|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Political Philosophy: What is [Not] Fair?
The sibling topic to this one is Discussion ABOUT “Political Phil: What is [Not] Fair?” topic. They go together. Some posts here might be moved to there.
~~~~~~~~~~
We will be talking here in the context of political philosophy.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy
When it comes to political systems (which you may call government systems, public social systems, or something else if you like), how would you answer any or all of these questions?
What is fair?
What is not fair?
What are specific examples of laws, or lack of laws, that you consider fair, or not fair?
Based on your political principles, how would you recognize when something is fair, or not fair?
Can you state what your political principles are, as pertaining to what is fair?
Serious and sincere discussion of these questions and surrounding issues, including the poll, is welcome here. I expect the utmost of courtesy by posters
.
~~~~~~~~~~
We will be talking here in the context of political philosophy.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy
| Wikipedia wrote: |
| Political philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what they are, why they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown—if ever. |
When it comes to political systems (which you may call government systems, public social systems, or something else if you like), how would you answer any or all of these questions?
What is fair?
What is not fair?
What are specific examples of laws, or lack of laws, that you consider fair, or not fair?
Based on your political principles, how would you recognize when something is fair, or not fair?
Can you state what your political principles are, as pertaining to what is fair?
Serious and sincere discussion of these questions and surrounding issues, including the poll, is welcome here. I expect the utmost of courtesy by posters
.(This question was intended to be an actual Frihost poll, above, but so many options were not allowed. Let’s make the best of the situation and pretend. )
Poll Question: Which of the following methods would MOST ensure that the law is fair?
(Even if you like 2 or more choices, pick 1 for the poll as your BEST choice, and you can explain more of your opinion in your posts.) (The choices are not in any particular order.)
If everybody has to follow the law equally (all people have equal standing)
If everybody has a say in making the law (direct democracy)
If everybody has a vote in deciding who will make the law (representative democracy)
If everybody has access to legal defense if accused of breaking the law (equal defense)
If everybody can personally decide whether to follow the law or not (voluntaryism)
If everybody who disagrees with the law has the right to leave (secession)
If there is a constitution that guarantees rights (constitutional republic)
If the law is based on God’s law (theocracy)
If the law is based on natural law (law of nature)
If the law is based on free-market principles (the market decides)
If the law is based on what’s good for the country (patriotism)
If the law is based on what’s good for the government (statism)
If the law is based on what can most help the most needy people (altruism)
If the law divides the wealth equally (socialism or communism)
If the law is logically reasoned from previously decided cases (common law)
If the law is decided by a benevolent dictator (good ruler)
If the law is decided by a hereditary ruler trained to rule (monarchy)
If the law is judged by wise judges, with appeals to higher judges available (jurisprudence)
If the law is judged by independent juries of peers (fully informed jury)
)
Poll Question: Which of the following methods would MOST ensure that the law is fair?
(Even if you like 2 or more choices, pick 1 for the poll as your BEST choice, and you can explain more of your opinion in your posts.) (The choices are not in any particular order.)
If everybody has to follow the law equally (all people have equal standing)
If everybody has a say in making the law (direct democracy)
If everybody has a vote in deciding who will make the law (representative democracy)
If everybody has access to legal defense if accused of breaking the law (equal defense)
If everybody can personally decide whether to follow the law or not (voluntaryism)
If everybody who disagrees with the law has the right to leave (secession)
If there is a constitution that guarantees rights (constitutional republic)
If the law is based on God’s law (theocracy)
If the law is based on natural law (law of nature)
If the law is based on free-market principles (the market decides)
If the law is based on what’s good for the country (patriotism)
If the law is based on what’s good for the government (statism)
If the law is based on what can most help the most needy people (altruism)
If the law divides the wealth equally (socialism or communism)
If the law is logically reasoned from previously decided cases (common law)
If the law is decided by a benevolent dictator (good ruler)
If the law is decided by a hereditary ruler trained to rule (monarchy)
If the law is judged by wise judges, with appeals to higher judges available (jurisprudence)
If the law is judged by independent juries of peers (fully informed jury)| Quote: |
| What is Fair? What is not Fair? |
What is not fair is that a Govt masterminds a military operation which kills thousands of it's own people in order to legitimize military action against other countries where even more thousands of people are killed.
