5 ms·

>"The colonial government to which Mr Franklin was speaking was the government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as established by the power of the Crown, not

>"The colonial government to which Mr Franklin was speaking was the government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as established by the power of the Crown, not a government structured around Locke's philosophy. It really is a quote that people drag out so frequently without understanding the context in which it was used. ;)" Fair enough! >"That haven't been said, I believe you're misinterpreting Locke in this context. You seem to imply that every individual can dissent without consequence." There are consequences for everything in life (some good, some bad, some neutral -- depends on the individual viewpoint), that is true! But, I did not say that, nor did I imply that by what I said, although, I suppose one set of inferences could arrive at that conclusion -- but other sets of inferences would not. Elucidate the logic by which you believe I implied it; I will in turn elucidate you if I believe that your reasoning is sound, and I agree (by implication) or not (by faulty connecting logic). >"That's not what Locke said; he said the government derives its power from consent to the governed, but he was relatively mute on what happens if somebody, having consented and, further, having even consented to a system where the majority guides the government, revokes that consent." Well, let's start with the fundamentals... if a single individual revokes their consent -- does government stop functioning? No it does not! Beyond this, what we are discussing here is the nature of the social contract. Which is an absolutely fascinating subject matter! I could discuss this for days, weeks on end even! In order to understand this, we'd need to discuss what a contract is, in Law (and also the historical understanding that gives rise to the modern-day concept of contracts), what lawyers do with contracts, and what such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes have to say on the matter. So I invite you to have a private email discussion with me on the matter, if you so choose! (peter.d.sherman@gmail.com). >"A person who puts themselves outside of the interests of the rest of society and it declares they are no longer beholden to its laws simply puts themselves at risk of being steamrolled by society, because the needs of the many are going to outweigh the needs of the few." Look, I think you're a nice guy, I think you're very smart and well informed, and I'm sure you as a person have many virtues that if I knew you, I would be your friend, and I would praise them. But what you have said in this part of your response is complete and utter horseshit. Don't worry, I don't blame you for this. I blame our educational system, that in this day and age, doesn't exactly turn out Star Trek's Mr. Spock -- or Greek philosopher kings for that matter. If the education is defective, then so is the reasoning. What you mean to say here is "People who interfere with the rights of others -- put themselves at risk of having their rights interfered with". You can substitute "right" (which is a legal term by the way, but I use it in the context of its popular, not legal understanding) with "liberties", "freedoms", "abilities to have, do, and be" -- or whatever human ability you want. You see, there's no "Law" in that sentence. (Fun fact: A Law, or what you are calling "Laws" -- only come into play when a) Two or more parties get entangled (aka, "have a beef" / have a disagreement with one another) and b) These two or more parties cannot work things out on their own, and thus require courts, judges and lawyers -- to do so.) You show me anything that you think is "Law" -- and I will show you a series of Circumstances under which that so called "Law" does not or can not apply. A Law against Murder? You think that one's absolute? OK, so what about U.S. Soldiers stationed in foreign countries when they shoot enemy soldiers? That's not Murder -- that's "Protecting Freedom" you say? Well, I'll let you have that argument! But if that is your argument -- then you've also argued, equal-and-oppositely(!), that because a Law against Murder should not be applied to U.S. Soldiers -- that the Law is based on Circumstances, that Circumstances are more important than, and senior to, the Law! So which is it? Is it: a) Circumstance should have nothing to do with Law, Laws are absolute, and thus U.S. Soldiers in foreign countries, if they kill enemy soldiers are guilty of Murder, or b) The Law is subordinate to (and relative to) Circumstances, that is, the Circumstances surrounding a specific act or acts; thus the Law in itself, is not absolute, and less authoritative than Circumstances. Pick one and only one; You cannot have both of these at the same time, because that results in logical fallacy, that results in contradiction. Then tell me what your answer is, and THEN can we