4 ms·

> Is your issue with universalism, then? That the policies fail to discriminate between different groups for different reasons? Would it be more proper to bring

by Gormo 13y ago

> Is your issue with universalism, then? That the policies fail to discriminate between different groups for different reasons? Would it be more proper to bring in communitarianism? Universalism is wrong, granted, but that's not even the crux of it; the issue is that the "groups" you're likely referring to are also, in most cases, arbitrary logical constructs. The appropriate function of law - as distinct from policy - is to mediate disputes among actual individuals, not presumptive categories of people, according to the expectations, implicit and explicit, that give structure to the relationships among those particular people. (And the proper role of policy is to govern the activities of the state itself, as a particular institution, and not to insert itself uninvited into people's social arrangements, overriding their manifest preferences). > Except that this has been true for all of history, and it's by systematizing it that we gain some measure of control over it. Instead of conducting warfare every time people disagree, we have means for communicating and compromising as a first resort. This is simply incorrect; for the vast majority of history, law was generated via bottom-up emergent processes, that attempted to map the boundaries of the natural law inherent in each particular dispute. We've had a functional system of common law and equity operating this way for over 800 years. The notion that law is something that people design, a priori, and apply to society as a whole from the top down, is a novelty that's been dominant only for about a century. I find it bizarrely perplexing that you seem to regard legislation as the only viable form of law. > You keep straw-manning me by implying that I'm proposing a dictatorship masquerading as a democracy This is a meta-straw-man, considering I said nothing of the sort. I'm arguing against the "state equals society" formula, which I entirely acknowledge is a form of democracy - no masquerade - but which is also clearly a form of totalitarianism. In this post, you seem to be articulating a model that diverges from this formula: you're re-purposing the term "state" to describe not an organized institution established for the purpose of exercising power, but to any structure that emerges within any social context. I don't think that's the way we were using the terminology when we began the conversation, and I'll point out that you began by objecting to distinguishing government from society, not state (however defined) from society. > I simply do not find nations to be a useful social construct. I agree that nations are far too broad and coarse to be considered substantive social contexts, but - and this is an assumption, so correct me if I'm wrong - I have a feeling that you would articulate merely smaller versions of nations as the appropriate scope within which to equate the state with society. What I'm trying to point out is that every particular grouping of individual human beings is a society unto itself, and is in a sense sovereign unto itself: democracy isn't about people being arbitrarily shoehorned into classes or categories or purely abstract "communities", which then "express" themselves in the form of a system of law. Democracy is about people creating substantive social contexts - families, friendships, businesses, romantic relationships, weekly D&D groups, religious congregations - and manifesting law particular to that social context through their mutually-sustained interactions. What we think of as the institutions of law - judicial institutions, not legislative ones - are merely a failsafe mechanism to be appealed to when disputes and controversies are not sufficiently contained and addressed within their originating social context, and threaten to escalate and spill over into other people's lives. There's no room here for some legislative body, composed of strangers who you haven't met, to aggregate everyone's distinct circumstances, abstract them into a conceptual model, and then make prescriptive rules, again in the abstract, on the basis of that model. And when people talk about "the state" and "government" in the sense that began this thread, they're talking about this form of legislative state, not using those terms to describe the bottom-up patterns that formalize the mechanisms of concrete and particular social contexts. You say "they aren't third parties", but it's absurd to suggest that any actual government operating on that legislative-state model can be regarded as anything other than a particular institution administered by particular people, not one of whom, odds are, is you.

saraid216 13y ago
> you're re-purposing the term "state" to describe not an organized institution established for the purpose of exercising power, but to any structure that emerges within any social context So that seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I consider the notion that a state is necessarily an "institution established for the purpose of exercising power" to be bunk. As such, I use the term "state" fairly loosely: I didn't bring it into the conversation: you introduced the concept of a "political state" and I went along with it. I haven't yet found any particular reason to be nuanced about my definition. > I agree that nations are far too broad and coarse to be considered substantive social contexts, but - and this is an assumption, so correct me if I'm wrong - I have a feeling that you would articulate merely smaller versions of nations as the appropriate scope within which to equate the state with society. I prefer cities, but it's not something I consider myself on firm ground with. Cities are natural foci for people, but to discount rural zones and more importantly natural resources as demarcated by geography is an obvious mistake. However, I also believe that it's a good idea to have institutions like the UN, to function as a world government capable of speaking for all of humanity. So... smaller? Not really. I agree with your list of "families, friendships," etc., but I'm also happy with scaling the notion up to the species level, because there exist policies that we want to express at such a large scope. I can't usefully speak to a larger scope because I am admittedly disinterested in animal rights politics and we haven't met a sci-fi style alien species yet. None of these are strong opinions, though, because they fall into the area of things I know I don't know. > What we think of as the institutions of law - judicial institutions, not legislative ones - are merely a failsafe mechanism to be appealed to when disputes and controversies are not sufficiently contained and addressed within their originating social context, and threaten to escalate and spill over into other people's lives. The problem is that you can't fully isolate problems. Your local religious congregation has members who work in a few dozen different businesses, all of which serve the wider community and more than likely do business in even further communities. This is even more true in the wake of globalization. Something as simple as a teenager deciding to leave his parents because they're stupid is going to call into question what kind of community-level support he can call upon to survive without his parents' blessing. Every manifested law is going to find some way to clash with other manifested law. Who mediates the disputes for this, and under what rule of law do those mediations take place? > And when people talk about "the state" and "government" in the sense that began this thread, they're talking about this form of legislative state, not using those terms to describe the bottom-up patterns that formalize the mechanisms of concrete and particular social contexts. And I object to that. In a democracy, there shouldn't be prescriptive rules imposed by a small group onto the majority. The majority should have participated in the formulation of any prescriptive rules that are proposed. It irritates me that we haven't figured out how to make that happen, and it irritates me even more that I am pretty dry on useful ideas. I'm going to footnote a thing I wrote [0] last month that gives a more bird's-eye view of my perspective. One of the last things I say there is this: "It's important, I feel, to aspire towards democracy rather than resign ourselves to it." On the whole, Americans have given up on the democratic project. Some are trying to establish themselves as oligarchs, while others are trying to find a way to exist anarchically, and those are the ones with opinions on the matter. But the truth is that America isn't trying to be a better democracy. I want to live in a better democracy. I want other people to want it, too. I want other people to have a substantive vision of how it could be better, and to be motivated towards working for that. Pointing out that the people is the government, or at least should be, is part of that. > it's absurd to suggest that any actual government operating on that legislative-state model There is a lack of clarity in whether we're discussing theory or practice here. In practice, I don't consider any existing democracy to be sufficiently competent. And a huge part of that problem is that democracy had to be implemented on the backs of inherently injust political systems rather than magicked out of thin air. That detritus from history stays with us and makes more difficult an already challenging project. I've felt that, in this thread, we've reasonably made it clear when we're talking about existing, present-day occurrences by citing "in America", but perhaps not? [0] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5998145 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5998145