If you want to see the evidence, then go here. I assure you, once you see one of these videos, you would want to see the rest.
Alright, so there are reports that prove the opposite of these claims. But if the Govt has answeres to these questions, then why don't they give it, instead of excuses?
The People Derserve An Answer.
| Quote: |
| Based on your political principles, how would you recognize when something is fair, or not fair? |
If indeed the flights that crashed into the Twin Towers were not the actual planed they were alleged to be, then what happened to the real civilians that were on those planes?
Their Families Deserve To Know The Truth
And the countries that are subsequesntly being targeted politically and militarily deserve a justification.
Philosophically, a Govt is no longer legitimate when it is responsible for the deaths of it's own people, no matter how few, if done deliberately in order to further hidden agendas. And a Govt should be made answerable to it's people. They should not be allowed such a fre reign that it can completely ignore the questions.
In a democracy, the Govt is "For the People". But do we see this practiced by the USA? I certainly don't.
Thank you for your impassioned comments! (Everything you said and how you said it was fine. As Facilitator, I just want to caution future posters not to speak negatively passionately against other posters here.)
Are you aware of any Governments that do not kill their own people to your knowledge? (You can probably anticipate my next question given your answer to that one.)
| jipmerite wrote: | ||
What is not fair is that a Govt masterminds a military operation which kills thousands of it's own people in order to legitimize military action against other countries where even more thousands of people are killed. |
Are you aware of any Governments that do not kill their own people to your knowledge? (You can probably anticipate my next question given your answer to that one.)
There are probably very few countries that haven't killed it's own people in some point of history or another.
But that does not mean it is legitimate. Just because everyone is doing it does not mean it is not unlawful and inhuman. And in recent time there has been no incident that has had as far reaching repurcussions as the 9/11 hoax.
It does not mean that US Govt should not be held responsibe and unswerable to it's people.
But that does not mean it is legitimate. Just because everyone is doing it does not mean it is not unlawful and inhuman. And in recent time there has been no incident that has had as far reaching repurcussions as the 9/11 hoax.
It does not mean that US Govt should not be held responsibe and unswerable to it's people.
Thanks for the reply.
I get your point. My question was not to point out that something might be legitimate if everybody’s doing that something. Instead, it concerned if (and the “if” was my question) every government is doing something that is illegitimate (for example, killing its own people), then let’s ask this next set of questions.
Is the main problem of unfairness some particular incidents of a government killing its own people? Or is the main problem something more fundamental like governments in general having such power?
Here’s another way to ask the same thing.
Stipulating what you say, the question is -- philosophically and as a matter of principle -- was the government legitimate before that incident? In other words, did it really all of a sudden become illegitimate when that incident happened, or was it illegitimate long before that? If the latter, why?
~~~~~~~~~~
More comprehensively, what makes a government legitimate or illegitimate
Is there a principle, or principles, we can name -- or is it all about particular incidents
| jipmerite wrote: |
| There are probably very few countries that haven't killed it's own people in some point of history or another.
But that does not mean it is legitimate. Just because everyone is doing it does not mean it is not unlawful and inhuman. |
I get your point. My question was not to point out that something might be legitimate if everybody’s doing that something. Instead, it concerned if (and the “if” was my question) every government is doing something that is illegitimate (for example, killing its own people), then let’s ask this next set of questions.
Is the main problem of unfairness some particular incidents of a government killing its own people? Or is the main problem something more fundamental like governments in general having such power?
Here’s another way to ask the same thing.
| jipmerite wrote: |
| Philosophically, a Govt is no longer legitimate when it is responsible for the deaths of it's own people, no matter how few, if done deliberately in order to further hidden agendas. |
Stipulating what you say, the question is -- philosophically and as a matter of principle -- was the government legitimate before that incident? In other words, did it really all of a sudden become illegitimate when that incident happened, or was it illegitimate long before that? If the latter, why?
