public responsibilty of goverment

[Nusselt]

Ok in a democratically elected goverment the people of the country can be held responsible for the actions of its goverment since they elected it.

But what if you didnt vote for the party in power? can you still be 'held responsible'? And what if you didnt vote at all, are you responsible?

I dont mean resposible in the sense that the people are taken to court etc, but i mean if their goverment does something wrong, can they say 'nothing to do with me, not my problem' etc


As an example if i voted for the Lib Dems and we go to war because of the leader of a Labour goverment, can i say to angry Iraqis (assuming it goes tits up), 'i know my goverment fcked up but whats it got to do with me, why hate me'?

Or is it a case that the population as a whole can be held responsible but individually its more a question of individual conciense.

I just wanted to discuss this a bit more to clarify it in my mind so please dont flame.

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

you should only be responsible for your own actions, if you voted for labour then an iraqi may be quite right to ask you why you support a government who murdered his/her family. if you voted lib-dem then they cant really, if you voted tory and the tory party vote to support the war (if there is a vote!) then equally you could be responsible.

thats my opinion anyway, feel free to persuade me otherwise

[Nusselt]

what if i said since you pay taxes to the goverment in power, which then uses them on a war, you are 'responsible'

[Kåre Willoch]

Originally posted by Nusselt
what if i said since you pay taxes to the goverment in power, which then uses them on a war, you are 'responsible'

----
Then you'd be stretching "responsibility" a long way.... Indirectly you could say that you by paying taxes contributed to the government. But ethically speaking you can't be expected to not pay taxes to show that you're against the government's policies. It would in the long run probably lead to you sitting in jail for your inobedience, and instead it would be a good idea to try to influence your politicians to go against the war. If there is such a thing as contemporary european ethics, it includes that individuals are not supposed to sacrifice themselves for greater beliefs, except in extreme cases probably only self-defence.

The dillemma that is the root of the problem, is that it's hard to find the line between what you should accept or not. In a democracy we have chances to try to move popular opinion, in peaceful ways, usually without risk to our own lives. In a dictatorship/totalitarian regime, the ethical question gets more difficult. If you're current leader is Hitler it won't help much to walk around shouting "stop the war".... Responsibility in such cases is usually distributed to the leaders, although morally the people are responsible for letting things happen.

Blablabla, talking rubbbish, /me needs sleep /me should NOT play thae next round of pa

[G_frog]

you can't pick and choose the bits of the state you want to deal with/ have apply to you. If you don't accept the state's legitimacy then fine, but you'd better be prepared to give up all protections the state offers.

In theory you could just leave, but in practice isolated individuals aren't much match for those organised into states, so you're not likely to have much luck obtaining living space etc.

one of the 'terms of the deal' between you and the state is that the state handles foreign relations on your behalf.

of course, if the government is genuinely illegitemate then you are not responsible, but surely democracies (in their various forms) and perhaps also constitutional states (if the constitution represents a genuine contract) are legitimate even without the support of all their citizens for the current representatives.

I'm not really much up on my politcal philosophy so i suspect any resident philosophers, lawyers etc. (or even the half-way literate) will now tear me to bits.

[Texan]

Texan tears G_frog into little pieces for his own good and because it is fun. Mmmm.. frog legs taste good.

[Tactitus]

I believe that in a democracy, everyone is responsible for their government. It doesn't matter who you voted for because by voting we all agreed to accept the results of the election. I bear responsibility for whatever George Bush does--even though I didn't vote for him. That doesn't mean I have to agree with him, but if he screws up then a bit of my karma goes into the dumpster.

As for not voting at all, it depends. I don't believe in a "social contract," but if you explicitly accept support from the government, then you owe it some allegience. I'm not talking about driving on a public road or something where there's really no choice, but if you go out of the way to take the King's Shilling then you're "buying in" to the government.

Originally posted by Nusselt
As an example if i voted for the Lib Dems and we go to war because of the leader of a Labour goverment, can i say to angry Iraqis (assuming it goes tits up), 'i know my goverment fcked up but whats it got to do with me, why hate me'?

You can say that but then you're undermining the legitimacy of your government.

[Dante Hicks]

I don't follow the Hobbesian argument of giving up your will to another body. However, I do sort of agree with the Leninst notion of democratic centralism.

If there is a fair debate with a democratic vote on a specific issue then you need to go with the accordance of the majority. Even if you are in the minority you need to act to assist the majority. Of course, this is more applicable in a political party rather than a nation - where a debate about every issue is rather hard.

