• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Individual Liberty, Society, and the role of the State:

Kelzie said:
Like tarriffs. Or subsidies. Suppose it will probably be more likely that soup kitchens get the ax before those. :lol:

Subsidies have, also, led to many negative externalities, ie, a monkey wrench in the FTAA. We're never going to get rid of them and I'll say that they are somewhat necessary in order to ensure that the U.S. is not dependent on foriegn powers for our food supply, but as long as we have them I think we should use them to force farmers to set aside a certain percentage of their crops only for ethanol production and if they refuse don't give them the subsidies.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Individual Liberty, Society, and the Role of the State:

The major problem with modern individualism which Bellah et al. illustrate quite clearly in "Habits of the Heart," is one which arises when individuality becomes more important than the society as a whole and to this end creates a situation where not only is the society harmed but also the well being of the individual. It stands to reason that, because the individual does not live in a vacuum but rather in an interconnected societal structure in which the actions of the individual will ultimately affect the society as a whole then certain restrictions on the individual can justly be set in place in order to have a functioning society. Bella et al would argue that these necessary restrictions were once set in place through institutions; such as, the church and the state but as modern individualism and the focus on utilitarianism became more prevalent to the neglect of biblical individualism and classical republicanism that there is no longer a guiding source of morality as a framework for how the individual should interact with the society around them. Furthermore; if the individual is only conscious of himself then how can it reasonably be expected of him to consider the consequences of his actions on the rest of society?

To illustrate why this problem of modern individualism taking the place of classical republicanism is so important we can use one of the more extreme theories of individual liberty and property called anarcho-capitalism. The anarcho capitalist would assert that the state itself is an unjust monopoly which derives its power through the forced taxation of the citizenry and if one were to adopt the economic policies of total deregulation then the invisible hand of the market could take the place of the state; resulting in true liberty. The Anarcho Capitalist would claim that the state can be abolished, because it is assumed that through the individual doing what is most profitable for himself and in his own self interests that this would ultimately be good for the society as a whole, in that, it stands to reason that it is of course not profitable for a business owner, to say, poison his consumers through a flawed product. Yet, what this anarcho-capitalist model fails to take into account is that which is good for one individual is not always good for the society as a whole. To illustrate this point one could take into consideration that what would be in the best interests of the business owner would be for him to automate all production. This would certainly increase his production capacity and, also, his profit margin by reducing the amount he has to allocate to wages… but at what cost? Well of course that negative impact can clearly be seen in the workers who are now found jobless. So while the individual who owns this hypothetical business would benefit through increasing his net gain by decreasing wage costs, and the individual consumer would benefit through the decrease in prices which would inevitably result through the laws of supply and demand, the individual worker is now left jobless and destitute.

Now how does this disproportional focus on modern individualism to the neglect of classical republicanism relate to the practices of individualism in the United States? The best way to put it into perspective is through the context of the extremes on both sides of the spectrum. On one side of the spectrum we have totalitarianism in which the state is all powerful and individual liberty is non existent and on the other side we have anarchism in which the restrictive functions of the state have been totally abolished and unchecked individualism is the law of the land. Now how would this hypothetical anarchist societal structure function? Well let us first assume that the economic structure of any given society would remain intact and in the case of the United States it would continue to be Capitalism. Now that there is no longer a state to provide for services; such as, security, defense, and education there would now be a demand from the public for private companies to fill the void. The individual upon seeing that there was now a demand for him to provide this security, defense, education, etc., would begin to form privatized police, military, and educational institutions. Now that state regulation has been abolished there would no longer be any checks on monopolies. Individual companies each doing what is in their own economic interests would form into large conglomerates. So now a societal structure is beginning to form which in fact looks very state like. Not only has it taken on the form of the state but through the formation of these large conglomerates in which every aspect of society is controlled by a single entity the society has in fact become totalitarian in nature. In effect the individual liberty which the abolishment of the state was supposed to provide has been all but eliminated and in the place of a government of, by, and for the people, we are now left with a government of, by, and for the government. So we can see in this extreme example of how a focus solely on the individual while ignoring the effect that this individual will have on the society as a whole can in actuality create the opposite of the intended effect.