~~~~~~~~~~
More comprehensively, what makes a government legitimate or illegitimate
Is there a principle, or principles, we can name -- or is it all about particular incidents
Brief observation :
I tend to think that Rawls had it right in his conclusion that ultimately
Justice = Fairness.
To quote him :-
In simple terms - some people having more cannot make up for others having less. In Star-Trek terms - the needs of the many do NOT outweigh the needs of the few or the one.
Regards
Chris
I tend to think that Rawls had it right in his conclusion that ultimately
Justice = Fairness.
To quote him :-
| Quote: |
| "each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many." |
In simple terms - some people having more cannot make up for others having less. In Star-Trek terms - the needs of the many do NOT outweigh the needs of the few or the one.
Regards
Chris
Thanks, Bikerman! I was wondering how much you have studied Rawls, so I have an idea of how much you know about his philosophy, in the context of your supporting his idea of fair?
Rawls is, for example, big on the so-called social contract being a fair political system (and he derives much more from there). “Social contract” is of course misnamed because it’s not a contract at all, but a method for a relatively small number of people to force their preferences of what they believe is best for the masses on those masses.
There are some similarities between (1) a country’s so-called Social Contract and (2) a country’s Constitution, in that neither are actual contracts and both are forced on the country’s citizens, including the citizens who have done no harm to anyone and who don’t want to follow said “contracts”.
But there’s also a big difference between (1) a Social Contract and (2) a Constitution in that the actual rules/laws of #1 are hidden (sometimes deceptively so) and yet made public when deemed appropriate -- while the actual rules/laws of #2 are written in black and white for all to see.
When someone is caught, say, in a situation of being falsely accused of something, would most people think it would be more fair to have a justice system based on implicit contracts whose terms cannot very easily be found, or on a document that, even if not perfect, is at least publicly available?
So-called social contracts are passed through the years from one generation to the next, such that citizens end up being forcibly bound by laws that were established many generations long since dead. Of the people who really understand the ramifications of this approach, I wonder how many consider it fair?
Rawls is, for example, big on the so-called social contract being a fair political system (and he derives much more from there). “Social contract” is of course misnamed because it’s not a contract at all, but a method for a relatively small number of people to force their preferences of what they believe is best for the masses on those masses.
There are some similarities between (1) a country’s so-called Social Contract and (2) a country’s Constitution, in that neither are actual contracts and both are forced on the country’s citizens, including the citizens who have done no harm to anyone and who don’t want to follow said “contracts”.
But there’s also a big difference between (1) a Social Contract and (2) a Constitution in that the actual rules/laws of #1 are hidden (sometimes deceptively so) and yet made public when deemed appropriate -- while the actual rules/laws of #2 are written in black and white for all to see.
When someone is caught, say, in a situation of being falsely accused of something, would most people think it would be more fair to have a justice system based on implicit contracts whose terms cannot very easily be found, or on a document that, even if not perfect, is at least publicly available?
So-called social contracts are passed through the years from one generation to the next, such that citizens end up being forcibly bound by laws that were established many generations long since dead. Of the people who really understand the ramifications of this approach, I wonder how many consider it fair?
First off, I know I am way out of my league here, but "but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?", right?
On first thought, I tend to think "fair" is not something I expect from life or the government. My preference is a constitutional republic. With rights and responsibilities laid out on paper, I have the choice of abiding or leaving. Or abiding and attempting change. For me, knowing the game seems to makes all the difference. I don't expect things to be "fair" all, or even most, of the time.
An trivial example, is school taxes. I live in an section that has the highest tax rate for schools in the area (and, coincidentally, one of the most mismanaged). I don't have kids, I can't use the facilities at the schools, I get no immediate benefit, and the kids still come around begging for money (not selling candy, but flat out begging). Fair? I dont' think so, but I knew the tax situation when I moved here and I have the option of leaving. I grumble a bit, but that is life.
On first thought, I tend to think "fair" is not something I expect from life or the government. My preference is a constitutional republic. With rights and responsibilities laid out on paper, I have the choice of abiding or leaving. Or abiding and attempting change. For me, knowing the game seems to makes all the difference. I don't expect things to be "fair" all, or even most, of the time.
