What is your Doctrine of a Just Society?

David Octavius · 01-08-2007, 06:47 PM

In other words what your conception of:

Liberty?

Justice?

Economics?

and governments role in this?

Here are mine to start things off:

Liberty -

I define liberty as a persons right to do anything they want so long as it causes no harm or injury to anyone else. It is a broad definition for sure but it does not include being "PC" has “harm” since that in it of it self does not prevent someone from achieving their own ends.

Liberty is expressed in two ways:

1) Our right as private person to not be constrained and hassled
2) Our right as citizens to participate in government to determine and influence legislation which affects our liberty

Justice -

That justice expresses our liberty on a societal level, as such, all citizens as individuals AND as a community, have a right to justice from either individuals, society or government itself if liberty is violated, that every person also has a right to the same basic liberties and freedoms and that justice is applied evenly throughout all levels of society.

Economics –

The marketplace should be as free as possible from government intervention. The marketplace, WHEN JUST, embodies the principals of liberty to allow us to pursue our own ends and gives us economic leverage to hold government accountable. But the market place rarely remains rational, where it is inept and goes against liberty and justice, it must be regulated and realigned.

For an individual in search of prosperity, economic arrangements should be such that we all have a basic equal opportunity to have access to the means of success – education, health and the like, not equal in the outcomes. What I mean is that being citizens we ought to have the opportunity to acquire the BASIC (no more than the min. requirements to gain) necessities for success because this ensures we benefit society as a whole since we would pay back more in taxes as we earn more and by living better, society would be more secure. I don’t mean handouts, or the socialist vein of universal free but an investment in our citizens for results in basic services that empower and enable those who choose, to have skills to better themselves. Once we all have the opportunity to get the skills, what happens after that the market ought to decide unless it violates our Justice or Liberty.

-

Taking together, our liberty gives us the fundamental right to choose our own destiny unless it violates the justice or liberty of someone else. To me, the economics of our society should reflect this such that it should be free to dictate the marketplace without outside influence unless it too violates the principals of liberty and justice. Moreover, we ought to all have equal chance to be prosperous by having access the means to do it but allow the talents, innovations and hard work of those who do it best to reap greater benefits.

This complicated interactions demands that all these interests be represented in the government forum to ensure the conditions are being meet, specifically the congress since it is the one that creates the laws we live under. To me, this means proportional representation (or more specifically: mixed-member). But since so many interests are represented, we must prevent anyone from oppressing another (violating the justice of another through unfair tax burden or worse) so there must be mechanisms to prevent popular majorities from doing just that, just as there must be strong mechanisms to prevent government from miss representing the people and harming them by ensuring accountability and separation of powers.

Excluding the concept of justice, the states are incompetent to secure liberty (from foreign threats and from national laws) and to properly arrange major economic matters, thus they should not have as much power as they do now, they only take away from our power to be represented properly, they still have a role to do the things the federal government would be inefficient to do, but they should not have the power to decide the principals of justice or liberty on the federal level (via the Senate) as they do now.

A just society is a social compact that empowers every level of society and gives us all a voice on matters that affect our lives so that we may live as free and secure as possible but that also has mechanisms to ensure no one group gains too much power (by fragmenting control of liberty and checks and balances) to oppress another in the pursuit of their ends.

-- David

Diamond Cross · 01-09-2007, 05:28 PM

I don't agree with the definition of liberty as to do rwhat you want as long as you harm no one because no matter what you do in this country, it offends (harms) someone. However, that's an extreme form of harm and the word harm should be more defined in this definition.

The government's role in this area should be to protect people and not to
constrain them through the creation of legislation that is based on someone's morality. That's the biggest problem that I see that is affecting America these days is that too many people are trying to get legislation passed based on how they feel people should live. Examples include prostitution and abortion and seat belt laws. All of these kinds of laws are based on somebody's morality, that somebody feels that others should live according to how they feel people should live according to their standards.

People should be free from constraint, even from all citizens.

Justice i would agree with, but the problem would be how to implement it?

Diamond Cross · 01-10-2007, 12:15 AM

Does anybody else have anything to say on the topic?

Thorgrim · 01-10-2007, 12:20 AM

Liberty is a right we seized as the people and wrote or adopted into law, it is something every American ought to have

Justice is the balance between public policy to protect society and holding people up only to the laws they implicitly agreed to...

Economics is the method a society with unlimited wants deals with limited resources

David Octavius · 01-10-2007, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

I don't agree with the definition of liberty as to do rwhat you want as long as you harm no one because no matter what you do in this country, it offends (harms) someone. However, that's an extreme form of harm and the word harm should be more defined in this definition.

I think one of the greatest things the framers did with the present Constitution was making it vague in respect to things like this. They knew societies and our needs evolve overtime and that it the responsibility of the generations that come after them to define more specifically these ideals. We use the courts to refine and add depth to it, for instance, that famous case that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, this placed a boundary on our liberty to do that for the sake of others. More cases will refine our concept of liberty even further.

This ought to be so but I don’t feel the courts should be the final decider, that is why I put in a mechanism in my proposed constitution that allows the courts to be overruled by the congress by 2/3rds since it is the congress that ultimately represents the people, we ought to have the final say on the interpretation of legislation by either overruling it or modifying it to meet the new ruling.