I don't agree with the current model of the state, and neither did I vote Labour. However, I do bear responsibility if there is a war. I am not doing everything I could to stop it, I am still paying taxes (it's practically impossible for me to avoid this though) and so on. The only people who wouldn't bear some responsibilities are those who are all out resisting the state (and prisoners I suppose).

Moreover though, I think if there was an evaluation of people's karma then you'd need to look at how the war was started. In the UK at least there is a rather large question as to how many people support the war. Obviously a referendum on every issue is impractical, but there has been no serious effort to try and gague public opinion.

p.s. On the issue of the social contract more generally I think that it's too binary. "You either accept this (by say accepting social security) or reject it (by being a mad outlaw-hermit)". I reject a lot of the social contract but accept some of it. I reject private property but don't kick in old ladies for their pensions. Etc.

[Scoot951]

It has less to do with who you voted for, and more of if you actively support them now. And I've gotta disagree with Tactitus, I haven't even been old enough to vote in a presidential election yet, and I've never supported Bush, I won't assume any responsibility for his actions.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Captain T'Bolt
Governments should provide police, tax, and defense forces.

After that it should be completely unregulated economies.

Chaos theory?

[Judge]

Originally posted by Captain T'Bolt
Nope, purely unplanned economic system

Enron

[Sub]

The Government would still have to control things like roads, streetlights etc, as they can't be feasibly paid for by the private sector. Defence however, I would cut down on significantly (or even abolish it to an extent). Not sure about the health service, but if it was public sector it would HAVE to have more competition, because currently ours is appaling. Railways would probably also have to be public sector.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Captain T'Bolt
After that it should be completely unregulated economies.

Who would provide for people too poor/disabled (or whatever) to fend for themselves?

"Charity" or "I don't care, let them die" are two acceptable answers.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Nusselt


But what if you didnt vote for the party in power? can you still be 'held responsible'? And what if you didnt vote at all, are you responsible?

No, not in any way, shape or form. You cannot be held morally accountable for the actions of others unless you gave them your sanction to act (which in this case would involve voting for them).

Originally posted by Nusselt
what if i said since you pay taxes to the goverment in power, which then uses them on a war, you are 'responsible'

You dont choose to pay taxes, the money is extracted from you through use of force (whether explicit or implied). If you paid taxes out of choice, then you would be responsible for how the money was spent.

[Kumnaa]

even if you voted Labour at the last election you are not responsible. Blair and his minions appear to be masterminding the whole thing against the will of most of the country.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Nodrog
No, not in any way, shape or form. You cannot be held morally accountable for the actions of others unless you gave them your sanction to act (which in this case would involve voting for them).

You dont choose to pay taxes, the money is extracted from you by force. If you pay taxes out of choice, then you would be responsible for how it was spent, yes.

but if you didnt vote at all, you didnt do everything possible to prevent the policy you dont like now. so in my opion there is some responsibility

[Nodrog]

Actually, I'm not sure. You could make a strong case that if you vote for any party within the current system then you are responsible for the actions of whoever 'wins' the election. The system is the main problem, and by voting within it you are implictly sanctioning its right to exist. 'Democracy' could not exist in its current flawed form without people being prepared to participate in it through voting. Therefore, as long as you vote you are responsible for the system's continual existence, and hence you support the system that put somebody 'bad' into power, making you partly accountable for their actions.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by wu_trax
but if you didnt vote at all, you didnt do everything possible to prevent the policy you dont like now. so in my opion there is some responsibility

What would happen if everyone stopped voting?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
The system is the main problem, and by voting within it you are implictly sanctioning its right to exist.

This is true, but you can question the level of implicit support. It's not like in the British constituion (not that there is one, etc) it says "If less than 50% of people vote, **** it, we'll call it a day"

In European elections and local elections the turnout is something like 30% and yet these bodies can still spend millions in public funds. There's no evidence (direct or otherwise) that if our general election turnout fell below 50% (or even 40%) anything would change. Look at US turnout levels.

I think turnout could probably fall to 20% without anyone caring too much (aside from academics and liberals who would then think of various ways of letting people vote from Tescos).

[Sub]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Who would provide for people too poor/disabled (or whatever) to fend for themselves?

"Charity" or "I don't care, let them die" are two acceptable answers.