An trivial example, is school taxes. I live in an section that has the highest tax rate for schools in the area (and, coincidentally, one of the most mismanaged). I don't have kids, I can't use the facilities at the schools, I get no immediate benefit, and the kids still come around begging for money (not selling candy, but flat out begging). Fair? I dont' think so, but I knew the tax situation when I moved here and I have the option of leaving. I grumble a bit, but that is life.
That was a well-written snippet of on-topic thought!
You definitely have choice to a certain extent because (assuming you can afford it, which might not be true for some others) you can move. But, when we look at this as literally as possible, do you really and truly have a choice of leaving (if you didn’t want to abide)? Yes, you can leave one location where taxes are exacted from you for something you don’t need (your example was a good one). And yes you can go to another place where they will be exacting taxes from you for different things that you don’t need.
But if you wanted to quit paying taxes on things that you don’t need, do you have that as an option? Is there any place on earth where you can move to that you won’t owe taxes on things that you don’t need?
Are you able to opt-out and say, “you know what world, from now on, I’m just going to work for, and then pay for, the things that I need and want, and I’m going to stop paying for things I don’t need or want”
Consider an analogy of a person being asked whether they want to play a game of Monopoly, Risk, or Go Fish. The person can choose 1 of those 3 games if they like. But what if the person says, “no thanks, I don’t want to play any of those games, or any games for that matter.” If the person truly has a choice of abstaining from all games, then they do have choice. But if the person has no choice of opting out, if their only choices are 1 of those 3 games or suffer some unpleasant consequences -- then it’s not really a choice at all, would you not agree?
(1) Having choice of which game to play, when you also have the choice of not playing any game
.....is wholly different from the situation of .....
(2) Having choice of which game to play, when you must play one of them.
~~~~~~~~~~
I bring these kinds of things up, not to depress anyone about their situation, but because I think we can only improve the world, if we are starting with an understanding of what we are really dealing with.
(Some other things you said are thinkers too, so I may get to those at another time.)
| HoboPelican wrote: |
| With rights and responsibilities laid out on paper, I have the choice of abiding or leaving. |
You definitely have choice to a certain extent because (assuming you can afford it, which might not be true for some others) you can move. But, when we look at this as literally as possible, do you really and truly have a choice of leaving (if you didn’t want to abide)? Yes, you can leave one location where taxes are exacted from you for something you don’t need (your example was a good one). And yes you can go to another place where they will be exacting taxes from you for different things that you don’t need.
But if you wanted to quit paying taxes on things that you don’t need, do you have that as an option? Is there any place on earth where you can move to that you won’t owe taxes on things that you don’t need?
Are you able to opt-out and say, “you know what world, from now on, I’m just going to work for, and then pay for, the things that I need and want, and I’m going to stop paying for things I don’t need or want”
Consider an analogy of a person being asked whether they want to play a game of Monopoly, Risk, or Go Fish. The person can choose 1 of those 3 games if they like. But what if the person says, “no thanks, I don’t want to play any of those games, or any games for that matter.” If the person truly has a choice of abstaining from all games, then they do have choice. But if the person has no choice of opting out, if their only choices are 1 of those 3 games or suffer some unpleasant consequences -- then it’s not really a choice at all, would you not agree?
(1) Having choice of which game to play, when you also have the choice of not playing any game
.....is wholly different from the situation of .....
(2) Having choice of which game to play, when you must play one of them.
~~~~~~~~~~
I bring these kinds of things up, not to depress anyone about their situation, but because I think we can only improve the world, if we are starting with an understanding of what we are really dealing with.
(Some other things you said are thinkers too, so I may get to those at another time.)
