forced to reconsider. The monopolist is said to have created a reputation of fighting competitors.
Example 2:
The prisoner's dilemma is another example of emergent behavior where reputation plays an important role. The prisoner's dilemma hypothesizes a situation where two suspects are held for interrogation. The police does not have enough evidence to convict them. Both suspects are offered the same deal: If you rat out the other suspect and they stay silent, you will walk out free, and the other suspect will get a five-years sentence. If you stay silent, and the other suspect rats, you will get a five years sentence, and the other suspect will walk out free. If you both rat each other, each of you will get a three-years sentence. If you both stay silent, you will be sentenced for one-year for a minor offense.
The trick in this scenario is that both suspects have motive to rat the other person out. Regardless of what the other person does, you get the better part of the deal by being a rat. If the other person was a loyal and remained silent, you will go free by ratting him. If the other person was a rat, you will get a three-years sentence instead of five-years sentence.
However, the dilemma is that when both of them chooses to rat, they will both get three-years sentence, when it would have been better if they both could stick to staying silent, and just serve one-year sentence. The idea here is that by both being self-interested and uncooperative they get the worse part of the deal (3-years), although if they were cooperative and trusting they would have got a better deal (1-year).
So now, if we let reputation enter the picture. If both suspects had a reliable reputation of being cooperative and not rats, each one of them can trust the other person to stay silent. And none of them would rat the other person, because this will break their good reputation, and if a similar occasion arises their bad reputation will get them the bad part of the deal.
Evolution of Honor as a Psychological Mechanism
It is important to understand that evolution is a slow process, it takes ages to develop. And evolution is also a heuristic process, in the sense that it does not provide optimal solutions in minimal time, but rather depends on random occurrences, epiphenomena, indirect solutions to problems. In evolutionary psychology, psychological mechanisms are processes that arise to help solve certain problems that humans faced for prolonged periods of time. However, psychological mechanisms can be indirect solutions to problems. For example, sexual pleasure and sexual desire are epiphenomena that drive individuals to engage in acts that will likely cause them to procreate. So sexual desire is a psychological mechanism using which nature ensures that individuals procreate. Loving your child is a psychological mechanism using which nature ensures that parents look out for their children after they are born. And finally Honor is a psychological mechanism that ensures that individuals fend off for the things that improve their chances of survival.
However, as mentioned earlier, evolution is heuristic. For example, from procreation point of view, a sterile man or woman has no value for sexual desire. But the thing is, when people experience sexual desire, they are not directly thinking of procreation, and that's what it means to call it a psychological mechanism; Procreation is a by-product of sexual desire, but the psychological experience itself is not defined by procreation.
So when we apply what we discussed to the concept of Honor, we see that Honor is a psychological mechanism that solved problems for humans in the past. One problem is parental investment. From a parent's perspective, he or she is investing time and effort to support the immediate family. However, this behavior is usually motivated by a desire to invest in one's own offspring. Your children carry your genes so protecting them has survival value. However, if you were investing time and effort in some child, it is important to be sure that they carry your genes. When it comes to women, this is typically not a problem, because when she gets pregnant the child is without doubt her own. However, when it comes to men, things become less obvious. For this purpose, sexual fidelity becomes valuable. For the most part of human evolution, the technology of DNA tests was not available, and consequently the only way to be sure was to require sexual fidelity.
In this example of sexual infidelity, one question arises: What is the best strategy to handle infidelity? Several answers come to mind: Homicide is arguably one solution. Abandonment, abortion, DNA testing also seem like viable solutions. It is important to note that DNA testing is a recent technology, so human evolution has not yet adapted to the existence of this technology, and so our psychological mechanisms are unlikely to factor this option in. Homicide is a very aggressive solution, yet it is commonly used. This is for several reasons. For one, severe aggression imposes a high cost on sexual infidelity. Another reason is to create reputation and precedence which would deter future partners from sexual infidelity.
Just as the case of a sterile person having sexual desire seems misplaced. Honor can at times be misplaced, and sometimes even go plainly wrong. In the case of a husband killing his wife, some anomalies exist. What if the woman was sterile? What if she was using birth control? What if she was menstruating? These are situations where sexual infidelity might seem inconsequential, yet Honor is provoked because it is a psychological mechanism that is experienced independently of its purpose.
There are cases where Honor has obviously gone wrong. The most obvious example is suicide practiced by the Samurai as a form of Honor. This form of Honor is very counter-productive and provides no survival value, quite the contrary! There are other cases which are not as obvious. For example, Honor crimes committed against female family members. While in the case of a husband killing his wife, the reasons are pretty much obvious. It is much less obvious why a father would be concerned about sexual infidelity, premarital sex, or illegitimate children of his daughter. From an evolutionary perspective, immediate family members protect each other because they share some genes. Killing one's offspring seems like a waste of the time and resources invested in the upbringing of the offspring. However, this kind of behavior is not as clear as the case of Samurai suicide. At this point, the concept of Honor systems plays a major role.
Emergence of Honor Systems
Individuals in a society interact, and interactions lead to divergence of interests and creation of conflicts. Let's take the example of a father killing his daughter for premarital sex as a case study. In this scenario, it is clear that a parent has no immediate reason to make such a response. In fact, at first glance it might seem like a counter-productive behavior. However, once we realize that this parent lives in a society where individuals have their own agendas and honor codes the picture changes. The parent has invested time and effort in the upbringing of his offspring. But this interest does not end at his immediate offspring, but also in the offspring of his offspring. So given that men have developed psychological mechanisms that makes them avoid non-virgin women as partners, conflict of interests arises. Even though the parent may not have immediate concern of who the father of his grandchildren is, he is still concerned that his daughter procreate because a dead-end offspring has very little survival value. As a consequence, a need to protect the investment in his offspring arises. This example shows how Honor codes of the individuals is influenced by the Honor codes of other individuals who they interact with. The result of this process is an Honor system.
It becomes obvious that interactions between members of a society shapes and reshapes their conception of Valuables and the Honor codes that they have, and adapts to situational circumstances that the individual faces during their course of life.