discuss Law, and subsequently what individual obligations are to it or aren't. >"The theory of individual and even group attempts to be apart from the effects of the will of the consenting governed has been tried again and again in American history---Thoreau, the Civil War, even Typhoid Mary in a sense---and found wanting." And yet, we are a country founded on the principles of wanting to get away from the previous government, the King of England... Also... the Constitution contains the idea of Freedom of Association -- the freedom to associate with anyone, anytime, for any reason. Well, that's like a cup that is half-full. You see, the other half of that cup is that Freedom Of Association -- also implies Freedom to Dissociate, that is, the Freedom to disengage from any previous associations -- since if you have Freedom Of Association, by default (by implication), you must equal-and-oppositely have the Freedom To Dissociate. They are opposite sides of the same coin. >"The social contract is not lightly broken. If one breaks it without a plan for an alternative that can be at least as powerful as the previous arrangement, one will likely simply be consumed by that which one tried to leave behind." What you have said here is highly abstract. Give a concrete example of this happening please. >"and for what it's worth, if we're trying to apply lessons from the past to the modern era... While there is unrest and people are gravely concerned, justifiably so, that those in authority have broken the social contract" Name two people in authority who have broken the social contract, and explain to me exactly how. >"(especially regarding how America treats black Americans)" How does America treat black Americans? I know I am exceedingly polite towards them. Also, why do you call them "black Americans" and not "Americans"? >, the vast majority of Americans consent to being governed. Most Americans are not highly educated in Law, which, if they could get it, would add a huge dimension to their understanding of today's Government, Courts, Legal Processes, Rights, etc., etc. >Or was there a massive tax strike that nobody mentioned?" Underneath our present-day democracy, there is in fact a Republic. Most people, short of some highly educated Lawyers (not all Lawyers, again, the fault of the educational system) -- do not truly understand this or its implications. The pieces are all there; but they've been fragmented; fractured; and scattered to the winds -- but they are all there in various books, in various documents, in various quotes, in various understandings -- they are all there. My question to you is a philosophical one -- what happens to a society, a free society -- when it violates one or more of its founding principles? (Also, how, over time, can a group or organization violate one or more of their founding principles?). What happens then? Well, we have Ancient Rome as an example... but most people, most historians understand Ancient Rome as a series of events, they don't understand it (and this is the extra dimension) as a series of psychologies; this psychological dimension to things would add a great deal of understanding; but we'd never understand it if we all we were concerned about was dates, places, leaders, wars, treaties and other events. Anyway, if you'd like to have a long philsophical discussion about any of these points, you can email me: peter.d.sherman@gmail.com

shadowgovt 6y ago
A long philosophical discussion sounds fascinating, but I lack the time. It is, also, unfortunately (most unfortunately, for I, too, enjoy the work of Locke, and Hume, and Hobbes), a bit irrelevant. Because as you've observed, nost people don't interest themselves in law, and don't read the various books, the various documents, etc., that bring it to a consistent philosophy. The governing philosophy in America today is one of the elected over, mostly, the ignorant. Any practical approach we take to understanding how things work in reality must factor that in. To address a few concrete points: -) We have a country where circumstances matter and alter our interpretation of law. That's why we have courts. There is some flexibility and some mitigation (especially around punishment), though the law acts as guidelines. But under almost no circumstances does the law flex as far as "I withdrew my consent to be governed, therefore I cannot be justly coerced by this court or this government." I'm thinking of 'sovereign citizens' specifically, and they in general wind up in prison (unless they use force to make it inconvenient to apply counter-force, which is rare and risky, since one cannot guarantee the various arms of the US government will stay their hands at application of force). -) We are a country that was founded in breaking the existing law, this is true. When I said "The social contract is not lightly broken. If one breaks it without a plan for an alternative that can be at least as powerful as the previous arrangement..." the fact that the