democracy philosophy, not religion

[Athena]

Quote by: gallo Really? That's an unusual assertion. Some pretty deep thoughts there, Athena. But you do have trouble with the meaning and application of certain terms, ans zynner has aptly pointed out. True. For example, some of the better known phrases from the Declaration of Independence come from Locke and other philosophers of the Enlightenment. For example, that "We hold these truths to be self evident" is certainly not Biblical or Christian. Truth was not from scripture but was innate in every human. And rather than someone who was "by the Grace of God, King," supported by a privileged nobility, there was the idea that all men are created equal. Certainly not Biblical or Christian. Further, all men are endowed by their Creator (a clear reference to deism rather than the Biblical God) with unalienable rights. Previously, King or Church could take life and liberty away from anyone at will. And, of course, happiness was not the object expressed by the Bible or traditional Christianity. The words, "life, liberty, and..." are taken directly from Locke. Newton wasn't actually a christian. His views were more Christological. His religion could more properly be described as Arianism, in that he denied the trinity and the divinity of Jesus. At best, Newton was a Unitarian. But you seem to confuse naturalism as philosophy with naturalism as a method. The later is science, the former is not. By the way, the United States is not now and has never been a democracy. Our government was envisioned and established as a democratic republic.

Thank you so much for articulating the role philosophy plays in democracy so very well. Now what do you think the US would be without democracy? Plato's republic? The Roman Republic that Cicero could not save? How about the Christian Republic we defeated in WWI and WWII? How would you say our Republic is different from these other Republics? :confused:

[Athena]

Quote by: zynner democracy - Definitions from Dictionary.com The second set of definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary, definition #4: Majority rule. Furthermore, if you are talking about "rule by the people," then there has to be some sort of method to figure out how. Typically, that results in majority rule. What means do you suggest for decision-making amongst many people other than majority rule? I am not saying that people can't figure out other ways, but it typically means majority rule. That's how it was done in ancient Greece, with the people voting directly. Why do you think it has nothing to do with voting when we are talking about rule by the people? There must be some way to sort out differences and make decisions, right? Again, philosophy has several branches, one of which is politics. Democracy is a form of politics. "Philosophy" is from "philos," meaning love and "sophia," meaning wisdom. It is a love of wisdom, or love of knowledge, or a desire to seek truth. Of course, democracy is a concept that is a part of philosophy, but then so is every human idea. LOL. If you think I'm a theist, you got the wrong guy. What is your definition of "philosophy?" What is your definition of "politics?" ~ zynner

While there are several branches to philosophy, that does not make democracy politics. At best it can be philosophically a democratic point of view regarding politics. To not know the philosophy behind democracy, is to not know democracy. You can not study politics and know democracy. Only by studying the philosophy behind democracy can we know democracy.

I believe one of our important documents says our democracy is, or should be, government by a consensus of the people. Now for how people come to a consensus, this was done in town hall meetings, and is such an important process of democracy, federal powers were very restricted. For a good understanding of how government by consensus is done, knowledge of how the Quakers come to decisions is very helpful! The process of democracy is not fast, but when it is followed, laws are kept because everyone has a sense that those laws are their laws. Not laws over them enforced by a police state- their laws in which they have invested themselves. Democracy is away of life, not fast food government.

Cicero said the ideal government was a constitutional government.. "the best constitution for a State to be that which is a balanced combination of the three forms mentioned, kingship, aristocracy, and democracy, and does not irritate by punishment a rude and savage heart..." Cicero was one of the most read political philosophers when our constitution and form of government were created. While we have a Republic, it is not balanced without the three branches of excutive/king, aristocracy and a democracy.

I don't think you personally are a theist, nor do I think you are well read in political philosophy. That makes you a person with an opinion who is without authoirty. Hum, this questions how anyone gains "authority". Our Statue of Liberty holds a book for literacy and a torch for enlightenment. Democracy is depends on education. It depends on literacy that internalizes authority. What have you internalized? What are the ingredients of our opinion? What do you think gives anyone authority, an opinion?

I could be wrong, and before you set out to prove me wrong, let me be very honest about how ignorant I am. I could read a whole library full of the right books and still remain ignorant. What we read does not become our thoughts until we attempt to use the thoughts. Democracy is about using those thoughts and becoming enlightened. The more we learn of democracy, the more awesome it becomes, until we are ready to risk everything, and even give our lives if need be, for democracy. It becomes far more important than our own lives when we understand it. It is how God is manifest. It is the most awesome concept humanity ever had. Unfortunately while we go to war to defend democracy- we do not understand it. We have the defense of democracy all confused with materialism and nationalism. We do not understand what it has to do with developing our own minds, nor how it it develops human potential. We do not understand it as manifest God, and saving our eternal soul which is much more than one life time.