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
|
But if you wanted to quit paying taxes on things that you don’t need, do you have that as an option? Is there any place on earth where you can move to that you won’t owe taxes on things that you don’t need? ... |
I know of no place where I wouldn't be paying a tax for something I wouldn't use. And I really don't think I would want to live in that place, if it existed. There is a whole specturm of funded items that I do not use now, but in the future I might. Taking my example of school taxes, if something should happen to my sis and I had to adopt her kids, I would benefit from a school system already funded adequetely. For the general good, I will pay, too an extent, for things I have no thought of using. As I mentioned, I don't expect "fairness"out of life. I guess I expect an "over all approximaztion of fairness", as silly as that sounds. On the whole, I'm satisfied (oh, what a damnable word that is to settle for
). If I wasn't, I'd leave.
Hmm, can I renounce all citizenship and live on my yacht? Fuel tax, dock fees, sales tax on supplies? That might be a way to only pay for what you use. But that is tearing yourself away from many of the benefits of society, I think. And maybe that is a good point. Perhaps you need to pay a "society" tax to live in a society. I've got this half-formed thought about primitive clans and the sharing of food from the hunt, but I've had too many Red Stripes and too little sleep to formulated it.
| The Philosopher Princess wrote: |
| Thanks, Bikerman! I was wondering how much you have studied Rawls, so I have an idea of how much you know about his philosophy, in the context of your supporting his idea of fair? |
Not studied in any depth. I have read a few commentaries on him (Blackman, King and Sweidel), and browsed through his 'Justice as Fairness' (1957) when I was studying for my BEd.
| Quote: |
| Rawls is, for example, big on the so-called social contract being a fair political system (and he derives much more from there). “Social contract” is of course misnamed because it’s not a contract at all, but a method for a relatively small number of people to force their preferences of what they believe is best for the masses on those masses. |
Agreed. Of course here in the UK we have no real social contract at all. Our jurisprudence is largely based on negative rights - the state 'allows' rather than the individual 'has the right'. When this is coupled with our system of common-law precedent then our legal system is even more elitist/non egalitarian than most other western 'democracies'.
| Quote: |
|
There are some similarities between (1) a country’s so-called Social Contract and (2) a country’s Constitution, in that neither are actual contracts and both are forced on the country’s citizens, including the citizens who have done no harm to anyone and who don’t want to follow said “contracts”. |
Here also the UK is different. We have no constitution in the normal sense of the word. Technically our constitution comprises 4 parts/instruments :
Statute (law), common law, Conventions, and Works of Authority.
Of these, Statute is the primary instrument and consists of Parliamentary laws. Common law is based on precendence and takes account of previous judgements in similar/related cases/circumstances. The last 2 are basically flexible and ill-defined; they comprise unwritten tradition and protocol in the first case, quasi-judicial reports (normally written by Judges in response to specific crises or disasters), in the second.
Some argue that this is an advantage in that we are no 'hidebound' by an inflexible constitution. The example of US Gun Law being enshrined constitutionally is often used in support of this. Personally I disagree since the only real advantage to the citizen would be if one assumes the judiciary are their advocates and completely resistant to executive power and influence. If this were true then a case could be made since our system gives the judges immense power through common law. However, I think it would be naive to assume that the white, upper-middle class, judges we enjoy are even representative of the population, let alone it's chief defender and protection against executive abuse. This, however, is another debate for another time...
| Quote: |
|
But there’s also a big difference between (1) a Social Contract and (2) a Constitution in that the actual rules/laws of #1 are hidden (sometimes deceptively so) and yet made public when deemed appropriate -- while the actual rules/laws of #2 are written in black and white for all to see. |
LOL...tell me about it
| Quote: |
|
When someone is caught, say, in a situation of being falsely accused of something, would most people think it would be more fair to have a justice system based on implicit contracts whose terms cannot very easily be found, or on a document that, even if not perfect, is at least publicly available? |
Yep - see previous comments
| Quote: |
|
So-called social contracts are passed through the years from one generation to the next, such that citizens end up being forcibly bound by laws that were established many generations long since dead. Of the people who really understand the ramifications of this approach, I wonder how many consider it fair? |
There is fairly widespread ignorance of our whole constitutional arrangement amongst the population here - I doubt 1 in 10, for example, could give you the 4 elements I listed above....in fact I would bet on about 1 in 20-40. Working class socialists/activists want a written constitution and the chattering classes concur, so we have a movement called Charter 88 which has as it's aim the establishment of a written constitution. Not much chance IMHO. We set out to reform the House of Lords (our unelected 2nd chamber) more than a decade ago in the latest attempt (this is an ongoing saga stretching back over a century) and we are still no nearer a solution - Blair wants to retain grace and favour and so opposes a fully elected chamber and has effectively kicked the issue into the long grass for the foreseeable future. The chances of overturning the constitution as a whole are slim to non (and slim left town when the terrorist agenda was constructed
Regards
Chris
Great read on all your latest stuff here! This part in particular gets me to thinking.