--Thomas Askins (that's me)


Dude, break that crap up into paragraphs.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Subsidies have, also, led to many negative externalities, ie, a monkey wrench in the FTAA. We're never going to get rid of them and I'll say that they are somewhat necessary in order to ensure that the U.S. is not dependent on foriegn powers for our food supply, but as long as we have them I think we should use them to force farmers to set aside a certain percentage of their crops only for ethanol production and if they refuse don't give them the subsidies.

Well that's silly. There's no reason we shouldn't rely on foreign food if they can produce it more efficiently than we can. Here's the example my econ prof gave me:

Say Colorado puts a tarriff on Florida oranges (I know they can't, bear with me). Florida oranges are now $10 a pop. We then subsidize local famers to grow oranges in hothouses so that native Colorado oranges can be sold at the "affordable" price of $5 each. 300 years go by. Somebody proposes axing the subsidy and tarriff. They're inefficient. Without them, oranges from Florida would be $1/pound. People would be saying the exact same thing as you are. "We can't do that! Think of all the orange growers that will lose their jobs!" "It will destoy our local oranges and we'll have to rely on Florida!"

At some point society just has to step back and say "You know what? This is kinda dumb." The places that produce the best should do so.
 
fooligan said:
Dude, break that crap up into paragraphs.

Ya umm there's three paragraphys each one covering a separate part of the issue. The first one illustrates the problem, the second why it's a problem, and the third is how that problem can play itself out in the U.S..
 
Last edited:
Kelzie said:
Well that's silly. There's no reason we shouldn't rely on foreign food if they can produce it more efficiently than we can. Here's the example my econ prof gave me:

Say Colorado puts a tarriff on Florida oranges (I know they can't, bear with me). Florida oranges are now $10 a pop. We then subsidize local famers to grow oranges in hothouses so that native Colorado oranges can be sold at the "affordable" price of $5 each. 300 years go by. Somebody proposes axing the subsidy and tarriff. They're inefficient. Without them, oranges from Florida would be $1/pound. People would be saying the exact same thing as you are. "We can't do that! Think of all the orange growers that will lose their jobs!" "It will destoy our local oranges and we'll have to rely on Florida!"

At some point society just has to step back and say "You know what? This is kinda dumb." The places that produce the best should do so.


A socialist advocating getting rid of subsidies??? Holy sh!t now I've seen everything. No I agree but to an extent you have to realize that protectionism has been a part of the American tradition ever since our inception we are traditionally an isolationist society, old habits die hard and you have to admit that it might not be such a prudent move to put all of our faith into the world feeding us the U.S. has to maintain some of our own self reliance. Besides I thought you were against globalization?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
A socialist advocating getting rid of subsidies??? Holy sh!t now I've seen everything. No I agree but to an extent you have to realize that protectionism has been a part of the American tradition ever since our inception we are traditionally an isolationist society, old habits die hard and you have to admit that it might not be such a prudent move to put all of our faith into the world feeding us the U.S. has to maintain some of our own self reliance. Besides I thought you were against globalization?

Why would you think that? And I'm not much of a socialist. Half *** globalization doesn't work. It's got to be all or nothing. We should buy from whichever country produces the best.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Yes but again if there is no moral framework established by the republic then how can it reasonably be assumed that the individual will know what is right and wrong? A nation whose soul focus is only on utilitarianism leads to an entire culture norm which as you expressed has taken route in America today. You could say that religion is the alternative but the people can not be forced to follow the doctrines of the church, go to church, read the bible, etc etc, but the state on the other hand can pass legislation compelling the people to follow a moral path which not only will secure the rights of a single indivual but also the rights of all of the indivuals in any given society.
Nah dude, I didn't say religion is neccisary, but overall movement of pragmatic morality, a basic knowledge of what is right and wrong. Religion can be a good source of this, but religion by no means has a monopoly on morality.
No moral relativism has come about due the decline of traditional republicanism and biblical individualism, and the rise in the emphasis of utilitarian individualism and expressive individualism. The anarcho-capitalist philosophy is the very emodiment of Benthan's utilitarianism run amok.
This is based on the assumption that I'm calling for the immidiate elimination of the government. That's not the case. I think the goal of government should be self-elimination, but it should do it right. It should shrink in a way that encourages people to pick up the slack over the course of many years, and maybe in a hundred years or so, if we stay on course, then society might be prepared to live without government.
Like no one knows whether I'm right or you're right, and that's because this has never been done before. History shows us pretty clearly that governments are doomed to fail eventually, and this can be put off by major changes in a government's infrasructure (look at Britain, despite the fact that their government has never collapsed, the way it is governed really resemble the way in was a couple hundred years ago), and a reasonable suggestion is to slowly and pragmaticly shift into anarchy.
 