Emergence of Law and Order
As societies progress, Honor systems become unwritten laws that societies abide in their day to day life to avoid aggressive conflict. However, as the social order among these societies keeps advancing, those unwritten laws usually transform into written laws that are used to keep order in those societies. While it might be a normal occurrence in some societies to shoot thieves that break into one's house to protect one's property, this type of transgression is now customarily handled by the police and courts to settle those sorts of conflicts.
In a civilization of law and order, it is usually discouraged that people take the law into their own hands and seek retribution. However, there are occasions when the law does not satisfy the needs of the individuals, and consequently, some individuals become determined to enact retribution outside the framework of the law.
Lets make a rough definition of each of those concepts:
Valuables: It is a set of material possessions and conceptual values that are considered to be valuable for the individual, and an important asset to their survival value. The most common examples of valuables: Land ownership, houses and real-estate, family members, reputation, and livelihood.
Honor: Acts of aggression to anyone who takes or threatens those valuables. Common examples of honor acts include: A house owner who shoots a burglar who broke into his house, a person who revenges the murder of a family member, a husband who kills his wife for sexual infidelity, a person who kills another in self-defense.
Reputation: The knowledge of people that a person would act in a specific manner in response to a specific situation. Examples include: A person having a reputation of accepting bribes when offered one, a person having a reputation of engaging in violent fights when insulted, a person having a reputation for enacting revenge upon anyone who crosses his path.
Honor codes: The set of reputations of specific action tendencies in matters of Honor of a particular individual. Examples include: Action tendency to killing burglars if they break into your house, action tendency to kill a cheating wife, action tendency to protect your family in dangerous situations. To be more elaborate, honor code is not only the action tendency, but it also includes a declaration of those action tendencies. So in the example of killing the cheating wife, honor code is established when the husband lets his wife know beforehand that cheating will result in death, as this is the part where the reputation of action tendencies is created.
Honor system: The collection of honor codes of various individuals and the system that results from the various interactions of the individuals and their honor codes. Those individuals might have common interests, or conflicting interests depending on the specific situations.
Honor and reputation are very important concepts in terms of survival. It is the mechanism that creates penalty for attempting to take or threaten an individual's valuables. An individual's tendency to act aggressively makes him capable of protecting his own, and other people's knowledge of someone's capacity for hostile retaliation acts as proactive measure against being threatened in the first place.
Any serious discussion about Honor must address the issue of reputation. So, first, I will address the topic of reputation.
The theoretical basis of Reputation using Game Theory
Game Theory provides an understanding of the mechanisms through which reputation emerges. Economists, evolution theorists, and evolutionary psychology all use game theory for analytical models in those theories. I will provide few examples to illustrate this point.
Example 1:
First, let's take an example in Economics. This is a popular textbook example, and many people might be familiar with it. In this example, we hypothesize a situation where one company has a monopoly for a particular product or service. Assume that the monopolist has yearly income of 3 million dollars. One company is considering entering the market. At this point, the monopolist has two alternative strategies: Either to fight the entrant, by driving prices very low, at the risk of making no profit for that year. If the monopolist chooses this strategy, the entrant company will suffer losses of 1 million dollars, and will be forced to exit the market. The other strategy is to allow the competitor to enter the market, and sell products at a competitive price, such that the both companies would make 1 million dollars per year.
| Monopolist | Entrant | |
|---|---|---|
| Not Enter | 3mil$ profit | 0$ profit |
| Enter with Fight | 0$ profit | 1mil$ loss |
| Enter without Fight | 1mil$ profit | 1mil$ profit |
One thing the monopolist might do, is to announce to all companies that intend to enter the market that they will fight. Any competitor who actually believes that the monopolist will fight would not enter the market, because they know that the end result will be a net loss of 1 million dollars.
But some competing company might think: "Yes, they say they will fight, but that's just a scare tactic. However, if we actually enter the market, they will not fight us, because they want to create profit, so they will not fight because making one million dollars in profit is better than no profit at all!". So, lets say this company decides to enter the market.
What should the monopolist do? If they decide to fight, in the short-term, they will suffer because they are not making any profits. However, in the consequent years they will still make good profits, better than those they would have if they allowed competition to enter the market.
Another concern is: What if in the next year some other company decided to enter the market, should the monopolist fight them as well? Again, fighting in the short-term seems undesirable. But one thing is left out of the equation, which is reputation. Once the monopolist had enacted the threats they made, it is much less likely that another company will try to enter the market. The monopolist had made an example of that previous company, and anyone who suggests that the monopolist was bluffing will be forced to reconsider. The monopolist is said to have created a reputation of fighting competitors.
Example 2:
The prisoner's dilemma is another example of emergent behavior where reputation plays an important role. The prisoner's dilemma hypothesizes a situation where two suspects are held for interrogation. The police does not have enough evidence to convict them. Both suspects are offered the same deal: If you rat out the other suspect and they stay silent, you will walk out free, and the other suspect will get a five-years sentence. If you stay silent, and the other suspect rats, you will get a five years sentence, and the other suspect will walk out free. If you both rat each other, each of you will get a three-years sentence. If you both stay silent, you will be sentenced for one-year for a minor offense.
| Prisoner A silent | Prisoner A rat | |
|---|---|---|
| Prisoner B silent | 1 year for both | 5 years for B |
| Prisoner B rat | 5 years for A | 3 years for both |
The trick in this scenario is that both suspects have motive to rat the other person out. Regardless of what the other person does, you get the better part of the deal by being a rat. If the other person was a loyal and remained silent, you will go free by ratting him. If the other person was a rat, you will get a three-years sentence instead of five-years sentence.
However, the dilemma is that when both of them chooses to rat, they will both get three-years sentence, when it would have been better if they both could stick to staying silent, and just serve one-year sentence. The idea here is that by both being self-interested and uncooperative they get the worse part of the deal (3-years), although if they were cooperative and trusting they would have got a better deal (1-year).
So now, if we let reputation enter the picture. If both suspects had a reliable reputation of being cooperative and not rats, each one of them can trust the other person to stay silent. And none of them would rat the other person, because this will break their good reputation, and if a similar occasion arises their bad reputation will get them the bad part of the deal.
