My opinion on this debate is explained here without going into the fact that nations don't really exist, nor do they have any characteristics of their own.
There seems to be a disagreement between plenty in the politically active as to whether the United States is a Christian nation. In my opinion, this is not a productive debate to have, and here is why.
If this is a "Christian Nation", then passing laws forcing people to behave in a "christian" manner is unnecessary. People will voluntarily choose to live their lives in such a way if that is where their faith lies. If the U.S. is not a "Christian nation", passing laws will only lead to behavioral control efforts, and not a change in faith. Non-believers will be pushed away from christianity, since members of the church would be seeking to control them, rather than win over their minds and hearts.
So regardless of whether the United States is a christian nation, laws passed to promote christian values can only have negative effects, no positive. I'm sure there are some who would say that laws against murder are inspired by christian values... but that is also irrelevant. Murder, theft, and other acts of aggression are not solely christian issues, they are universal issues.
It is easily understandable why this debate evokes such passionate feelings. Some people want Christianity taught in schools and that sort of thing, while others don't want their kids being taught such things. Then there is abortion... but what people have to realize is the real problem is whenever government gets involved, you only have one way of doing things. Only in free markets can parents really choose what kind of education their child receives. So the solution to this problem is to get government out of education... that way some parents can send their kids to christian schools and others won't have to. Sure, christians teach religion outside of school, and it is very likely that non-believers who are forced to pay for schools teaching religion (and as a result can't afford to send their kids to any other school) will simply tell their kids that the religion aspects of their education are completely illogical and lack any real proof.
The same thing goes for abortions. Experience has shown that abortions, like drugs, simply get pushed to back alley deals and black market operations rather than truly being dealt with.
If you are pro-christian-values, I leave you with this bit of common sense: the government is not going to pass some magical law that makes everyone behave how you want, and agree with everything you believe. It never has happened and it never will happen. If you want to drive people away from your religion, strive for the passage of any law necessary... that is one sure way to turn people off to christianity.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
Time For A New Social Contract
The social contract... some say a necessary bond between individuals in society in order to keep it running smoothly, others say a scam used to blind people to the violent reality of the state.
My perception of the social contract, perhaps due to government schooling, went as follows for most of my life:
whenever there is a threat to civil society, the people within it acknowledge that it is necessary to give up a portion of our rights to the government for their protection. This would mean that anyone arguing against the forfeiture of such rights inherently breaks the contract. For example: theft. We need policemen to prevent theft, hence we need the government to lay taxes to pay for policemen to prevent theft. Taxes paid represent freedom given up, prevention of theft represents the government's responsibility of taking care of the threat.
Wikipedia defines the social contract as follows: The social contract or political contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.
Now that I am older, and versed in the philosophy of freedom, it is easy to see the problem here. Governments have to encroach on our rights in order to protect them. They must coerce tax funds for police and jails to imprison those who want to do us harm. But failure to pay for the police and prisons leads to imprisonment in itself. The contradiction is obvious.
If what we really want is the lack of aggression committed against peaceful people in any form, it is clear that we need a new social contract. Since applying a social contract to everyone has a variety of problems, most notably the fact that I do not know everyone else's preferences in society, it is necessary to design it to be universally accepted. But what do we know that everyone would agree to, without knowing them personally?
Like economics, there are self-evident facts about human life we can use to format our social contract around. First of all, nobody likes to be coerced to do anything. Everyone has their own goals they want to meet, their own special circumstances in life, etc. Everyone can only be in one place at one time. So right off the bat, the social contract must involve an acknowledgement that the use of force against each other in order to repel an external threat is out of the question. So if there is to be no giving up of liberties in order to obtain security, what remains? Clearly, the inverse of force is voluntarism. There must be an understanding between people that if crime is left unchecked, it eventually turns into a form of organized crime, whether it is a mafia, street gang, or dare I say a government.
Voluntary ways of dealing with crime may involve able individuals coming to assist others when they are being victimized; creating security products (cameras, offering time to act as guards, etc.), or perhaps using jury nullification when dealing with the government.
In my experience in spreading word of the voluntary philosophy to others, I have found that the most common objection to this is the idea that if it's voluntary, there is no guarantee it will happen. This ideology applied to the social contract is a reflection of shallow thinking. When "the people" give up their rights to the government in exchange for security, they COMPLETELY RUIN ANY CHANCE OF GETTING THE SECURITY THEY WANT. That is the catch. Allowing the government to threaten others with jail time for refusing to pay for prisons and police is an act of theft in and of itself... far greater than what any individual criminal could ever dream of achieving by the way. Not to mention the various problems of waste involved when services are provided on a coercive basis (the resources used to track down "tax cheats" and not real thieves, the inflated prices due to the income coming in on a forceful basis rather than a voluntary basis, etc.)
The New Social Contract Must Revolve Around Voluntarism For All.
My perception of the social contract, perhaps due to government schooling, went as follows for most of my life:
whenever there is a threat to civil society, the people within it acknowledge that it is necessary to give up a portion of our rights to the government for their protection. This would mean that anyone arguing against the forfeiture of such rights inherently breaks the contract. For example: theft. We need policemen to prevent theft, hence we need the government to lay taxes to pay for policemen to prevent theft. Taxes paid represent freedom given up, prevention of theft represents the government's responsibility of taking care of the threat.
Wikipedia defines the social contract as follows: The social contract or political contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.
Now that I am older, and versed in the philosophy of freedom, it is easy to see the problem here. Governments have to encroach on our rights in order to protect them. They must coerce tax funds for police and jails to imprison those who want to do us harm. But failure to pay for the police and prisons leads to imprisonment in itself. The contradiction is obvious.
If what we really want is the lack of aggression committed against peaceful people in any form, it is clear that we need a new social contract. Since applying a social contract to everyone has a variety of problems, most notably the fact that I do not know everyone else's preferences in society, it is necessary to design it to be universally accepted. But what do we know that everyone would agree to, without knowing them personally?
Like economics, there are self-evident facts about human life we can use to format our social contract around. First of all, nobody likes to be coerced to do anything. Everyone has their own goals they want to meet, their own special circumstances in life, etc. Everyone can only be in one place at one time. So right off the bat, the social contract must involve an acknowledgement that the use of force against each other in order to repel an external threat is out of the question. So if there is to be no giving up of liberties in order to obtain security, what remains? Clearly, the inverse of force is voluntarism. There must be an understanding between people that if crime is left unchecked, it eventually turns into a form of organized crime, whether it is a mafia, street gang, or dare I say a government.
Voluntary ways of dealing with crime may involve able individuals coming to assist others when they are being victimized; creating security products (cameras, offering time to act as guards, etc.), or perhaps using jury nullification when dealing with the government.
In my experience in spreading word of the voluntary philosophy to others, I have found that the most common objection to this is the idea that if it's voluntary, there is no guarantee it will happen. This ideology applied to the social contract is a reflection of shallow thinking. When "the people" give up their rights to the government in exchange for security, they COMPLETELY RUIN ANY CHANCE OF GETTING THE SECURITY THEY WANT. That is the catch. Allowing the government to threaten others with jail time for refusing to pay for prisons and police is an act of theft in and of itself... far greater than what any individual criminal could ever dream of achieving by the way. Not to mention the various problems of waste involved when services are provided on a coercive basis (the resources used to track down "tax cheats" and not real thieves, the inflated prices due to the income coming in on a forceful basis rather than a voluntary basis, etc.)
The New Social Contract Must Revolve Around Voluntarism For All.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)