galenrox said:
Nah dude, I didn't say religion is neccisary, but overall movement of pragmatic morality, a basic knowledge of what is right and wrong. Religion can be a good source of this, but religion by no means has a monopoly on morality.

This is based on the assumption that I'm calling for the immidiate elimination of the government. That's not the case. I think the goal of government should be self-elimination, but it should do it right. It should shrink in a way that encourages people to pick up the slack over the course of many years, and maybe in a hundred years or so, if we stay on course, then society might be prepared to live without government.
Like no one knows whether I'm right or you're right, and that's because this has never been done before. History shows us pretty clearly that governments are doomed to fail eventually, and this can be put off by major changes in a government's infrasructure (look at Britain, despite the fact that their government has never collapsed, the way it is governed really resemble the way in was a couple hundred years ago), and a reasonable suggestion is to slowly and pragmaticly shift into anarchy.

O.K. let's say that the Government does indeed take it upon itself to spread morality and it comes to the point that this is no longer a necessary function of said Government so the Government shifts into anarchy on its own accord. What happens in three or four generations when the moral teachings of the past become lost upon the present generation?

One could argue that this is precisely what has happened to the American culture starting in the 1930s when people began to shift more towards a utilitarian outlook on individuality as opposed to the stringent guidlines found in biblical and republican individualism. The reasons for this are many for one people grew disenfranchised with the unequality of the sexes found in the Christian doctrine, minorities became disenfranchised to the unequal treatment of them by the state etc etc, the key is not to return to the more stringent guidlines of the past but at the same time not allowing things to go anyfurther. The key is to find the half way point extremes in any direction never lead anywhere but ruin.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
O.K. let's say that the Government does indeed take it upon itself to spread morality and it comes to the point that this is no longer a necessary function of said Government so the Government shifts into anarchy on its own accord. What happens in three or four generations when the moral teachings of the past become lost upon the present generation?

One could argue that this is precisely what has happened to the American culture starting in the 1930s when people began to shift more towards a utilitarian outlook on individuality as opposed to the stringent guidlines found in biblical and republican individualism. The reasons for this are many for one people grew disenfranchised with the unequality of the sexes found in the Christian doctrine, minorities became disenfranchised to the unequal treatment of them by the state etc etc, the key is not to return to the more stringent guidlines of the past but at the same time not allowing things to go anyfurther. The key is to find the half way point extremes in any direction never lead anywhere but ruin.

The result of a strong moral unbringing is a moral young adult.

The reason morality has dropped off since the 30's is because people became so disenchanted with the hypocricy of the ones preaching morals. People were preaching to love thy neighbor while the government was turning hoses on black people for marching.
Now if our society had ever been truly moral, then we'd have some precedent to base our beliefs on what would happen off of, but since we never have been, all guesses are just that, guesses.
 
galenrox said:
The result of a strong moral unbringing is a moral young adult.

But who will insure that the individual is setting a moral example if the state has been abolished and there is no law?

The reason morality has dropped off since the 30's is because people became so disenchanted with the hypocricy of the ones preaching morals. People were preaching to love thy neighbor while the government was turning hoses on black people for marching.