Evolution of Honor as a Psychological Mechanism
It is important to understand that evolution is a slow process, it takes ages to develop. And evolution is also a heuristic process, in the sense that it does not provide optimal solutions in minimal time, but rather depends on random occurrences, epiphenomena, indirect solutions to problems. In evolutionary psychology, psychological mechanisms are processes that arise to help solve certain problems that humans faced for prolonged periods of time. However, psychological mechanisms can be indirect solutions to problems. For example, sexual pleasure and sexual desire are epiphenomena that drive individuals to engage in acts that will likely cause them to procreate. So sexual desire is a psychological mechanism using which nature ensures that individuals procreate. Loving your child is a psychological mechanism using which nature ensures that parents look out for their children after they are born. And finally Honor is a psychological mechanism that ensures that individuals fend off for the things that improve their chances of survival.
However, as mentioned earlier, evolution is heuristic. For example, from procreation point of view, a sterile man or woman has no value for sexual desire. But the thing is, when people experience sexual desire, they are not directly thinking of procreation, and that's what it means to call it a psychological mechanism; Procreation is a by-product of sexual desire, but the psychological experience itself is not defined by procreation.
So when we apply what we discussed to the concept of Honor, we see that Honor is a psychological mechanism that solved problems for humans in the past. One problem is parental investment. From a parent's perspective, he or she is investing time and effort to support the immediate family. However, this behavior is usually motivated by a desire to invest in one's own offspring. Your children carry your genes so protecting them has survival value. However, if you were investing time and effort in some child, it is important to be sure that they carry your genes. When it comes to women, this is typically not a problem, because when she gets pregnant the child is without doubt her own. However, when it comes to men, things become less obvious. For this purpose, sexual fidelity becomes valuable. For the most part of human evolution, the technology of DNA tests was not available, and consequently the only way to be sure was to require sexual fidelity.
In this example of sexual infidelity, one question arises: What is the best strategy to handle infidelity? Several answers come to mind: Homicide is arguably one solution. Abandonment, abortion, DNA testing also seem like viable solutions. It is important to note that DNA testing is a recent technology, so human evolution has not yet adapted to the existence of this technology, and so our psychological mechanisms are unlikely to factor this option in. Homicide is a very aggressive solution, yet it is commonly used. This is for several reasons. For one, severe aggression imposes a high cost on sexual infidelity. Another reason is to create reputation and precedence which would deter future partners from sexual infidelity.
Just as the case of a sterile person having sexual desire seems misplaced. Honor can at times be misplaced, and sometimes even go plainly wrong. In the case of a husband killing his wife, some anomalies exist. What if the woman was sterile? What if she was using birth control? What if she was menstruating? These are situations where sexual infidelity might seem inconsequential, yet Honor is provoked because it is a psychological mechanism that is experienced independently of its purpose.
There are cases where Honor has obviously gone wrong. The most obvious example is suicide practiced by the Samurai as a form of Honor. This form of Honor is very counter-productive and provides no survival value, quite the contrary! There are other cases which are not as obvious. For example, Honor crimes committed against female family members. While in the case of a husband killing his wife, the reasons are pretty much obvious. It is much less obvious why a father would be concerned about sexual infidelity, premarital sex, or illegitimate children of his daughter. From an evolutionary perspective, immediate family members protect each other because they share some genes. Killing one's offspring seems like a waste of the time and resources invested in the upbringing of the offspring. However, this kind of behavior is not as clear as the case of Samurai suicide. At this point, the concept of Honor systems plays a major role.
Emergence of Honor Systems
Individuals in a society interact, and interactions lead to divergence of interests and creation of conflicts. Let's take the example of a father killing his daughter for premarital sex as a case study. In this scenario, it is clear that a parent has no immediate reason to make such a response. In fact, at first glance it might seem like a counter-productive behavior. However, once we realize that this parent lives in a society where individuals have their own agendas and honor codes the picture changes. The parent has invested time and effort in the upbringing of his offspring. But this interest does not end at his immediate offspring, but also in the offspring of his offspring. So given that men have developed psychological mechanisms that makes them avoid non-virgin women as partners, conflict of interests arises. Even though the parent may not have immediate concern of who the father of his grandchildren is, he is still concerned that his daughter procreate because a dead-end offspring has very little survival value. As a consequence, a need to protect the investment in his offspring arises. This example shows how Honor codes of the individuals is influenced by the Honor codes of other individuals who they interact with. The result of this process is an Honor system.
It becomes obvious that interactions between members of a society shapes and reshapes their conception of Valuables and the Honor codes that they have, and adapts to situational circumstances that the individual faces during their course of life.
Emergence of Law and Order
As societies progress, Honor systems become unwritten laws that societies abide in their day to day life to avoid aggressive conflict. However, as the social order among these societies keeps advancing, those unwritten laws usually transform into written laws that are used to keep order in those societies. While it might be a normal occurrence in some societies to shoot thieves that break into one's house to protect one's property, this type of transgression is now customarily handled by the police and courts to settle those sorts of conflicts.
In a civilization of law and order, it is usually discouraged that people take the law into their own hands and seek retribution. However, there are occasions when the law does not satisfy the needs of the individuals, and consequently, some individuals become determined to enact retribution outside the framework of the law.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Democracy and Gun Rights
A number of countries around the world have established Gun Rights as a constitutional right. Some people are not aware of the grave importance of Gun Rights for any true democracy. In my opinion, without Gun Rights no real democracy can exist. And this statement goes beyond an opinion, but is a necessary conclusion of any reasonable person who understands the meaning of democracy and the dynamics of the real world.
Gun Rights are not just constitutional rights but rather a result of deep understanding of Human Rights, specifically the right to exist, also known as the right to life. Self-defense is the concept that emerges when the right to exist is asserted. Any organism that lacks the ability to defend itself from predators will perish.
At the international politics level, the right of a country to own a military army is well established. It stands to reason that a country that lacks a military army cannot sustain itself. So, it can be seen without ambiguity that the right to own a military army is intrinsically associated with its right to exist.
Wars and armed conflicts are generally frowned upon events. Many people have died in wars, and it would be really nice if there was an international law that bans all countries from owning a military army. Don't you agree? Wouldn't it be nice to have a world where no country has an army? Where all wars come to an end and become a thing of the past?