Do you think stupid people should recieve government benefits?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
This is true, but you can question the level of implicit support. It's not like in the British constituion (not that there is one, etc) it says "If less than 50% of people vote, **** it, we'll call it a day"

In European elections and local elections the turnout is something like 30% and yet these bodies can still spend millions in public funds. There's no evidence (direct or otherwise) that if our general election turnout fell below 50% (or even 40%) anything would change. Look at US turnout levels.

I think turnout could probably fall to 20% without anyone caring too much (aside from academics and liberals who would then think of various ways of letting people vote from Tescos).

Yeah, but the question was about responsibility, not pragmatics. You cannot be held to be responsible for an action unless you have either personally carried it out, or gave it your sanction. If you vote for the current system, you are giving it your sanction.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Sub
Do you think stupid people should recieve government benefits?

Depends what you mean by benefits and stupid people. I don't support financial distribution of funds more generally.

But if you mean in the current system then yes I think people who are retarded, mentally ill or sub-mental (to the point where they can't function or do a job, etc) in some way need some kind of support to stop them starving to death/or living on the street and getting ****ed over.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Depends what you mean by benefits and stupid people. I don't support financial distribution of funds more generally.

But if you mean in the current system then yes I think people who are retarded, mentally ill or sub-mental (to the point where they can't function or do a job, etc) in some way need some kind of support to stop them starving to death/or living on the street and getting ****ed over.

Given that you dont believe in human rights or anything similar, why would you have a problem with humanely putting them down so that they wouldnt continue to be a drain on society?

[Haer]

The problem with the party system is, very few people agree with everything the party says. Secondly, you have to have a certain degree of trust in the party that they will do as they say(I dont remember any wars in the labour election manifesto.)

Politicians are supposed to be representative of the people - But in cases like this, where Blair is doing what he beleives to be morally right(And arguing a political should do whats morally right over whats popular), its clear Blair is in fact not representative of the people.

[Haer]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Yeah, but the question was about responsibility, not pragmatics. You cannot be held to be responsible for an action unless you have either personally carried it out, or gave it your sanction. If you vote for the current system, you are giving it your sanction.

You are giving the party your sanction to govern. That does not mean your giving them a free reign to do whatever they want in your name.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Given that you dont believe in human rights

I think you are thinking of W since I do believe in human rights. Indeed, it's the basis of my whole belief system.

Animal rights on the other hand...

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Haer
You are giving the party your sanction to govern. That does not mean your giving them a free reign to do whatever they want in your name.

Yes you are, thats the entire point of representive democracy when you dont have a proper Constitution. If you are unhappy about the amount of power that a party has within the current system, then you should not be sanctioning the system by voting within it. Thats my entire point - if you support a system that gives the winner the power to do pretty much whatever they want, then you are part of the problem no matter who you actually vote for.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I think you are thinking of W since I do believe in human rights. Indeed, it's the basis of my whole belief system.

Animal rights on the other hand...

oops, my mistake.

[Sub]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Depends what you mean by benefits and stupid people. I don't support financial distribution of funds more generally.

But if you mean in the current system then yes I think people who are retarded, mentally ill or sub-mental (to the point where they can't function or do a job, etc) in some way need some kind of support to stop them starving to death/or living on the street and getting ****ed over.

But 'stupid' people are at a disadvantage in society (through no fault of their own (generally)) and won't be able to reach high levels of income as they won't be able to do higher paid jobs. Aren't disabled people the same in a way?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Sub
But 'stupid' people are at a disadvantage in society (through no fault of their own (generally)) and won't be able to reach high levels of income as they won't be able to do higher paid jobs. Aren't disabled people the same in a way?

Erm, yes. That was my point. Which is why I answered yes to your question.

My only caveat was the definition of "stupid". If you define stupid to mean lazy (i.e. people who can't be bothered) then no, obviously I don't support giving them free money. But if by stupid you genuinely mean stupid then yes, I think they should be given benefits.

[Sub]

Oh sorry. I didn't mean retarded, I meant the sorts of people who drop out of school after GCSEs, etc.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Erm, yes. That was my point. Which is why I answered yes to your question.

My only caveat was the definition of "stupid". If you define stupid to mean lazy (i.e. people who can't be bothered) then no, obviously I don't support giving them free money. But if by stupid you genuinely mean stupid then yes, I think they should be given benefits.

Wouldnt chaining down the 'intelligent' into the restrictive shackles of redistributive economics decrease the quality of life for the 'stupid' in the long run?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Sub
Oh sorry. I didn't mean retarded, I meant the sorts of people who drop out of school after GCSEs, etc.

