Freedom for ALL (except the minority)
I had to read R Jordans letter twice - the first time in surprise, and the second time to check that I hadn't written it myself, and he had signed it! - That is until the bit at the end where he spoilt it by the following "unprincipled" sentence:
When is Government going to become democratic - administering the country for the good of the "MAJORITY INSTEAD OF ERODING INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS?"
The fault in this sentence is that those who are NOT in the majority ALL have their individual freedoms eroded! (exactly what R Jordan doesn't want - or is it OK for the freedoms of those not in the majority to be destroyed?)
This is where the concept of democracy is flawed.
Democracy is the COUNTING of heads, and NOT the CONTENT!
Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what to have for dinner!
A more principled or moral concept is that we have the right to sustain and pursue happiness - not by permission from god, society or government, but by virtue of our nature as thinking, human beings.
To advocate the elimination of compulsion from human affairs and promote the belief that all adult interaction should be voluntary.
The only act that may be properly banned in a free society is the initiation of force or fraud by one party against another, and that the only laws that may be properly imposed are those which ban the use of force or fraud, eg murder, assault rape and theft, and that the SOLE function of government is to define and enforce such laws.
When is Government going to become democratic - administering the country for the good of the "MAJORITY INSTEAD OF ERODING INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS?"
The fault in this sentence is that those who are NOT in the majority ALL have their individual freedoms eroded! (exactly what R Jordan doesn't want - or is it OK for the freedoms of those not in the majority to be destroyed?)
This is where the concept of democracy is flawed.
Democracy is the COUNTING of heads, and NOT the CONTENT!
Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what to have for dinner!
A more principled or moral concept is that we have the right to sustain and pursue happiness - not by permission from god, society or government, but by virtue of our nature as thinking, human beings.
To advocate the elimination of compulsion from human affairs and promote the belief that all adult interaction should be voluntary.
The only act that may be properly banned in a free society is the initiation of force or fraud by one party against another, and that the only laws that may be properly imposed are those which ban the use of force or fraud, eg murder, assault rape and theft, and that the SOLE function of government is to define and enforce such laws.
posted by The Tomahawk Kid at 8:44 am
1 Comments:
I read your letter to the Sun last Friday, and once again I find something on which I concur with you and that is your analysis of Democracy. But I have serious reservations with your alternative.
The most fundamental problem lies with the rationale used to justify what you seem to consider the most basic human right. That is 'the right to sustain and pursue happiness - not by permission from god, society or government - but by virtue of our nature as thinking human beings'.
In the words of one philosopher - " Sez who?"
You have arbitrarily chosen some feel good, gobbledegook phrase on which to build your morality. A animal rights activist may, with equal authority include animals with we humans, by expanding the criteria to - 'our nature as beings that experience pain'. Or one could say 'by virtue of existence' and include all living things even the living things we eat in order to 'pursue our happiness'.
You have with no authority, other than that it pleases you, chosen a threshold below which all other forms of life are denied the rights you have abrogated to yourself. And that without consultation with the animals, trees and bacteria as to what they need for their pursuit of happiness !
As you are an atheist and therefore an evolutionist you will most probably consider human beings as just another animal, I wonder does your definition of 'human being' include all mankind or do you in the tradition of atheists/evolutionists like Darwin and Hitler consider some people to be sub human?
The point I am making, is that because you have no ultimate immovable standard on which to base your morality, it will change according to the expediency of the moment. Because you have been raised in a western society with a strong history of a Judeo-Christian morality, you happen to view tolerance and freedom and lack of coercion as things to be valued but you have chosen them because they appeal to you. In the same way Graham Burton chooses murder because it appeals to him and can state he has that right by reason of his 'nature as a thinking human being.' You would of course deny him that right. Each of you claim a right - but rights are granted by a Higher Power not claimed on an individual basis. Evolution grants you neither the right to freedom nor the right to happiness or even for that matter the right to life.
One could say that 'thinking human beings' reject your definition and the rest of humanity is rejected by it !!
May I once again advise you to seriously investigate the message of Christ. It would save you wasting your time on kooky ideas that sound good but on deeper analysis mean nothing.
Post a Comment
<< Home