Unfortunately, it stands to reason that if you agree with the proposal above that you are an idiot! A bill to have countries without armies is equivalent to a doomsday device, with a death toll that might reach phenomenal numbers. Because all it takes is one rebellious country that creates a military army and it would invade all other defenseless countries, creating military dictatorships around the world.
So, we have established that the right of a country to own a military army is really part of its right to exist and have independence. This point is usually non-controversial. However, the claim that civilians within a country to have the right to own firearms is not recognized. My arguments lies on two relatively uncontroversial pillars, the result of which inevitably leads to Gun Rights.
The right to exist is generally considered as a human right, and this right alone gives every human a right to own firearms which is necessary for him to defend himself against any threats.
The second pillar is that of democracy. Almost every democratic constitution states that the people are the source of all the power of the state. Legislative, executive, and judicial are the three powers of the state, and the people are the source of those powers. It stands to reason that within a true democracy, the claim that the people are the government is non-controversial. As a matter of fact, this is what it means to have a democratic government.
However, democracy is one form of government. Dictatorship and Tyranny are some of the forms of government that might be competing with democracy to rule. And since in a democratic nation the people are the government, it is part of the right to exist for that government to own the means to defend itself. Those means are Gun Rights. It stands to question how a constitution of democracy asserts that the people are the source of the powers of the state without giving those people the power to defend themselves from threats to their government. Such a constitution is weak, and just like a country without an army would most certainly perish, a democracy without Gun Rights would most certainly perish!
Of course the problem of security and violence comes to mind, however this type of thinking bears dangerous resemblance to the idea of countries without military armies. A simpleton might see merit to gun control, but short-sightedness prevents them from seeing the more dangerous consequences of gun control. The consequences of gun control is giving up the right to exist, and the right to have a democratic government. Both of which are reasonable and legitimate demands.
In reality, gun control only prevents honest law abiding citizens from obtaining the means to defend themselves, while corrupt governments, mobsters, terrorists, and firearms dealers have access to firearms. Gun control gives the 'bad guys' access to the means through which they can terrorize people, while the honest and law abiding citizens remain defenseless. This is a situation that non-democratic governments have incentive to keep as status quo.
Gun Rights are not just constitutional rights but rather a result of deep understanding of Human Rights, specifically the right to exist, also known as the right to life. Self-defense is the concept that emerges when the right to exist is asserted. Any organism that lacks the ability to defend itself from predators will perish.
At the international politics level, the right of a country to own a military army is well established. It stands to reason that a country that lacks a military army cannot sustain itself. So, it can be seen without ambiguity that the right to own a military army is intrinsically associated with its right to exist.
Wars and armed conflicts are generally frowned upon events. Many people have died in wars, and it would be really nice if there was an international law that bans all countries from owning a military army. Don't you agree? Wouldn't it be nice to have a world where no country has an army? Where all wars come to an end and become a thing of the past?
Unfortunately, it stands to reason that if you agree with the proposal above that you are an idiot! A bill to have countries without armies is equivalent to a doomsday device, with a death toll that might reach phenomenal numbers. Because all it takes is one rebellious country that creates a military army and it would invade all other defenseless countries, creating military dictatorships around the world.
So, we have established that the right of a country to own a military army is really part of its right to exist and have independence. This point is usually non-controversial. However, the claim that civilians within a country to have the right to own firearms is not recognized. My arguments lies on two relatively uncontroversial pillars, the result of which inevitably leads to Gun Rights.
The right to exist is generally considered as a human right, and this right alone gives every human a right to own firearms which is necessary for him to defend himself against any threats.
The second pillar is that of democracy. Almost every democratic constitution states that the people are the source of all the power of the state. Legislative, executive, and judicial are the three powers of the state, and the people are the source of those powers. It stands to reason that within a true democracy, the claim that the people are the government is non-controversial. As a matter of fact, this is what it means to have a democratic government.
However, democracy is one form of government. Dictatorship and Tyranny are some of the forms of government that might be competing with democracy to rule. And since in a democratic nation the people are the government, it is part of the right to exist for that government to own the means to defend itself. Those means are Gun Rights. It stands to question how a constitution of democracy asserts that the people are the source of the powers of the state without giving those people the power to defend themselves from threats to their government. Such a constitution is weak, and just like a country without an army would most certainly perish, a democracy without Gun Rights would most certainly perish!
Of course the problem of security and violence comes to mind, however this type of thinking bears dangerous resemblance to the idea of countries without military armies. A simpleton might see merit to gun control, but short-sightedness prevents them from seeing the more dangerous consequences of gun control. The consequences of gun control is giving up the right to exist, and the right to have a democratic government. Both of which are reasonable and legitimate demands.
In reality, gun control only prevents honest law abiding citizens from obtaining the means to defend themselves, while corrupt governments, mobsters, terrorists, and firearms dealers have access to firearms. Gun control gives the 'bad guys' access to the means through which they can terrorize people, while the honest and law abiding citizens remain defenseless. This is a situation that non-democratic governments have incentive to keep as status quo.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Recommendations for a Better Government
In the wake of the waves of reform in the political arena of the Arab world, I have compiled a list of recommendations for what I believe would be a better government and social order. Some of these recommendations are practical for the current world politics, others are progressive, and would hopefully be implemented in future revisions to governments and laws. However, as far fetched some of these recommendations might be, I hope that people would work to realize those recommendations sooner rather than later.
Constitutional Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: Government representatives should be elected in a democratic process. This needs to apply to both the legislative and executive powers of the state.
Recommendation 2: Providing alternative means to representative democracy.
Direct democracy and deliberative democracy are good alternatives to representative democracy. Direct democracy was an impractical form of government due to technological limitations. Nowadays, the technological means are available to make direct democracy a viable solution.
Recommendation 3: Independence of the three powers of state: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.
Recommendation 4: All citizens are equal with respect to the law. There must be no discrimination against them in terms of race, origin, religion, gender, language, sexual orientation, or social status.
Recommendation 5: The right to a fair and public trial.
All people have the right to a fair and public trial. No person should be imprisoned without trial. No person should be detained without a court order or probable cause. Making trials public is a way of making sure that the proceedings are fair.