People who drop out of school aren't necessarily (or even probably) stupid. I think you mean lazy. If they have some sort of condition which removed their ability to choose rationally then they are obviously retarded.

If they chose to drop out of school, and then choose not to better themselves, then they aren't stupid. They are lazy or satisfied with their lot (both of which are fine). And no, I don't support giving them free stuff as a reward for their choices. I do support free goods (it'd be easier to adminster) which they (like everyone else) would be able to have, but no I don't support giving them anything as a condition of them being lazy (or whatever).

I think the actual number of people who enjoy being "stupid" (in your terms, not mine) is fairly low.

[Sub]

I think there are a fair number who don't continue on to A levels because they know they won't be able to cope with the difficulty (lol) of the work. People aren't naturally born with the same level of intelligence. Some find GCSEs a doddle, some fail to get 5 A* to Cs.

edit: But then I guess you can argue that GCSEs aren't really a good measure of intelligence

[Haer]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Yes you are, thats the entire point of representive democracy when you dont have a proper Constitution. If you are unhappy about the amount of power that a party has within the current system, then you should not be sanctioning the system by voting within it. Thats my entire point - if you support a system that gives the winner the power to do pretty much whatever they want, then you are part of the problem no matter who you actually vote for.

What about when you vote for the party that promises electoral reform? Sitting around all day saying "I reject the system" is nt going to get things done.

And the problem is not the lack of a constition(Thats a different problem), its party politics, which means I have to give Labour "power" because I agree with more of there policies than the other parties.

Quite simply, you cannot hold the electorate responsible for an action taken by an executive which is not directly elected - This is blairs war - Not the labour parties.

[Haer]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Wouldnt chaining down the 'intelligent' into the restrictive shackles of redistributive economics decrease the quality of life for the 'stupid' in the long run?

Or free them to work on what they enjoy, rather than what pays best?

[Sub]

Why should intelligence be 'punished'? Surely that is the opposite of what should happen?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Wouldnt chaining down the 'intelligent' into the restrictive shackles of redistributive economics decrease the quality of life for the 'stupid' in the long run?

This is more of a statement then a question. And any answer that I (or you) give to it is purely going to be a reflection of our own personal politics, since neither of us are talking from any sort of empirical standpoint.

In short, no I don't think so. I don't even believe in "redistributive" economics. You've got a picture in your mind which works something like :

- The current economic system pays people what's fair for them.
- The rich _produce_ more than the poor.
- The social-democratic parts of the state (e.g. taxation/benefits) steal from people who deserve it (i.e. the rich) and give it to those who don't (i.e. the poor).

Now, somewhere along the lines two things has happened : Firstly, morality and supply and demand have got mixed up. Plumbers earn more than brickies (for example) because there are less skilled plumbers out there. Not because plumbers boldly perservered against the odds to fight against socialist banality. There's no morality to it, the market has just adjusted the relative price of a plumber to higher than that of a brickie.

Secondly, the odd notion of the rich producing anything has been invented. Redistribution only makes sense if you are talking about taking something from one person and giving it to another. The rich (in our economy at least) don't directly produce any physical goods. Sure, some intellectual production is undertaken by them - the worth of which is sometimes questionable.

But saying managers should earn the same as workers (say) isn't taking anything from anyone. The managers don't have it in the first place. We have a current system of distribution of resources (via wages/share dividends/profits/welfare benefits, etc). It has a few problems and so the social democratic state is the dodgy "patch" to try and correct it. In my opinion it fails, but I don't think it "steals" from one lot of people who happen to benefit from the original distribution network.

Sub : What are you talking about? Which system punishes the intelligent?

On your original point, yes there are some people who don't want to go to school from 16 onwards. And why should they? There's absolutley no need for people to learn about things they have no wish to. I learnt very little in A-Levels which is useful to my current job, and indeed I am more qualified than the immediate layers of managers above me.

If there is a genuine variation of intelligence (or disposition) which means some people simply cannot work, then that is something which needs to be looked at carefully. However, this is a strong claim. There probably is some sort of variation in types of mental ability (that makes some people better at maths say) but you don't need to be good at maths for most jobs. We might get to a stage where the only work remaining is highly skilled, but that point is several decades away at least.

There are thousands of tasks which could be performed (and indeed, need to be done) now by people who are non-academic (as an alternate term for your "stupid" people). For instance, most public buildings (schools, hospitals, etc) have a massive backlog in general repairs, etc. You don't need to have read Descartes to know how to be a carpenter. Most people who quit school at 16 could easily train to do this. Yet there is no money in repairing school buildings, and so the work goes undone, with vast reserves of labour being untapped.

