3 ms·

As far as I know the historical justification for legitimate government rule is social contract theory -- hand over some of your rights to protect the remainder

As far as I know the historical justification for legitimate government rule is social contract theory -- hand over some of your rights to protect the remainder of them. There is some debate about how this should play out in the real world. Technically, solar panels, batteries, ovens, etc all can catch on fire and cause my neighbors to as well. Should we ban all of them? Sometimes what we do is to try to protect rights through a heavy handed authority (outlaw something), and sometimes through the court system (sue for damages). Anyways, what seems to be clear is that if there is no potential in one harming another's rights, there's no legitimate reason for government to get involved.

emodendroket 9y ago
> Technically, solar panels, batteries, ovens, etc all can catch on fire and cause my neighbors to as well. Should we ban all of them? Maybe not, but there are lots of regulations on how they have to be made and installed and I think that's quite reasonable. > But I think what we can see here is that if there is no potential in one harming another's rights, there's no legitimate reason for government to get involved. I don't think it's that simple. A lot of things you can do would just be unsafe for the occupants of the home, but since it is likely you are not the only person who will ever live in the home it is harmful to an unwitting next resident if you are doing a bunch of work that is not up to code. And that's before we consider that a lot of work will be done by contractors for people who, let's face it, don't have any idea how to judge whether work is safe. Whether or not this particular regulation is reasonable, I think the government does have a compelling interest in regulating what you do with your home in this way.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  You are entitled to disagree me with me and take the opposite stance: that government should get involved in our lives even when what we are doing does not affect another's rights.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    I don't think the idea that what we are doing does or doesn't affect another's rights is that clear-cut. What if I'm renting the place out? What about more abstract rights, like, I don't know, not having to smell rotting food you left out? The harm there isn't exactly direct and there's a judgment call as to what is reasonable and what is too far.
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      It's not at all clear cut, it's just the best starting point (in my eyes, the most moral starting point), and it is the starting point we have gone from. The fact it is not clear cut is why we have courts and history of law to draw from. Things like what you say, or such as building something on your property that destroys another person's view, were once taken to court, and the rulings established precedent. My point is that it's important to remember this is what we have been trying for all along, because sometimes that point gets missed.

emodendroket 9y ago

> Technically, solar panels, batteries, ovens, etc all can catch on fire and cause my neighbors to as well. Should we ban all of them? Maybe not, but there are lots of regulations on how they have to be made and installed and I think that's quite reasonable. > But I think what we can see here is that if there is no potential in one harming another's rights, there's no legitimate reason for government to get involved. I don't think it's that simple. A lot of things you can do would just be unsafe for the occupants of the home, but since it is likely you are not the only person who will ever live in the home it is harmful to an unwitting next resident if you are doing a bunch of work that is not up to code. And that's before we consider that a lot of work will be done by contractors for people who, let's face it, don't have any idea how to judge whether work is safe. Whether or not this particular regulation is reasonable, I think the government does have a compelling interest in regulating what you do with your home in this way.

wallace_f 9y ago
You are entitled to disagree me with me and take the opposite stance: that government should get involved in our lives even when what we are doing does not affect another's rights.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  I don't think the idea that what we are doing does or doesn't affect another's rights is that clear-cut. What if I'm renting the place out? What about more abstract rights, like, I don't know, not having to smell rotting food you left out? The harm there isn't exactly direct and there's a judgment call as to what is reasonable and what is too far.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    It's not at all clear cut, it's just the best starting point (in my eyes, the most moral starting point), and it is the starting point we have gone from. The fact it is not clear cut is why we have courts and history of law to draw from. Things like what you say, or such as building something on your property that destroys another person's view, were once taken to court, and the rulings established precedent. My point is that it's important to remember this is what we have been trying for all along, because sometimes that point gets missed.