Recommendation 6: Secularization of government.
Separation of religion and government is an important aspect of a modern government.
Recommendation 7: Personal liberties must be granted.
This includes (but not limited to): Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of information, freedom to practice politics, freedom to own firearms, freedom to protest and demonstrate, the right to demand overthrowing of government.
Recommendation 8: A constitutional right to overthrow government.
There needs to be laws that recognize the right of civilians to demand overthrowing the government. Those laws can provide legitimacy and order when events similar to what is currently happening around the Arab world.
Recommendation 9: Gun rights as a constitutional right.
Gun rights are the most important civil rights. No government truly respects its citizens unless it admits that civilians have a right to own firearms. Throughout history corrupt governments fight to cease control. The events in Libya is a prime example of a corrupt government that would do anything, including killing civilians to remain in control. Installment of the right to own firearms is the only sincere symbolism of a government that allows its citizens to be in control, and provide practical means in extreme cases to overthrow government if that government became excessively corrupt. Some might be concerned about gun rights, but one quote by Benjamin Franklin comes to mind: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Recommendation 10: Constitutional freedom of speech and expression.
Another extremely important civil right. The internet and the press need to be protected by the law from any governmental pressure to censor material. There have been brutal attempts to limit the freedom of the internet. Now more than ever, social networking websites might be under pressure to collaborate with governments to expose and eliminate all anti-government activities.
Recommendation 11: Constitutional freedom of religion.
The right to join and abandon existing religions must be granted. Also, the right to create new religions need to be recognized as part of the right of assembly.
Recommendation 12: Constitutional freedom to practice politics.
The right to join and abandon existing political parties must be granted. Also, the right to create new political parties need to be recognized as part of the right of assembly. The right to criticize and investigate the government also need to be recognized as part of the freedom of speech and the freedom of information.
Recommendation 13: Creation of states.
In the interest of pluralism in the government, it can be beneficial to create several states within one country, such that each state can have different laws. This implies that each state would have its own legislative power, making it possible that different state having different laws. If used properly, this allows government to accommodate the needs of a non-homogeneous community, such that citizens are provided with alternatives and make it possible to experiment with the introduction of new laws which might be controversial for some.
Laws Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: Abolishing all anti-terrorism laws.
Anti-terrorism laws provide the governments with illegitimate power to abuse citizens. Laws that prohibit gatherings, allow the government to spy and detain civilians without warrant. Such laws are of a government that terrorizes its own people.
Recommendation 2: Legalizing prostitution.
Countless efforts exist to eliminate gender discrimination against women. However, it is a fact that the right to practice prostitution is the most important right for women, and the only permanent and uncompromising solution to the problem of discrimination against women. Legalizing prostitution is the means through which societies eliminate the culture of shame that has been terrorizing women for centuries, as well as, allowing them to seek protection under the law, and form unions that help ensure their security and escape abuse.
Recommendation 3: Legalizing drugs.
Criminalization of drugs is another form of civil oppression by governments. Movements for legalizing marijuana have already started to formulate to varying degrees of success around the world. People are starting to realize how such laws are nothing but tools of oppression for the governments.
Recommendation 4: Legalizing gay-marriages.
Yet another form of discrimination based on sexual-orientation. LGBT rights need to be respected an recognized under the law.
Recommendation 5: Legalizing all forms of consensual polygamy.
Polygamy while not widely recognized as a matter of human rights, it does deserve to be recognized as such. Monogamous marriages is a violation of human rights, and a symbol of oppression that goes unnoticed by many. Legalization of polygamy bears many parallels with legalization of gay marriages. This similarity is defined by the notion that all humans have the right to form relationships with fellow human beings, and to form a legally recognizable bindings if they wish to do so. Hence, the right of marriage should be provided to all.
Recommendation 6: Installment of temporary affirmative action laws.
Affirmative action laws are practical tools to fight discrimination. However, this tool needs to be temporary, because affirmative action itself is a type of discrimination. Laws that provide women with additional seats in the house of representatives, and other laws that protect women from violence (especially honor crimes) and discrimination, all of those are good examples of affirmative action laws that need to exist to accelerate the process of abolishing discrimination.
Recommendation 7: Criminalization of torture.
As part of the human rights, torture must be criminalized and punished by law. This applies but not limited to government agencies that use torture as means of investigation.
Recommendation 8: Criminalization of political imprisonment and secretive imprisonment.
As part of the right to practice politics, the right of assembly, and the right of overthrowing government, detaining civilians for political opposition of government need to be criminalized and punished by law. All prisoners and detainees have the right to inform other civilians about their imprisonment. Details of prisoners and detainees should be provided to the public record as part of the freedom of information and the right to a fair and public trial. Failing to do so must be punishable by law.
Of course, these are only a small sample of modifications that I believe are important to advance government and social order.
Constitutional Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: Government representatives should be elected in a democratic process. This needs to apply to both the legislative and executive powers of the state.
Recommendation 2: Providing alternative means to representative democracy.
Direct democracy and deliberative democracy are good alternatives to representative democracy. Direct democracy was an impractical form of government due to technological limitations. Nowadays, the technological means are available to make direct democracy a viable solution.
Recommendation 3: Independence of the three powers of state: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.
Recommendation 4: All citizens are equal with respect to the law. There must be no discrimination against them in terms of race, origin, religion, gender, language, sexual orientation, or social status.
Recommendation 5: The right to a fair and public trial.
All people have the right to a fair and public trial. No person should be imprisoned without trial. No person should be detained without a court order or probable cause. Making trials public is a way of making sure that the proceedings are fair.
Recommendation 6: Secularization of government.
Separation of religion and government is an important aspect of a modern government.
Recommendation 7: Personal liberties must be granted.
This includes (but not limited to): Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of information, freedom to practice politics, freedom to own firearms, freedom to protest and demonstrate, the right to demand overthrowing of government.
Recommendation 8: A constitutional right to overthrow government.
There needs to be laws that recognize the right of civilians to demand overthrowing the government. Those laws can provide legitimacy and order when events similar to what is currently happening around the Arab world.
Recommendation 9: Gun rights as a constitutional right.
