Political Philosophy
13 watchers
Apr 2016
1:30pm, 1 Apr 2016
7,074 posts
|
Binks
An idea for a thread, something I like to read about lots is political theory and it's come up quite a bit in others threads (as a deviation from the main point of that thread) "Political philosophy, or political theory, is the study of topics such as politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law, and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what they are, why (or even if) they are needed, what, if anything, 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." Basically we can discuss how we think people and societies should organise and interact. Not the day to day humdrum of party politics with its insults, lies and hyperbole. I find that a bit dull. Also I think it would be great to put on here your beliefs and ideas about these things and to ask questions, debate, disagree without patronising or saying people are wrong or stupid etc. |
|
Apr 2016
1:31pm, 1 Apr 2016
7,075 posts
|
Binks
I'll start. I would identify as being a libertarian, this can also be called anarchy though that term can be very ambiguous. Anarchy is a Latin word, like arch and means "no rulers". Like the bricks in an arch all are important but none are in charge. In terms of how that applies to society, it means no one should have power over others that is not volunteered. Broadly speaking these are the things I hold as basic principles. 1 - a person is born owing nothing to anyone or being owed anything from anyone 2 - you should not inflict violence on anyone, force anyone to do anything or take their stuff 3 - all association should be voluntary 4 - each person is the owner of their own body and can use and abuse it as they like (subject to 1 and 2) A consequence of these (I believe) would be what we call a free market. A free market is one where everyone can make agreements with one another without being bound by obligations that they have not agreed to. Sounds like chaos! But (I believe) out of this spontaneous order would occur. With everyone free to trade and create things will get done and peoples lives will be better. It's not a guaranteed cure all for all that might be wrong with people and society and there are parts where I am still troubled by this. There are very few cases where I believe forced association leads to a better result. Here is an interesting read. A very small book called " I Pencil". It makes the case for spontaneous order. It shows that no one in the world knows how to make a pencil from scratch, but yet it happens, with pencils and planes. Here is a podcast of the idea. freakonomics.com |
Apr 2016
2:01pm, 1 Apr 2016
5,684 posts
|
Jambomo
One thing I found interesting when I was at Uni was Social Contract theory, which is the idea that we are born into a social and political contract with others and are obliged to live within that contract. I would like to think that we are born with freedom and as you say in point 1) a person is born owing nothing to anyone or being owed anything from anyone. The more I think about it though, I don't really think that it is the case. We tend to be bound from birth into certain constraints against actions - i.e not to kill or do harm, not to break the law - whilst these are for most people perfectly sensible constraints, and complies with their moral outlook but what happens if the laws and constraints become less sensible, or conflict with your morals or will?? If you look at it another way, we are mostly constrained in life by the lawmakers and politicians. The punishment generally being that you lose something, maybe money (in the form of a fine) or liberty (going to jail). |
|
Apr 2016
2:11pm, 1 Apr 2016
5,685 posts
|
Jambomo
oops didn't mean to post that then! Wasn't finished  I was going to say that your point 2 does conflict a bit with your "no rules" idea since you can't have point 2 without some rules. So you are either arguing for complete freedom (which means you could kill or harm) or rules to some degree - which will always end up being subjective as to what an individual, and what society in general, finds permissible. In general, governments and lawmakers make the rules and this tends to be what they consider morally permissible and I think, what they also find desirable, whether we would agree its morally acceptable or not. I don't any individual could claim to be either free or owing nothing to anyone/being owed anything - since we are born into countries where we are believed to owe obedience to the rules and to some extent loyalty to the country. |
Apr 2016
2:11pm, 1 Apr 2016
22,868 posts
|
macca 53
Do you think Donald Trump fits your desription of Libertarian, Binks? (I think he thinks he does) - apart from getting himself hamstrung by 4 on the anti-abortion issue.
|
|
Apr 2016
2:17pm, 1 Apr 2016
7,079 posts
|
Binks
I don't think it is the case either. It was Rousseau who first coined the term "social contract" as a way of explaining the legitimacy of government and rules, saying we explicitly or tacitly allow such a thing to exist. Constraints sure can become less sensible. Freedom of speech, of association etc. Conscription and other things. My point 1 I guess could be illustrated by a hypothetical scenario where only two people exist. Then if you talked about what "rights" people had. You could say A has the "right" not to be punched in the face because that does not bind B into a duty. Whereas if you said A has a "right" to healthcare then that must bind B into providing it. |
|
Apr 2016
2:21pm, 1 Apr 2016
7,080 posts
|
Binks
No, Trump does not fit into any libertarian profile at all. I don't really know what his actual policies are; but a few things that are not libertarian are; restricting the movement of people based on their race/religion or where they currently live bombing places who we believe pose a "hypothetical" threat trade barriers with China Eminent Domain - where for example he is trying to force people in Scotland to sell their property to him for the "greater good". |
|
Apr 2016
2:28pm, 1 Apr 2016
5,686 posts
|
Jambomo
"You could say A has the "right" not to be punched in the face because that does not bind B into a duty. Whereas if you said A has a "right" to healthcare then that must bind B into providing it." I'd say that in the case of A having the right not to be punched in the face, this does bind B into not punching A in the face. He's still bound, but he's bound into not doing something rather than doing something. I would say that in your scenario A's right to healthcare doesn't necessarily bind B into providing it. So a slightly different case might be that I believe I have a right to have a baby (I don't believe that is a right but its just an example). If I cannot get pregnant because my biology doesn't allow it, although I have a right to it, those rights may be unfulfilled. We can only be bound to doing something that we have the ability to do and where it is our duty to do it - if B couldn't provide healthcare, he cannot be bound into doing so because of A's rights to healthcare. |
|
Apr 2016
2:29pm, 1 Apr 2016
5,687 posts
|
Jambomo
This is a good thread though Binks I agree with your views on Trump as well.
|
Apr 2016
2:41pm, 1 Apr 2016
926 posts
|
Surelynot
Great new thread, Binks. What interests me in the libertarian principles are encasulated by your point 2. You should not inflict violence on anyone, force anyone to do anything or take their stuff. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, if I can rephrase that. In a thought experiment I can see how that works, but in practice, there's always someone or some group who will breach those three pillars. How does liberarian philosophy propose to deal with this? |
Related Threads
-
Politics
Apr 2024
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Apr 2024
-
Miners strike 1984
Feb 2024
-
Boris Love
Oct 2023
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Vote watch - did you vote today?
May 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Poll Clerk Appreciation Day
Oct 2022
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Unexpected Wikipedia edits
Jul 2022