Only when we read and discuss democracy, only through philosophy ( a love of truth), can we manifest democracy. A dictionary definition, a blue print for a republican form of government, will not convey the meaning of democracy. The meaning of democracy is a state of mind, and what humans in this state of mind can achieve.

[grandpa]

Quote by: zynner I am not asking about a specific example, though I use that as a means of getting to the principle. It is the principle I am interested in. What is a method that could be used in the example? What is the principle here? Let's say that I offer this solution: I like your house, so I decide to kick you out and take over. Would that be okay with you?

No, I don't think it would be appropriate. But it cannot be addressed by mere principles. Some actions merely seem wrong, and your example would be one of them.

Quote by: zynner Are you opposed to ownership of property? If not, then are you opposed to being compensated for someone else using your property?

I am opposed to someone claiming to own something someone else uses.

Quote by: zynner "Solve?" I thought you just said that there is no way to "solve" housing issues. At least, you offer no means of figuring out a solution. If one could "solve housing issues," what would that mean to you? What would it be like, to have this "solved?"

Exactly. It does not solve the issue of housing, which does not contradict my other statements. I was merely pointing out that the system doesn't solve housing issues, but it creates them.

Grandpa h.

[Athena]

Here is some philosophy behind the right of private property and the role of government. I think we need to up date Locke's understanding with the knowledge the animals rank themselves and those on top get the most, while the ones on the bottom get the least. That is, in nature there isn't perfect equality, but still what Locke says holds good. And you can't take my house, because it is my effort that makes it my house, and it is irrational to take by brute force what is anothers.

Locke: Government Property From the outset, Locke openly declared the remarkable theme of his political theory: in order to preserve the public good, the central function of government must be the protection of private property. (2nd Treatise §3) Consider how human social life begins, in a hypothetical state of nature: Each individual is perfectly equal with every other, and all have the absolute liberty to act as they will, without interference from any other. (2nd Treatise §4) What prevents this natural state from being a violent Hobbesian free-for-all, according to Locke, is that each individual shares in the use of the faculty of reason, so that the actions of every human agent—even in the unreconstructed state of nature—are bound by the self-evident laws of nature. Understood in this way, the state of nature vests each reasonable individual with an independent right and responsibility to enforce the natural law by punishing those few who irrationally choose to violate it. (2nd Treatise §§7-8) Because all are equal in the state of nature, the proportional punishment of criminals is a task anyone may undertake. Only in cases when the precipitate action of the offender permits no time for appeal to the common sense, reason, and will of others, Locke held, does this natural state degenerate into the state of war of each against all. (2nd Treatise §19) Everything changes with the gradual introduction of private property. Originally, Locke supposed, the earth and everything on it belongs to all of us in common; among perfectly equal inhabitants, all have the same right to make use of whatever they find and can use. The only exception to this rule is that each of us has an exclusive right to her/his own body and its actions. But applying these actions to natural objects by mixing our labor with them, Locke argued, provides a clear means for appropriating them as an extension of our own personal property. (2nd Treatise §27) Since our bodies and their movements are our own, whenever we use our own effort to improve the natural world—the resulting products belong to us as well. The same principle of appropriation by the investment of labor can be extended to control over the surface of the earth as well, on Locke's view. Individuals who pour themselves into the land—improving its productivity by spending their own time and effort on its cultivation—acquire a property interest in the result. (2nd Treatise §32) The plowed field is worth more than the virgin prairie precisely because I have invested my labor in plowing it; so even if the prairie was held in common by all, the plowed field is mine. This personal appropriation of natural resources can continue indefinitely, Locke held, so long as there is "enough, and as good" left for others with the gumption to do the same. (2nd Treatise §33) Within reasonable limits, then, individuals are free to pursue their own "life, health, liberty, and possessions." Of course the story gets more complicated with the introduction of a monetary system that makes it possible to store up value in excess of what the individual can responsibly enjoy. (2nd Treatise §37) The fundamental principle still applies: labor is the ultimate source of all economic value. (2nd Treatise §42) But the creation of a monetary system requires an agreement among distinct individuals on the artificial "value" frozen in what is, in itself, nothing more than a bit of "colored metal." This need for agreement, in turn, gives rise to the social order.

[zynner]

Quote by: grandpa No, I don't think it would be appropriate. But it cannot be addressed by mere principles. Some actions merely seem wrong, and your example would be one of them.

Are you saying that you hold the principle that certain things cannot be addressed by principles?