Gun rights are the most important civil rights. No government truly respects its citizens unless it admits that civilians have a right to own firearms. Throughout history corrupt governments fight to cease control. The events in Libya is a prime example of a corrupt government that would do anything, including killing civilians to remain in control. Installment of the right to own firearms is the only sincere symbolism of a government that allows its citizens to be in control, and provide practical means in extreme cases to overthrow government if that government became excessively corrupt. Some might be concerned about gun rights, but one quote by Benjamin Franklin comes to mind: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Recommendation 10: Constitutional freedom of speech and expression.
Another extremely important civil right. The internet and the press need to be protected by the law from any governmental pressure to censor material. There have been brutal attempts to limit the freedom of the internet. Now more than ever, social networking websites might be under pressure to collaborate with governments to expose and eliminate all anti-government activities.
Recommendation 11: Constitutional freedom of religion.
The right to join and abandon existing religions must be granted. Also, the right to create new religions need to be recognized as part of the right of assembly.
Recommendation 12: Constitutional freedom to practice politics.
The right to join and abandon existing political parties must be granted. Also, the right to create new political parties need to be recognized as part of the right of assembly. The right to criticize and investigate the government also need to be recognized as part of the freedom of speech and the freedom of information.
Recommendation 13: Creation of states.
In the interest of pluralism in the government, it can be beneficial to create several states within one country, such that each state can have different laws. This implies that each state would have its own legislative power, making it possible that different state having different laws. If used properly, this allows government to accommodate the needs of a non-homogeneous community, such that citizens are provided with alternatives and make it possible to experiment with the introduction of new laws which might be controversial for some.
Laws Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: Abolishing all anti-terrorism laws.
Anti-terrorism laws provide the governments with illegitimate power to abuse citizens. Laws that prohibit gatherings, allow the government to spy and detain civilians without warrant. Such laws are of a government that terrorizes its own people.
Recommendation 2: Legalizing prostitution.
Countless efforts exist to eliminate gender discrimination against women. However, it is a fact that the right to practice prostitution is the most important right for women, and the only permanent and uncompromising solution to the problem of discrimination against women. Legalizing prostitution is the means through which societies eliminate the culture of shame that has been terrorizing women for centuries, as well as, allowing them to seek protection under the law, and form unions that help ensure their security and escape abuse.
Recommendation 3: Legalizing drugs.
Criminalization of drugs is another form of civil oppression by governments. Movements for legalizing marijuana have already started to formulate to varying degrees of success around the world. People are starting to realize how such laws are nothing but tools of oppression for the governments.
Recommendation 4: Legalizing gay-marriages.
Yet another form of discrimination based on sexual-orientation. LGBT rights need to be respected an recognized under the law.
Recommendation 5: Legalizing all forms of consensual polygamy.
Polygamy while not widely recognized as a matter of human rights, it does deserve to be recognized as such. Monogamous marriages is a violation of human rights, and a symbol of oppression that goes unnoticed by many. Legalization of polygamy bears many parallels with legalization of gay marriages. This similarity is defined by the notion that all humans have the right to form relationships with fellow human beings, and to form a legally recognizable bindings if they wish to do so. Hence, the right of marriage should be provided to all.
Recommendation 6: Installment of temporary affirmative action laws.
Affirmative action laws are practical tools to fight discrimination. However, this tool needs to be temporary, because affirmative action itself is a type of discrimination. Laws that provide women with additional seats in the house of representatives, and other laws that protect women from violence (especially honor crimes) and discrimination, all of those are good examples of affirmative action laws that need to exist to accelerate the process of abolishing discrimination.
Recommendation 7: Criminalization of torture.
As part of the human rights, torture must be criminalized and punished by law. This applies but not limited to government agencies that use torture as means of investigation.
Recommendation 8: Criminalization of political imprisonment and secretive imprisonment.
As part of the right to practice politics, the right of assembly, and the right of overthrowing government, detaining civilians for political opposition of government need to be criminalized and punished by law. All prisoners and detainees have the right to inform other civilians about their imprisonment. Details of prisoners and detainees should be provided to the public record as part of the freedom of information and the right to a fair and public trial. Failing to do so must be punishable by law.
Of course, these are only a small sample of modifications that I believe are important to advance government and social order.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Drapetomania: The Mentally Ill Slaves
Drapetomania is a mental illness that causes black slaves to flee captivity.
Samuel Cartwright has discovered this mental illness, and he also uncovered its cause. This disorder was a consequence of masters who made themselves too familiar with their slaves, treating them as equals. With good whipping, the slaves' unacceptable behavior can be fixed.
Fuck those mentally ill bastards! How dare they disobey their masters?! Thank you Samuel Cartwright for showing the world the right way to deal with those mentally sick slaves.
Samuel Cartwright has discovered this mental illness, and he also uncovered its cause. This disorder was a consequence of masters who made themselves too familiar with their slaves, treating them as equals. With good whipping, the slaves' unacceptable behavior can be fixed.
Fuck those mentally ill bastards! How dare they disobey their masters?! Thank you Samuel Cartwright for showing the world the right way to deal with those mentally sick slaves.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Slaves Until Things Change
This post was provoked by a fictional story about a fictional girl character who is a spinster. The theme [-that is relevant to this post-] is that this girl lives in a conservative society where pre-marital relationships are taboo. This girl is disconnected from the male-world for too long that she got to an age where she is no longer marriage material. This girl feels that she has been unfairly made into an outcast. At some point she says (and I quote): "I protected their honor. I played with their rules. I worked hard in silence to make everyone happy, and yet never been good enough." - This sentence provoked me by what I would consider extreme stupidity - the thing that I consider the greatest sin of all sins.
No one would respect an "ass-kisser"!! If someone spends his\her life trying to play by other people's rules, they become slaves. It doesn't need a genius to figure that the rules people make are self-interested. Each person makes the rules that serve them, and if someone else plays by those rules, they become slaves to the person/system who made those rules!!
Sure everyone loves to have a slave, but no-one respects a slave. And thats exactly whats going on: People make some rules about how a "nice" person behaves... And someone decides to be the "nice" person... And they get all the compliments... In case of our fictional character, it's the girl who is too busy being nice, because she is being called "honorable", "pure", and "chaste"... Or in other words: A good slave! A good slave who nobody wants to do anything with, except to keep her a slave for as long as possible!!