Now if our society had ever been truly moral, then we'd have some precedent to base our beliefs on what would happen off of, but since we never have been, all guesses are just that, guesses.

That's why you reform the state not abolish it. Segregation is a case in point the reason why the state allowed slavery and segregation is, because it shifted to much towards a biblical and traditional republican form of individualism while neglecting utilitarianism and expressive individualism but now the inverse has occurred and the emphasis is disproportionally placed on the utilitarian and expressive forms of individualism. Anarcho-Capitalism is squarly rooted in the premise of utilitarianism which in and of itself it's just when you focus to much on any form of individualism bad things are going to happen.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
That's why you reform the state not abolish it that's a case in point the reason why the state allowed slavery is, because it shifted to much towards a biblical and traditional republican individualism while neglecting utilitarianism and expressive individualism but now the inverse has occurred and the emphasis is disproportionally placed on the utilitarian and expressive forms of individualism. Anarcho-Capitalism is squarly rooted in the premise of utilitarianism.
Dude, do you realize how ridiculous it is to say what anarcho-capitalism is squarely rooted in, considering you're not one, I am one, and I've explained to you on several occasions that that's not an adherent trait at all?
The utilitarianism that you percieve to be the driving force towards anarcho-capitalism is a product of the government.
And if you were correct about anarcho-capitalism, which you're not, but if you were, then there's no point in worrying about it anyway. This nation is primarily christian, and overwhelmingly motivated by morals in pragmatic ways, and in other ways too. A lack of morality in this nation is not the problem, but instead the direction of the morality.
People have become so reliant on government that they actually believe that government should be a source of morality, which is preposterous. Morality is what makes us human, and government is adherently inhuman, and thus does not have the capability to be a source of morals.

All moral movements have been socially driven, and every time there's been one the government has faught it tooth and nail.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Yes but again if there is no moral framework established by the republic then how can it reasonably be assumed that the individual will know what is right and wrong? A nation whose soul focus is only on utilitarianism leads to an entire culture norm which as you expressed has taken route in America today. You could say that religion is the alternative but the people can not be forced to follow the doctrines of the church, go to church, read the bible, etc etc, but the state on the other hand can pass legislation compelling the people to follow a moral path which not only will secure the rights of a single indivual but also the rights of all of the indivuals in any given society.

Care to give me your definition of utilitarianism for me? As an utilitarian i cant say i recognise the way you are using it....
 
Herophant said:
Care to give me your definition of utilitarianism for me? As an utilitarian i cant say i recognise the way you are using it....

Utilitarianism means that in a society the indivual will do what most benefits him regardless of how it effects his fellow individuals. That's day one stuff.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Utilitarianism means that in a society will an individual what most benefits him regardless of how it effects his fellow individuals. That's day one stuff.

Okeeey.... Ever heard of J.S Mill?
 
galenrox said:
Dude, do you realize how ridiculous it is to say what anarcho-capitalism is squarely rooted in, considering you're not one, I am one, and I've explained to you on several occasions that that's not an adherent trait at all?
The utilitarianism that you percieve to be the driving force towards anarcho-capitalism is a product of the government.
And if you were correct about anarcho-capitalism, which you're not, but if you were, then there's no point in worrying about it anyway. This nation is primarily christian, and overwhelmingly motivated by morals in pragmatic ways, and in other ways too. A lack of morality in this nation is not the problem, but instead the direction of the morality.
People have become so reliant on government that they actually believe that government should be a source of morality, which is preposterous. Morality is what makes us human, and government is adherently inhuman, and thus does not have the capability to be a source of morals.

All moral movements have been socially driven, and every time there's been one the government has faught it tooth and nail.

Do you know what utilitarianism is? It's the whole premise for an anarcho-capitalist society. Utilitarianism is a good thing but like all forms of individualism not when it is taken to extremes.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Okeey ever here of Jeremy Bentham?

Oh are we playing a name game? Ever heard of Imre Pozsgay?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Utilitarianism means that in a society the indivual will do what most benefits him regardless of how it effects his fellow individuals. That's day one stuff.