"All of these kinds of laws are based on somebody's morality, that somebody feels that others should live according to how they feel people should live according to their standards."

That is a problem, what is moral to one person may be immoral to another, that is why, in a heterogeneous society like ours, we need broader representation so that we have some many competing interests against each other that it makes it difficult to pass a bill solely on morality. Moreover, by having such representation, it encourages consensus so some of the legislation you are talking about which is ideological based, would never make it since it requires more than one group of people for it to pass.

Ardentfrost · 01-10-2007, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Economics is the method a society with unlimited wants deals with limited resources

I like your definition of economics. I think, however, I'd add "and the consequences resulting from their chosen method." I say that only because economic choices made without thinking about the consequences of those choices is bad economics. Since every economic decision comes with consequences, you either have to be aware of them and say "that's ok" or not be aware of them and... be an idiot I guess

motivez · 01-11-2007, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Liberty is a right we seized as the people and wrote or adopted into law, it is something every American ought to have

Seized from who?

Thorgrim · 01-11-2007, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Seized from who?

The British

motivez · 01-11-2007, 04:12 PM

Ah, I wasn't thinking about it limited to the US.

goldenponderbob · 01-14-2007, 01:00 PM

I lost a friend to lukemia back in 85'. We shared liberal views,
and some of our friends were as far left as Pete Seeger.

One of his favorite songs was the Hank Williams classic, "Mind
Your Own Business" (lyrics below).

I often think about how, when we die our views become frozen,
while the living are subject to having their views modified by
the changing times (semi-intentional Dylan pun).

I lived to see the perversion of JFK inspired 60's popularism,
wherein we convinced ourselves we could make a difference and
change the world for the better, become the basis for taking
people's homes and giving them to politically connected private
developers "for the public good".

JFK was liberal but certainly no Marxist. I often wonder, had
he not perished, where he would fit along the line of today's
political scale.

Do you suppose Ms. Pelosi or Ms. Ginsberg ever lost homes to
public use; Bet not!

And, don't talk to me about compensation, we know that happens
under public scrutiny which is inconsistent enough to become a
numbers game for thieves.

Mind Your Own Business By Hank Williams
----------------------
If the wife and I are fussin', brother that's our right,
'Cause me and that sweet woman's got a license to fight,
Why don't you mind your own business, (Mind your own business)
'Cause if you mind your business, then you won't be mindin' mine.

Oh, the woman on our party line's the nosiest thing,
She picks up her receiver when she knows it's my ring,
Why don't you mind your own business, (Mind your own business)
Well, if you mind your business, then you won't be mindin' mine.

I got a little gal that wears her hair up high,
the boys all whistle when she walks by.
why don't you mind your own buisness, (Mind your own business)
Well, if you mind your own business, you sure won't be minding mine.

If I want to honky tonk around 'til two or three,
Now, brother that's my headache, don't you worry 'bout me.
Just mind your own business, (Mind your own business)
If you mind your business, then you won't be mindin' mine.

Mindin' other people's business seems to be high-toned,
I got all that I can do just to mind my own,
Why don't you mind your own business, (Mind your own business)
If you mind your own business, you'll stay busy all the time,

RMNIXON · 01-14-2007, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Ah, I wasn't thinking about it limited to the US.

And all along I thought it was about a Government that protected our individual rights, not something claimed by a mob against another mob!

RMNIXON · 01-14-2007, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Justice is the balance between public policy to protect society and holding people up only to the laws they implicitly agreed to...

Justice is to protect the innocent and defend the guilty. It has nothing to do with the empowerment the social planners against the right of free association of individuals and the conduct and relationships they chose as a people. It is not a "majority rules" so screw you proposition.

RMNIXON · 01-14-2007, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Economics is the method a society with unlimited wants deals with limited resources

It is a method of people to produce and trade and conduct their affairs with as much freedom as they please and to be protected by government from the threat of mobs and looters "playing" public good in the name of confiscation of what they don't produce. It is about productivity and fair trade, not limited resources being divided up. You must produce something first and have the proper incentive to do so. American began as the most undeveloped part of the world and look what has been done in so short a time. It was not about having more rocks and trees to hand out!

David Octavius · 01-14-2007, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

And all along I thought it was about a Government that protected our individual rights

I agree with that part, but we "the mob" must hold government to account to do it

Diamond Cross · 01-15-2007, 12:43 AM

But who's to hold the "mob" accountable? after all, in a representative society, the government is usually acting on someone else's behalf. Should the "mob" be held accountable for passing poor legislation? If so, how?

David Octavius · 01-15-2007, 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

But who's to hold the "mob" accountable? after all, in a representative society, the government is usually acting on someone else's behalf. Should the "mob" be held accountable for passing poor legislation? If so, how?

This is what I mean by "fragmenting Liberty" so that no one group or government entity has all the power. So the government is checked internally through EFFECTIVE checks and balances and externally by the people through TRUE elections and better representation and government checking the people (who have power through the House) via the Senate. And everyone is checked by the Judicial branch though I believe it should not be the last word in a representative democracy