[Judge]

Re: Dante Hicks Post (I didnt quote it as it is too long)

In general, I agree with most of your comments.

The only "problem" I perceive is your comment in regard to
-->> "Yet there is no money in repairing school buildings, and so the work goes undone," <<--

The work per-se would be profitable, and is when the Government/Local Gov/Education Departmant actually bother to get the work done.

The problem is not the nature of the work, but the will to fund it.

[Haer]

Originally posted by Sub
Why should intelligence be 'punished'? Surely that is the opposite of what should happen?

Becuase, largely we have no control over our how intelligent we are, and therefore it can be considered alongside race and gender as something we should nt judge people based on?

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Wouldnt chaining down the 'intelligent' into the restrictive shackles of redistributive economics decrease the quality of life for the 'stupid' in the long run?

that's a myth 'fox news' would like to propagate.

once the intelligent people are in control, they have no need to work or cause progress. society stagnates, the end.

with steady redistribution, they are forced to constantly work to make society better for everyone if they want to continue to be on top. 'if you want to be better off, you have to do more work' should be the slogan.

anyway, i'm sure i disagree with you on every possible point in this thread, so here goes.


citizenship implies responsibility. enron was was mentioned in this thread, and i would compare the person who votes in for the winning party as the enron VP who did all that illegal ****, the non-voter as the VP who knew what his company was doing and did nothing to stop it, and the person voting 'against' as the VP who tried to stop it. i would say all three are partly responsible, but the third is responible to an extent he should be able to live with.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I don't follow the Hobbesian argument of giving up your will to another body. However, I do sort of agree with the Leninst notion of democratic centralism.

dante hicks in 'i favor some communist ideas' shocker!

Originally posted by Captain T'Bolt
Governments should provide police, tax, and defense forces.

After that it should be completely unregulated economies.

'infrastrucutre'

your country would be a right wing utopia, but it would have no roads, electricity, phones, etc.

wouldn't even be third world.

me, economically:
i favor capitalism for the distribution of scarce resources.

as follows, it makes a certain right-wing sense:
people who invest in good ideas and things that are good for society will tend to get rich (and thereby control that society's means of production),

people who invest in bad ideas and things society does not want or need will tend to become poorer,

and so there is an immediate meritocracy whereby those who are best at it control the society's means of production.

but this works only with some type of redistribution. otherwise, upon getting rich, those that are rich have no need to to continue working and will only function to maintain the status quo (i.e., they will try to stagnate the economy).

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by acropolis
people who invest in good ideas and things that are good for society will tend to get rich (and thereby control that society's means of production),

This would be true, and I'd tend to agree if people didn't have children and we were all produced by some sort of big computer/assembly line.

Unfortunately, due to the effects of inheritance the means of production (or wealth in general) isn't always in the hands of dynamic go-getters but people who had the good fortune of being born.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
This would be true, and I'd tend to agree if people didn't have children and we were all produced by some sort of big computer/assembly line.

Unfortunately, due to the effects of inheritance the means of production (or wealth in general) isn't always in the hands of dynamic go-getters but people who had the good fortune of being born.

hence my disapproval of inheritance in general.

remember kids, the period of 'five good emperors' (96-180) ended when a roman emperor (marcus aurelius) finally had a boy (commodus).

in addition, profit through unethical (microsoft) and illegal (enron) practices are also possible, and damaging to capitalism. but to the extent that none of these three happen, i see a real argument for a capable capitalistic meritocracy which would be difficult to achieve (much less improve upon) in a centrally organized system.

remember kids, the period of 'five good emperors' ended when a roman emperor finally had a boy.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by acropolis
hence my disapproval of inheritance in general.

So long as you have private ownership restrictions on inheritance are difficult to justify. Also, inheritance taxes (or bans) are/would be easy to avoid since you could just spend the money on your childs education/lifestyle.

It's also a bit of a false dichotomy between centrally planned vs. a private property system.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
So long as you have private ownership restrictions on inheritance are difficult to justify. Also, inheritance taxes (or bans) are/would be easy to avoid since you could just spend the money on your childs education/lifestyle.