Hey, whoa. That is the wackiest definition of utilitarianism I have ever heard. You should do whatever creates the most good among the most number of people. You can not perform an action if it benefits you but harms five others. I belive you are talking about egoism.
 
galenrox said:
The utilitarianism that you percieve to be the driving force towards anarcho-capitalism is a product of the government.
And if you were correct about anarcho-capitalism, which you're not, but if you were, then there's no point in worrying about it anyway. This nation is primarily christian, and overwhelmingly motivated by morals in pragmatic ways, and in other ways too. A lack of morality in this nation is not the problem, but instead the direction of the morality.

If that's true, how do you explain the behavior of (overwhelmingly Christian) New Orleans during the anarchy of Hurricane Katrina? People will quickly abandon abstract moral values, for personal gain, if there's no government to punish them for doing so. Therefore pure anarchy can never exist, much less thrive.
 
Kandahar said:
If that's true, how do you explain the behavior of (overwhelmingly Christian) New Orleans during the anarchy of Hurricane Katrina? People will quickly abandon abstract moral values, for personal gain, if there's no government to punish them for doing so. Therefore pure anarchy can never exist, much less thrive.


True. You just need some chocolate to make real, like, chocolate milk. Thriving milk. Brown, and chocolate. Pretty brown here. 'Nagin and chocolate'... Chocolate Nagin (there's a surprise)... 'no wire hangers' (Hillary-Nut-Raspberry)...
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Okeey ever here of Jeremy Bentham?

You know you should really try to use words with their original meaning; it will make your post so much easier to understand. Although I do admire your ability to continuously substitute words with your own. Its like you got your own private languagel.

Out of curiosity how can a moral view based on Benthams “the greatest happiness principle” lead to:

“Utilitarianism means that in a society the indivual will do what most benefits him regardless of how it effects his fellow individuals. That's day one stuff.”

You know other people hold utilitarianism to be exactly opposite from you, interesting.

Oh and you really should read Mill before you talk about Utilitarianism.
 
Kelzie said:
Hey, whoa. That is the wackiest definition of utilitarianism I have ever heard. You should do whatever creates the most good among the most number of people. You can not perform an action if it benefits you but harms five others. I belive you are talking about egoism.

You're over simplifying it, the basic principle behind utilitarian individualism is that the human animal seeks pleasure while trying to minimize pain thus the human being will always do what is most beneficial to himself. Now when you form a societal structure based on this form of individualism the utilitarian would argue that we should maximize the good for the most number of people and to hell with the minority. Anarcho-Capitalism is utilitarianism run amok.
 
God I hate having to educate the ignorant don't fuc/k with me on this stuff people this is what I do here's something that you people should know by now:

Individualism - A word used in numerous, sometimes contradictory senses. We use it mainly in two: (I) A belief in the inherent dignity and indeed sacredness of the human person. In this sense, individualism is part of all four of the American traditions we have described in this book - biblical, republican, utilitarian inidvidualist, and expressive individualist; (2) a belief that the individual has a primary reality whereas society is a second order, derived or artificial construct, a view we call ontological individualism. This view is shared by utilitarian and expressive individualists. It is opposed to the view that society is as real as individuals, a view we call social realism, which is common to the biblical and republican tratditions.

"Habits of the Heart." -Bellah et al.
 
Herophant said:
You know you should really try to use words with their original meaning; it will make your post so much easier to understand. Although I do admire your ability to continuously substitute words with your own. Its like you got your own private languagel.

Out of curiosity how can a moral view based on Benthams “the greatest happiness principle” lead to:

“Utilitarianism means that in a society the indivual will do what most benefits him regardless of how it effects his fellow individuals. That's day one stuff.”

You know other people hold utilitarianism to be exactly opposite from you, interesting.

Oh and you really should read Mill before you talk about Utilitarianism.

God the ingnorance is staggering the basic principle behind every utilitiarian thinker is that the human animal will always maximize pleasure while minimizing pain and always act in his own self interests when forming this into a societal structure you would maximize the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest amount of people and to hell with the minority.
 
Back
Top Bottom