This fictional character was too busy being a humble slave that she forgets about herself. She thinks that when people applaud her, they applaud her for being a good person, when in fact they applaud her for being an ignorant person and a good slave! And not until later in her life the she understood the hypocrisy of the system that she was indulging in...
She argues: "I worked hard in silence to make everyone happy, and yet never been good enough.", oblivious to the fact that working hard to make everyone happy is exactly the reason why she has never been good enough... No slave is ever good enough, there are always more things that a slave needs to do to please his\her master! Heck, the argument itself seems like an "ass-kissing" attempt...
This spinster girl is also taken as a model for the topic of suppression of women. If we go the sexists' way, and model men and women as systems in and of themselves, we may say that each system has its own self-interesting rules that each wishes to enforce. It is generally thought that the men's system of rules are dominant. Under this assumption -which I actually don't think actually holds- it is said that women are suppressed by men. If men were suppressing women, for all I know, they should continue doing so, until women wake up from their nap! Its like a slave humbly asking his master to set him free... But this slave won't get his freedom by begging for it, but rather by fighting for it!
But in truth, this is not a case of one gender dominating the other... Each and everyone of us -who wishes to be free- needs to fight... No slave is set free by a begging! It has been said: "People are born free!" which is true, the question is: "Why did they sell themselves to slavery?!"
It's easier said than done, but I think we should stop for a second and ask ourselves: Do I want to be an ass-kisser?! Will ass-kissing get me anywhere beside being eventually neglected?!
Viva La Revolution!
PS: This post does NOT reflect the original character in the aforementioned story. The character was purposefully taken out-of-context for the purpose of making this post!
PS: Here is an alternative link to the story
No one would respect an "ass-kisser"!! If someone spends his\her life trying to play by other people's rules, they become slaves. It doesn't need a genius to figure that the rules people make are self-interested. Each person makes the rules that serve them, and if someone else plays by those rules, they become slaves to the person/system who made those rules!!
Sure everyone loves to have a slave, but no-one respects a slave. And thats exactly whats going on: People make some rules about how a "nice" person behaves... And someone decides to be the "nice" person... And they get all the compliments... In case of our fictional character, it's the girl who is too busy being nice, because she is being called "honorable", "pure", and "chaste"... Or in other words: A good slave! A good slave who nobody wants to do anything with, except to keep her a slave for as long as possible!!
This fictional character was too busy being a humble slave that she forgets about herself. She thinks that when people applaud her, they applaud her for being a good person, when in fact they applaud her for being an ignorant person and a good slave! And not until later in her life the she understood the hypocrisy of the system that she was indulging in...
She argues: "I worked hard in silence to make everyone happy, and yet never been good enough.", oblivious to the fact that working hard to make everyone happy is exactly the reason why she has never been good enough... No slave is ever good enough, there are always more things that a slave needs to do to please his\her master! Heck, the argument itself seems like an "ass-kissing" attempt...
This spinster girl is also taken as a model for the topic of suppression of women. If we go the sexists' way, and model men and women as systems in and of themselves, we may say that each system has its own self-interesting rules that each wishes to enforce. It is generally thought that the men's system of rules are dominant. Under this assumption -which I actually don't think actually holds- it is said that women are suppressed by men. If men were suppressing women, for all I know, they should continue doing so, until women wake up from their nap! Its like a slave humbly asking his master to set him free... But this slave won't get his freedom by begging for it, but rather by fighting for it!
But in truth, this is not a case of one gender dominating the other... Each and everyone of us -who wishes to be free- needs to fight... No slave is set free by a begging! It has been said: "People are born free!" which is true, the question is: "Why did they sell themselves to slavery?!"
It's easier said than done, but I think we should stop for a second and ask ourselves: Do I want to be an ass-kisser?! Will ass-kissing get me anywhere beside being eventually neglected?!
Viva La Revolution!
PS: This post does NOT reflect the original character in the aforementioned story. The character was purposefully taken out-of-context for the purpose of making this post!
PS: Here is an alternative link to the story
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Would You Steal What You Believe Is Your Right?
Would You Steal What You Believe Is Your Right?: A question posed by Natasha in this blog entry that I felt is interesting to further analyze.
Personally, I would argue that it is okay to get what you believe is rightfully yours even by stealing it. The issue is diverse, but approaching the subject from several ways lead to the conclusion that, if you think something is yours, it is up to you to take it. Lets take a look at three different case scenarios: The first is stealing out of need, the second is Robin Hood theft, and third social rebellion.
Consider a poor person who does not have the money to buy food, so he steals that food. This is probably a humanitarian case. The social system exists to protect its members, and failing to deliver the minimum required amount of protection to the most basic needs for human survival, gives the person zero incentive to abide the rules of that system. To value the social system above the lives of its members is simply unreasonable.
Robin Hood theft is a redistribution of wealth concept where the money (allegedly stolen by the people in high positions) is stolen from the wealthy and given to the poor. It is based on the simple idea that, if someone steals something, then it not rightfully theirs, which legitimizes that the original owner to steal it back. Such reasoning is widely opposed where it is claimed that "two wrongs don't make a right", and that the legitimate way is to get your goods back through legal means, by reporting to the police or through the justice system. The problem arises when the social system does not grantee retrieval of whatever is stolen, as in corrupt systems. In short, if the system fails to get your stolen rights back, Robin Hood is your friend.
Consider social contractism, in such view, property laws among other laws are based on mutual agreement of the members of a society to abide the civil laws. If we consider these contracts as opt-in contracts, where the individual is given the choice whether or not to participate in those contracts, it seems that it is natural that disagreeing parties may rebel above those laws. Since most individuals are coerced by their peers to submit to social order, regardless of their agreement to its terms, it seems reasonable that breaking those laws is a natural consequence.
Social order is created through rebellion. Not necessarily through physical and\or violent rebellion, but rebellion in its most general sense is required to form social order. (Unlike what totalitarian systems tries to convince the people, that social order is achieved through obedience, when the fact is that rebellion is what creates social order.) It is known throughout history, that any failing system is meant to be abolished through some kind of revolution. The "slaves" fought for their freedom, no-one would come to a "slave" and hand them their (rightful?) freedom, they had to take it by their own hands. Thats how things work!!