Revolutionary War succeeded is what I meant by 'at least as powerful as.' Contrast the Civil War, where the South attempted a similar feat and failed (and Reconstruction after, where the North over-extended by attempting to enforce federal law and, arguably, also failed). -) Freedom to dissociate ... is generous but limited. One cannot practically escape a murder charge by fleeing to the nearest mountain-top. One cannot avoid shared responsibilities like runoff abatement by declaring oneself a sovereign country within the US territory. And we have very specific carve-outs for protected classes of individuals where if we associate with anyone for a purpose (such as employer-employee relationship), we are banned from basing that association on certain qualities, such as gender or skin color. -) Name two people in authority who have broken the social contract Well, there was Richard Nixon, who stepped down before being impeached for using his Presidency to bug his political opponents. A judge in Pennsylvania was sentenced to a couple decades in jail for a bribery scandal (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/08/11/139536686/pa-judge-sentenced-to-28-years-in-massive-juvenile-justice-bribery-scandal https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/08/11/139536686...) which led to the overturning of dozens of convictions because the process was corrupt. But the unrest right now is related to police authority and support for said authority. Depending on how you slice it, the blame spreads around here; to my mind, some blame is on police for acting as they do in the moment, and a lot is on training and policy for telling police their actions are correct (in contrast to the person-on-the-street response; video evidence has made it hard for people to viscerally turn away and assume police are "just doing their jobs" when they see how policing is done and they contrast it with other countries). -) How does America treat black Americans? I know I am exceedingly polite towards them. Also, why do you call them "black Americans" and not "Americans"? This is not something I will invest the time to explain to you here, but I suggest, if you are American, you seek out answers on this topic. There are open riots and civil protests on this topic right now; it's a good idea to be educated on what that fighting is about. -) what happens to a society, a free society -- when it violates one or more of its founding principles? It depends on the nature of the violation. But to my mind, we're currently on America 3.0. So major changes can be made and major founding principles compromised without the destruction of the society. Societies can change. Beta version was the Articles of the Confederacy. They didn't pan out because, fundamentally, they didn't address the practical issue of how to pay for a continent-sized federated government. Version 1 was the US Constitution, as initially written: main document, 10 amendments out of the starting gate. A hell of a piece of work, but riddled with contradictions and compromises (including, most glaringly, the treatment of enslaved people as 3/5ths a person for the purposes of naked horse-trading over the power of Northern v. Southern states). Version 2 was after the Civil War. The contradiction that glued two culturally-and-morally-disparate halves of the country together broke down. One half the states tried to declare themselves out of the social contract, and they were "informed" via most brutal force that it doesn't work that way. The country passed laws to make formerly-enslaved black Americans full citizens (but those laws were not universally enforced, and part of the reason we can speak of "black Americans" vs. "Americans" is the law did and the enforcement of the law still does treat them differently). Still, America 2.0 had 3 stark changes from America 1.0: No slavery, full citizenship of black American former slaves, and a clarification that the federal government has authority to use force over the states to ensure the civil rights of all Americans. America 3 came after the Great Depression and expanded the federal authority over civil rights to the economy. Whereas the authority to regulate interstate trade was understood in the original Constitution, the New Deal established federal authority to regulate intrastate trade as well, because economies have nation-spanning impact. Thus if the government sets a price floor for milk, Kansas can't just ignore it in all sales from Kansas dairy farmers to Kansas consumers. It's less talked about than the changes at the Civil War, but the re-interpretation of federal authority that let the Fed unify the country to pull out of the Great Depression persists to today, in the authority of everything from the ATF to the EPA. All this to say, a nation that violates its founding principles isn't doomed. America has violated its recognition of the right to own slaves and the right of intrastate fully-free trade and been stronger for these changes.