by Gormo 13y ago

saraid216 13y ago

> you're re-purposing the term "state" to describe not an organized institution established for the purpose of exercising power, but to any structure that emerges within any social context So that seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I consider the notion that a state is necessarily an "institution established for the purpose of exercising power" to be bunk. As such, I use the term "state" fairly loosely: I didn't bring it into the conversation: you introduced the concept of a "political state" and I went along with it. I haven't yet found any particular reason to be nuanced about my definition. > I agree that nations are far too broad and coarse to be considered substantive social contexts, but - and this is an assumption, so correct me if I'm wrong - I have a feeling that you would articulate merely smaller versions of nations as the appropriate scope within which to equate the state with society. I prefer cities, but it's not something I consider myself on firm ground with. Cities are natural foci for people, but to discount rural zones and more importantly natural resources as demarcated by geography is an obvious mistake. However, I also believe that it's a good idea to have institutions like the UN, to function as a world government capable of speaking for all of humanity. So... smaller? Not really. I agree with your list of "families, friendships," etc., but I'm also happy with scaling the notion up to the species level, because there exist policies that we want to express at such a large scope. I can't usefully speak to a larger scope because I am admittedly disinterested in animal rights politics and we haven't met a sci-fi style alien species yet. None of these are strong opinions, though, because they fall into the area of things I know I don't know. > What we think of as the institutions of law - judicial institutions, not legislative ones - are merely a failsafe mechanism to be appealed to when disputes and controversies are not sufficiently contained and addressed within their originating social context, and threaten to escalate and spill over into other people's lives. The problem is that you can't fully isolate problems. Your local religious congregation has members who work in a few dozen different businesses, all of which serve the wider community and more than likely do business in even further communities. This is even more true in the wake of globalization. Something as simple as a teenager deciding to leave his parents because they're stupid is going to call into question what kind of community-level support he can call upon to survive without his parents' blessing. Every manifested law is going to find some way to clash with other manifested law. Who mediates the disputes for this, and under what rule of law do those mediations take place? > And when people talk about "the state" and "government" in the sense that began this thread, they're talking about this form of legislative state, not using those terms to describe the bottom-up patterns that formalize the mechanisms of concrete and particular social contexts. And I object to that. In a democracy, there shouldn't be prescriptive rules imposed by a small group onto the majority. The majority should have participated in the formulation of any prescriptive rules that are proposed. It irritates me that we haven't figured out how to make that happen, and it irritates me even more that I am pretty dry on useful ideas. I'm going to footnote a thing I wrote [0] last month that gives a more bird's-eye view of my perspective. One of the last things I say there is this: "It's important, I feel, to aspire towards democracy rather than resign ourselves to it." On the whole, Americans have given up on the democratic project. Some are trying to establish themselves as oligarchs, while others are trying to find a way to exist anarchically, and those are the ones with opinions on the matter. But the truth is that America isn't trying to be a better democracy. I want to live in a better democracy. I want other people to want it, too. I want other people to have a substantive vision of how it could be better, and to be motivated towards working for that. Pointing out that the people is the government, or at least should be, is part of that. > it's absurd to suggest that any actual government operating on that legislative-state model There is a lack of clarity in whether we're discussing theory or practice here. In practice, I don't consider any existing democracy to be sufficiently competent. And a huge part of that problem is that democracy had to be implemented on the backs of inherently injust political systems rather than magicked out of thin air. That detritus from history stays with us and makes more difficult an already challenging project. I've felt that, in this thread, we've reasonably made it clear when we're talking about existing, present-day occurrences by citing "in America", but perhaps not? [0] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5998145 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5998145