Personally, I would argue that it is okay to get what you believe is rightfully yours even by stealing it. The issue is diverse, but approaching the subject from several ways lead to the conclusion that, if you think something is yours, it is up to you to take it. Lets take a look at three different case scenarios: The first is stealing out of need, the second is Robin Hood theft, and third social rebellion.
Consider a poor person who does not have the money to buy food, so he steals that food. This is probably a humanitarian case. The social system exists to protect its members, and failing to deliver the minimum required amount of protection to the most basic needs for human survival, gives the person zero incentive to abide the rules of that system. To value the social system above the lives of its members is simply unreasonable.
Robin Hood theft is a redistribution of wealth concept where the money (allegedly stolen by the people in high positions) is stolen from the wealthy and given to the poor. It is based on the simple idea that, if someone steals something, then it not rightfully theirs, which legitimizes that the original owner to steal it back. Such reasoning is widely opposed where it is claimed that "two wrongs don't make a right", and that the legitimate way is to get your goods back through legal means, by reporting to the police or through the justice system. The problem arises when the social system does not grantee retrieval of whatever is stolen, as in corrupt systems. In short, if the system fails to get your stolen rights back, Robin Hood is your friend.
Consider social contractism, in such view, property laws among other laws are based on mutual agreement of the members of a society to abide the civil laws. If we consider these contracts as opt-in contracts, where the individual is given the choice whether or not to participate in those contracts, it seems that it is natural that disagreeing parties may rebel above those laws. Since most individuals are coerced by their peers to submit to social order, regardless of their agreement to its terms, it seems reasonable that breaking those laws is a natural consequence.
Social order is created through rebellion. Not necessarily through physical and\or violent rebellion, but rebellion in its most general sense is required to form social order. (Unlike what totalitarian systems tries to convince the people, that social order is achieved through obedience, when the fact is that rebellion is what creates social order.) It is known throughout history, that any failing system is meant to be abolished through some kind of revolution. The "slaves" fought for their freedom, no-one would come to a "slave" and hand them their (rightful?) freedom, they had to take it by their own hands. Thats how things work!!
Friday, April 20, 2007
Contractism And Social Order
Contractism is the notion that humans have their full spectrum of personal liberties where ONLY some forms contracts (mutual agreement) can be binding by law. Many of current practices involve contractism. Capitalism is one of the systems that closely resemble contractism. In our world, almost everyone is familiar with the standard procedure for making contracts. A printed paper with two signatures. The terms of the agreement are binding to both parties. This is the simplest form making contracts.
In contractism, all laws are abandoned in favor of contracts. Thats to say, contracts are the whole law. People are born with neither rights nor duties. No law applies to anyone unless they explicitly agreed to be binded by that law. This is the simplest concept contractism. Our current policies are not completely compatible with contractism. The first problem is that contracts are NOT fully enforced. Second, the current laws impose limitations on contracts.
Living in society is a form of a social contract. A community of people agree to certain rules that members of that community (alternatively called "citizens") are expected to follow in order to retain certain services back from their community. This would be the simplest form of what we might call a "government".
Think about it this way: You are born with neither rights nor duties. [This is the natural state everyone is living in.] The place you live in is a Jungle. People are killing each other, stealing from one another, everything is in a mayhem. Being concerned about your own security, you reach out to other people in your community as agree that: "I will not fight you, if you dont fight me. I will not take your food, if you don't take mine. I promise not to attack you, if you promise not to attach me.".... This is the simplest form of social order. This mutual agreement now becomes the new law. At this point, not all those who live with you have agreed to this "peace agreement", so you make more agreements with your fellows. Say, you agree that: "If a person or an animal attacked you, I will get your back, if you promise to get my back in a similar situation." In this example, we can see how people can agree to a law, and how they can protect one another and defend them from external threats. This collection of social contracts and conventions are called social order.
In this view we can realize a few things: In contractism, social contracts are optional. Social contracts are reached through mutual agreements. If someone refuses to be bound by the social contract, that would be their free choice, but they have no rights and no grantees about anything. To give a few examples of what this means, consider these scenarios: A person has the right to refuses to pay taxes, but this would exclude him from public services like public schools, social security,...etc. A person who refuses to respect the property rights of others [ie. steals their property], would have no grantee that his property would not be stolen as well.
In contractism, all laws are abandoned in favor of contracts. Thats to say, contracts are the whole law. People are born with neither rights nor duties. No law applies to anyone unless they explicitly agreed to be binded by that law. This is the simplest concept contractism. Our current policies are not completely compatible with contractism. The first problem is that contracts are NOT fully enforced. Second, the current laws impose limitations on contracts.
Living in society is a form of a social contract. A community of people agree to certain rules that members of that community (alternatively called "citizens") are expected to follow in order to retain certain services back from their community. This would be the simplest form of what we might call a "government".
Think about it this way: You are born with neither rights nor duties. [This is the natural state everyone is living in.] The place you live in is a Jungle. People are killing each other, stealing from one another, everything is in a mayhem. Being concerned about your own security, you reach out to other people in your community as agree that: "I will not fight you, if you dont fight me. I will not take your food, if you don't take mine. I promise not to attack you, if you promise not to attach me.".... This is the simplest form of social order. This mutual agreement now becomes the new law. At this point, not all those who live with you have agreed to this "peace agreement", so you make more agreements with your fellows. Say, you agree that: "If a person or an animal attacked you, I will get your back, if you promise to get my back in a similar situation." In this example, we can see how people can agree to a law, and how they can protect one another and defend them from external threats. This collection of social contracts and conventions are called social order.
In this view we can realize a few things: In contractism, social contracts are optional. Social contracts are reached through mutual agreements. If someone refuses to be bound by the social contract, that would be their free choice, but they have no rights and no grantees about anything. To give a few examples of what this means, consider these scenarios: A person has the right to refuses to pay taxes, but this would exclude him from public services like public schools, social security,...etc. A person who refuses to respect the property rights of others [ie. steals their property], would have no grantee that his property would not be stolen as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
