And the Rule of Law? I don't think you can ever hope to attain the goals of democracy and (relative) freedom unless you're living within the framework of a non-corrupt, law abiding society.
Ah - assuming that democracy is a goal..! Is that the only way to create a relatively free society? (Your starter for 10... ; )
And how much law is too much law? Do we really need laws at all, or is that something that we tell ourselves - or someone else tells us? After all, people break those rules in the pursuit of "higher" purpose all the time: speeding to get a pregnant woman to hospital, stealing to feed rather than to enjoy, killing one to avoid killing dozens. And, the majority of people who break the law for "lower" purpose - their own pleasure/greed etc - would act the same way, whether there was a law in place or not. So why do we need laws? Are us middlings too forgetful to look after each other along the way? We're told that if we didn't have these rules, then it would be anarchy, people behaving as animals - survive or don't, your luck depending on what other animals you run into. Maybe the ability to make laws is what raises us "above" other animals. Or maybe its the ability to follow them - nah, that's sheep come to think of it. If there were no laws in the first place, then wouldn't we all be free? No, because we wouldn't be free to forage without the fear that someone else would take it away from us. Maybe it's freedom from fear that's the goal then... And maybe that's why it's clear that we do need a rule of law - every society has evolved one, naturally, independently, of some kind... Its just figuring out the best rules to include to keep the balance between freedom to act and freedom from fear. And after over a thousand years we're still trying to figure that out. 'spose that means we won't solve it in this blog!
For example, the balance of freedoms between the right of the (individual) commuter to reach his destination vs. the right of transport workers to strike and possibly interrupt the commuter’s journey.
Ye-es... I think people are a force of nature as much as any storm or snow or leaves on the lines. And as an individual person there is a certain amount of ebb and flow that must be done in order to survive the world without breaking. And those transport workers, after all, are responding to another organization still higher up the chain of power - perhaps no organization should be allowed to treat others in a way that will cause them to impede the flow of commuter traffic!
Well, apparently I have essay-like tendencies even when its not required..!
no subject
Date: Sunday, 16 October 2005 06:31 pm (UTC)Ah - assuming that democracy is a goal..! Is that the only way to create a relatively free society? (Your starter for 10... ; )
And how much law is too much law? Do we really need laws at all, or is that something that we tell ourselves - or someone else tells us? After all, people break those rules in the pursuit of "higher" purpose all the time: speeding to get a pregnant woman to hospital, stealing to feed rather than to enjoy, killing one to avoid killing dozens. And, the majority of people who break the law for "lower" purpose - their own pleasure/greed etc - would act the same way, whether there was a law in place or not. So why do we need laws? Are us middlings too forgetful to look after each other along the way? We're told that if we didn't have these rules, then it would be anarchy, people behaving as animals - survive or don't, your luck depending on what other animals you run into. Maybe the ability to make laws is what raises us "above" other animals. Or maybe its the ability to follow them - nah, that's sheep come to think of it. If there were no laws in the first place, then wouldn't we all be free? No, because we wouldn't be free to forage without the fear that someone else would take it away from us. Maybe it's freedom from fear that's the goal then... And maybe that's why it's clear that we do need a rule of law - every society has evolved one, naturally, independently, of some kind... Its just figuring out the best rules to include to keep the balance between freedom to act and freedom from fear. And after over a thousand years we're still trying to figure that out. 'spose that means we won't solve it in this blog!
For example, the balance of freedoms between the right of the (individual) commuter to reach his destination vs. the right of transport workers to strike and possibly interrupt the commuter’s journey.
Ye-es... I think people are a force of nature as much as any storm or snow or leaves on the lines. And as an individual person there is a certain amount of ebb and flow that must be done in order to survive the world without breaking. And those transport workers, after all, are responding to another organization still higher up the chain of power - perhaps no organization should be allowed to treat others in a way that will cause them to impede the flow of commuter traffic!
Well, apparently I have essay-like tendencies even when its not required..!