It’s a real wonder which of those two approaches has a better chance of being fair, or if they are ultimately about as unfair as each other. I know that some people from the U.S. would jump to their conclusion that individuals having rights is much more fair; they are taught (brainwashed?) into believing that that approach is the epitome of fair.
What is usually missed is that by their accepting official (State) declarations that the individual has this right, that right, and the other right -- they are also accepting that the State is allowed to declare what those rights are and, more importantly, can re-define what those rights are. To make a long explanation shorter, the Individual Rights approach can turn out to be implemented just like the State Allows approach -- as least as far as what happens to actual individuals.
For example, back when it was first officially declared that U.S. citizens had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, no one would have dreamed that those rights included State-sponsored health care with health care insurance, to be funded by taxes exacted from other people (redistribution). These days, a majority of people believe wholeheartedly that basic individual rights include such things. In other words, rights have been redefined.
Does anyone here know what alternatives there might be to those two approaches
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Our jurisprudence is largely based on negative rights - the state 'allows' rather than the individual 'has the right'. |
It’s a real wonder which of those two approaches has a better chance of being fair, or if they are ultimately about as unfair as each other. I know that some people from the U.S. would jump to their conclusion that individuals having rights is much more fair; they are taught (brainwashed?) into believing that that approach is the epitome of fair.
What is usually missed is that by their accepting official (State) declarations that the individual has this right, that right, and the other right -- they are also accepting that the State is allowed to declare what those rights are and, more importantly, can re-define what those rights are. To make a long explanation shorter, the Individual Rights approach can turn out to be implemented just like the State Allows approach -- as least as far as what happens to actual individuals.
For example, back when it was first officially declared that U.S. citizens had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, no one would have dreamed that those rights included State-sponsored health care with health care insurance, to be funded by taxes exacted from other people (redistribution). These days, a majority of people believe wholeheartedly that basic individual rights include such things. In other words, rights have been redefined.
Does anyone here know what alternatives there might be to those two approaches
| HoboPelican wrote: |
| I guess I expect an "over all approximaztion of fairness", as silly as that sounds. |
That’s fine. On any such issues of importance, we must start somewhere vague and then work our way towards more details. For this post, I am equating (defining) the term fair with your “over all approximaztion of fairness”.
| HoboPelican wrote: | ||
I know of no place where I wouldn't be paying a tax for something I wouldn't use. And I really don't think I would want to live in that place, if it existed. |
Understood. Well then I guess you are completely satisfied in this area, since your preferences are being met.
In the context of political philosophy, I have 2 further areas of questions.
How do you feel about other people who have different preferences than you? What about the people who are not like you, in that they would like to spend their own money in the ways that they choose, rather than having it confiscated and spent the way a small ruling body chooses? In particular, concerning people who want to spend their own money, at what point would you consider it unfair that they do not get to do this? If 100% of such a person’s money is confiscated for public use, is that fair or unfair? If only 75% is taken, and they are left with 25% of their earnings, is that fair or unfair? In your political philosophy, what is the “magic” number of when fairness turns to unfairness?
Concerning yourself, we’ve established that in the area of taxes, you are basically happy and satisfied. If things were to change (as they always do), at what point would you consider it unfair that you were not in control of your own money? Would you still be happy and satisfied and consider it fair if 90% of your earnings (and even a portion of your saved capital) were taken for public use?
~~~~~~~~~~
In summary, what I’m looking for in these areas is the principle (in math terms, the formula) that represents your political philosophy that is to be applied to everyone concerning taxes and what is fair.
 |