If something seems wrong to you, then it is because of some principle which you hold that allows you to arrive at that conclusion.

I am opposed to someone claiming to own something someone else uses.

Why can one claim the right to use some particular property?

What is the principle that brings you to this conclusion?

~ zynner

[zynner]

Quote by: gallo Further, all men are endowed by their Creator (a clear reference to deism rather than the Biblical God) with unalienable rights.

A side issue, but an interesting one, is this: Thomas Jefferson wrote his first draft of the Declaration of Independence without any reference to "creator" and with a clause denouncing the king for allowing slavery in the American colonies. Of course, both were changed by the committee for the final draft.

~ zynner

[zynner]

Quote by: Athena I believe one of our important documents says our democracy is, or should be, government by a consensus of the people. Now for how people come to a consensus, this was done in town hall meetings,

Okay, sure. When they are done with their democratic debates in those town hall meetings, how do they decide who wins? They vote -- and the majority rules. That's democracy.

...and is such an important process of democracy, federal powers were very restricted.

Yes, but that form of government is not a democracy. The founders were attempting to use John Locke's ideas so as to improve upon the concept of democracy, which they viewed as a bad form of government.

Cicero said the ideal government ... which is a balanced combination of the three forms mentioned, kingship, aristocracy, and democracy...

Well, there you go. Cicero agrees. ;-) Cicero was talking about a form of government that included democratic ideas, and included other ideas, too.

That makes you a person with an opinion who is without authoirty.

That's irrelevant. An argument from authority is a fallacy. Debate the points raised, not the person making them.

What we read does not become our thoughts until we attempt to use the thoughts.

I agree.

Democracy is about using those thoughts and becoming enlightened.

No, it's not. Reason, or logic, is the method we use to apply our thoughts to the real world and become knowledgable (or enlightened) -- and that is what philosophy (love of wisdom) is all about.

Democracy, on the other hand, is one form of government (majority rule, which always devolves into mob rule).

~ zynner

[Athena]

Quote by: zynner Okay, sure. When they are done with their democratic debates in those town hall meetings, how do they decide who wins? They vote -- and the majority rules. That's democracy. Yes, but that form of government is not a democracy. The founders were attempting to use John Locke's ideas so as to improve upon the concept of democracy, which they viewed as a bad form of government. Well, there you go. Cicero agrees. ;-) Cicero was talking about a form of government that included democratic ideas, and included other ideas, too. That's irrelevant. An argument from authority is a fallacy. Debate the points raised, not the person making them. I agree. No, it's not. Reason, or logic, is the method we use to apply our thoughts to the real world and become knowledgable (or enlightened) -- and that is what philosophy (love of wisdom) is all about. Democracy, on the other hand, is one form of government (majority rule, which always devolves into mob rule). ~ zynner

Why are you denying or arguing (?) that, the mix of our government is not include democracy? The town hall meeting is democracy. When I testified in front of the legislature, that was democracy working. When I fasted on the door step of the state Capital Building with a display on one side of the arguement, influencing what was happening inside the building, that was democracy. When I write letters to the editor and influence people's opinions, knowing this will influence votes, that is democracy. When their is a family problem and ask everyone how they think it should be handled, that is democracy. Democracy is our liberty and freedom to participate in our government, and it is also how we treat each other and go about solving our problems. Bush and his bully friends got away with a lot, but finally the talk has turned against them, and they are loosing power. I think this would have happened much earlier if the masses had a stronger understanding of democracy being about relationships and a philosophy in how things are done.

The ruler of the New World Order is going down, and hope the masses take responsibility for following this wanna be New World Order leader.

[grandpa]

Quote by: zynner Are you saying that you hold the principle that certain things cannot be addressed by principles? If something seems wrong to you, then it is because of some principle which you hold that allows you to arrive at that conclusion.

I agree people should try to adopt principles and modify them to create a cohesive picture of the world, but my point was that not everything can be mulled over in great detail. If someone is invading my house I may just defend myself--even if I've stated the highest pacifist principles in the past. Like I've said, it all depends on all sorts of circumstances.
In circumstances like the one you presented, I'd probably look to principles to justify my behavior AFTER the fact. Life sometimes puts us in situations where we cannot approach matters as ambitious philosophical projects. Some behaviors develop that completely contradict how we would like to behave.

Quote by: zynner Why can one claim the right to use some particular property? What is the principle that brings you to this conclusion?

Apparently, common sense can be lost in the name of philosophy. I can claim the right to use something because it's what humans do. We simply cannot survive for very long without using some resources. If you think otherwise, I'd like to know your reasoning.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

hello? Zynner?

Grandpa h.