shadowgovt 6y ago

A long philosophical discussion sounds fascinating, but I lack the time. It is, also, unfortunately (most unfortunately, for I, too, enjoy the work of Locke, and Hume, and Hobbes), a bit irrelevant. Because as you've observed, nost people don't interest themselves in law, and don't read the various books, the various documents, etc., that bring it to a consistent philosophy. The governing philosophy in America today is one of the elected over, mostly, the ignorant. Any practical approach we take to understanding how things work in reality must factor that in. To address a few concrete points: -) We have a country where circumstances matter and alter our interpretation of law. That's why we have courts. There is some flexibility and some mitigation (especially around punishment), though the law acts as guidelines. But under almost no circumstances does the law flex as far as "I withdrew my consent to be governed, therefore I cannot be justly coerced by this court or this government." I'm thinking of 'sovereign citizens' specifically, and they in general wind up in prison (unless they use force to make it inconvenient to apply counter-force, which is rare and risky, since one cannot guarantee the various arms of the US government will stay their hands at application of force). -) We are a country that was founded in breaking the existing law, this is true. When I said "The social contract is not lightly broken. If one breaks it without a plan for an alternative that can be at least as powerful as the previous arrangement..." the fact that the Revolutionary War succeeded is what I meant by 'at least as powerful as.' Contrast the Civil War, where the South attempted a similar feat and failed (and Reconstruction after, where the North over-extended by attempting to enforce federal law and, arguably, also failed). -) Freedom to dissociate ... is generous but limited. One cannot practically escape a murder charge by fleeing to the nearest mountain-top. One cannot avoid shared responsibilities like runoff abatement by declaring oneself a sovereign country within the US territory. And we have very specific carve-outs for protected classes of individuals where if we associate with anyone for a purpose (such as employer-employee relationship), we are banned from basing that association on certain qualities, such as gender or skin color. -) Name two people in authority who have broken the social contract Well, there was Richard Nixon, who stepped down before being impeached for using his Presidency to bug his political opponents. A judge in Pennsylvania was sentenced to a couple decades in jail for a bribery scandal (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/08/11/139536686/pa-judge-sentenced-to-28-years-in-massive-juvenile-justice-bribery-scandal https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/08/11/139536686...) which led to the overturning of dozens of convictions because the process was corrupt. But the unrest right now is related to police authority and support for said authority. Depending on how you slice it, the blame spreads around here; to my mind, some blame is on police for acting as they do in the moment, and a lot is on training and policy for telling police their actions are correct (in contrast to the person-on-the-street response; video evidence has made it hard for people to viscerally turn away and assume police are "just doing their jobs" when they see how policing is done and they contrast it with other countries). -) How does America treat black Americans? I know I am exceedingly polite towards them. Also, why do you call them "black Americans" and not "Americans"? This is not something I will invest the time to explain to you here, but I suggest, if you are American, you seek out answers on this topic. There are open riots and civil protests on this topic right now; it's a good idea to be educated on what that fighting is about. -) what happens to a society, a free society -- when it violates one or more of its founding principles? It depends on the nature of the violation. But to my mind, we're currently on America 3.0. So major changes can be made and major founding principles compromised without the destruction of the society. Societies can change. Beta version was the Articles of the Confederacy. They didn't pan out because, fundamentally, they didn't address the practical issue of how to pay for a continent-sized federated government. Version 1 was the US Constitution, as initially written: main document, 10 amendments out of the starting gate. A hell of a piece of work, but riddled with contradictions and compromises (including, most glaringly, the treatment of enslaved people as 3/5ths a person for the purposes of naked horse-trading over the power of Northern v. Southern states). Version 2 was after the Civil War. The contradiction that glued two culturally-and-morally-disparate halves of the country together broke down. One half the states tried to declare themselves out of the social contract, and they were "informed" via most brutal force that it doesn't work that way. The country passed laws to make formerly-enslaved black Americans full citizens (but those laws were not universally enforced, and part of the reason we can speak of "black Americans" vs. "Americans" is the law did and the enforcement of the law still does treat them differently). Still, America 2.0 had 3 stark changes from America 1.0: No slavery, full citizenship of black American former slaves, and a clarification that the federal government has authority to use force over the states to ensure the civil rights of all Americans. America 3 came after the Great Depression and expanded the federal authority over civil rights to the economy. Whereas the authority to regulate interstate trade was understood in the original Constitution, the New Deal established federal authority to regulate intrastate trade as well, because economies have nation-spanning impact. Thus if the government sets a price floor for milk, Kansas can't just ignore it in all sales from Kansas dairy farmers to Kansas consumers. It's less talked about than the changes at the Civil War, but the re-interpretation of federal authority that let the Fed unify the country to pull out of the Great Depression persists to today, in the authority of everything from the ATF to the EPA. All this to say, a nation that violates its founding principles isn't doomed. America has violated its recognition of the right to own slaves and the right of intrastate fully-free trade and been stronger for these changes.