It's also a bit of a false dichotomy between centrally planned vs. a private property system.

it's easy to justify, 'it makes capitalism turn to poo'. hard to enforce. that much is true.

but then, i put it in a category with illegal and unethical actions, both of which are difficult to enforce as well. my general point being simply that these are the flaws, and even if we can't stop them we should at minimum be aware of them. CUZ KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE! etc.

and i don't care what you spend on your child's education/lifestyle, neither of those give him control over the means of production (which is what we were truly fearing anyway). both may give him some advantage at earning that control later, but the imprtant thing is that at some point he will have to demonstrate the competence to earn that control himself. that is what we want.

and i don't get your 'false dichotomy' point. expliquez, s'il vous plait.

[G_frog]

I can't think of any consistent basis on which a government can derive legitimacy to govern other than a contract*. Mere democratic mandate won't do it in practice, since under nod's objection you'd need 100% turnout. The only way it works is that in theory any participation in the system constitutes entering into the contract, and in practice participation is the only advisable option.

Unfortunately this rather ties one in to the 'take it or leave it' binary idea. This is alleviated somewhat by the flexibility of the contract, e.g you can pay a fine on civil offenses and then go on enjoying the state's protections. In the general, the contract restricts the actions of the state or its citizens, even against those who are not contracting parties.

On the issue of the social contract more generally I think that it's too binary. "You either accept this (by say accepting social security) or reject it (by being a mad outlaw-hermit)". I reject a lot of the social contract but accept some of it. I reject private property but don't kick in old ladies for their pensions.

The contract isn't intended to replace morality, obviously. You can't reject some and not the rest of any contract in that way, you can only deny that such a contract exists in the first place.

("You can't own property, man!"
"I can, but that's because I'm not a penniless hippy!")

obviously the idea of a contract is that it is freely entered into, hence legitimacy cannnot be acquired by force. whether the fact that not accepting the contract is extremely ill-advised (for reasons not under the control of the state) constitutes coercion is a problem here.

The members of the government are as much under contract to the abstract 'state' as the non-governing citizens. The only thing that actually embodies a state is a contitution.

If there is a fair debate with a democratic vote on a specific issue then you need to go with the accordance of the majority. Even if you are in the minority you need to act to assist the majority.

I don't see that democratic decisions innately demand support from all opponents once taken, indeed that sounds quite dangerous (and could have been used to justify the purges). You need only accept that the decision is legitimate. To be fair, you do gon to say this applies mostly to political parties, although even that is probably not a good basis for a party (and certainly introduces conflicting duties for backbenchers etc.)

*I won't say hobbesian because I haven't read leviathan, i'm just laying out my own ideas.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by G_frog
I can't think of any consistent basis on which a government can derive legitimacy to govern other than a contract*. Mere democratic mandate won't do it in practice, since under nod's objection you'd need 100% turnout. The only way it works is that in theory any participation in the system constitutes entering into the contract, and in practice participation is the only advisable option.

I dont understand how the contract idea can be justified. You might as well just say "We are ruling because we are stronger than you, like it or leave it" and get it over with, at least youll pick up some points for honesty.

[G_frog]

Originally posted by Nodrog

I've tried to deal with objections based on not being free to choose to enter into the contract, incomplete information, 'take it or leave it' problems, and how the abstract idea is translated into practice, in such a way that legitimacy is both possible and severely constrained. If you don't see how i'll elaborate.

could you be more specific in your criticism please?

I'm also considering it as an ongoing problem, not an historical one.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by G_frog
I've tried to deal with objections based on not being free to choose to enter into the contract, incomplete information, 'take it or leave it' problems, and how the abstract idea is translated into practice, in such a way that legitimacy is both possible and severely constrained. If you don't see how i'll elaborate.

could you be more specific in your criticism please?

The idea of 'contract' implies a voluntary choice of whether or not an individual chooses to enter into it. The social contract does not fufill this criteria - its a case of "you will abide by this contract or we will initiate force against you". Contracts that a person was coerced into entering through use of force (either explicit or implied) from the other party cannot be morally binding within any rational ethical system. The only way you can get round this is to claim that you have the choice of either accepting the contract or not living in the country, but then you have to deal with the valid objection "well who exactly gave the government the right to create this contract in the first place, why do they have more right to live here and set rules than I do, and why should I have to accept some contract in order to live where I please?".

The answer to these questions is of course "because they are bigger than you and will beat you up if you dont do what they say"

[G_frog]

Actually it's a case of 'abide by this contract or we are not obliged NOT to initiate force against you' - though i already said i don't intend the contract to supercede morality.
no one gives the government the right to create a contract, it is allowed to offer any contract it pleases and you take it or leave it. it's not advisable to leave it as the world is now.