"Societal obligations"

[Autolykos]

Quote by: leftcider You are correct in asserting that we should not tell the poor that their condition is permanent and that there is no that they can get out of it. We should try to individually empower people to strive forward for themselves. But it is also our societal obligation to provide everyone with an equal amount of opportunity to do this, through education, safe neighborhoods, healthcare, etc. Much of this "complaining" that you are speaking about is an attempt to change the system so that everyone has the resources that they need in order to succeed. Poverty should not be spoken of as a cycle that no one can break out of, but it has to be addressed in order to create any kind of a just society.

What I do not understand is how people can say things like "we have a societal obligation to do X". Tell me, those who say such things: do you claim to be able to speak for everyone else? Do you think you know better than others about what "should" and "should not" be done? The thing is, for one to say that people have an obligation does not mean that people themselves will feel obligated. Thus, "societal obligations" necessarily devolve to uses of force (generally by government) in order to make what the obligator wants a reality.

Leftcider: I do not mean to single you out here. Rather, I am using your quote above as indicative of people who believe in such things as "societal obligations". In other words, it's nothing personal.

I look forward to people's thoughts on this subject. :)

- Rob

[Boetie]

Autolykos posts What I do not understand is how people can say things like "we have a societal obligation to do X". Tell me, those who say such things

Societies and states are made up of individuals first, and governments must come after. The theory is that government is the tool of society. So if the individuals gather together as a collective aka society and dictate to government that something has to be done about hooligans, is it the government's fault if they came up with a means to cause a hooligan to become very sick at the idea of violence? or is it society's fault because they approved of governments solution to the problem?

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Boetie Societies and states are made up of individuals first, and governments must come after. The theory is that government is the tool of society.

What about those in the society who do not want a government (or at least not that one)?

Quote by: Boetie So if the individuals gather together as a collective aka society and dictate to government that something has to be done about hooligans, is it the government's fault if they came up with a means to cause a hooligan to become very sick at the idea of violence? or is it society's fault because they approved of governments solution to the problem?

I don't consider "society" and "collective" to be one and the same. "Collective" seems to imply unity in all things -- i.e. everyone in the collective thinks the same. "Society", on the other hand, has no such implication.

Tell me -- how would that society "dictate" things to government?

- Rob

[SteveA]

Though people can feel an obligation to others, I see people as often mistaken in what they assume others are obligated to do.

Here's the crux of the problem from my view. There are many different ideas of what an ideal society is. A long time ago we might have had a more homogeneous society but even then it varied in different areas of the country and from person to person as well.

Consider this:

Religious view: "If only everyone would follow the specific beliefs of my denomination, the world would be peaceful, ethical/moral and we'd all go to heaven or have 70 virgins etc."

Communist view: "If only everyone would work together and share the results of this, there would be no poverty"

Socialist view: "If only everyone would allow a few wise and benevolent people to run our economy, we could avoid unneeded competition in the markets"

etc.

These are just some general categories but there are plenty of other subsets of these (drugs, families, sexual orientation, retirement, education, property rights etc.) and entirely alternate views on what a good or ideal society would look like.

Probably any one of these ideas could work just fine between people who truly supported the same or similar ideal. The problem is trying to make everyone use the same model.

On a small scale, there are successful examples of peaceful religious communities, as well as example of communes operating by communistic principles, or businesses that effectively employ socialism to manage production etc.

This difference is that these ideas operate on a voluntary basis in these communities and people are free to leave, or can even be "exiled" from these associations when they aren't supportive of it.

It's when the thinking changes to:

"People must follow my personal religious denominations point of views"

"People must share their property"

"People must follow the "wise" leader I selected"

that these institution begin to fail.

When everyone is on-board and behind an effort, it can succeed. Motivation and desire are probably the largest factors in determining what a person does. People who believe they can force people to create some ideal against their desires will simply relearn that these efforts not only create ongoing conflict but rarely produce the desired result either.

I think libertarian views address this very well by simply protecting the freedom people should have to join whichever of these endeavors they desire to support. They are sort of the lowest common denominator for what government should do, that most everyone agree with, and that people free to add whatever else they want privately between people that desire to add greater complexity to it.

By doing this, we'd find that though many people didn't feel government did enough, in their view, the functions that it did perform would be things few people disagreed with. And they'd be free to add societies with greater "social obligations" voluntarily between people with similar views of the details, in a peaceful and prosperous fashion.

[Autolykos]

That's all well and good, SteveA. However, it seems that most people who speak of "societal obligations" are those who think that everyone *must* act on those obligations. In other words, they think that the obligation justifies *forcing* people to fulfill it.

- Rob

[SteveA]

Quote by: Autolykos That's all well and good, SteveA. However, it seems that most people who speak of "societal obligations" are those who think that everyone *must* act on those obligations. In other words, they think that the obligation justifies *forcing* people to fulfill it. - Rob

It sure would be nice if they'd get it in writing before making these assumptions. Yep.

Of course it would be nice if everyone had the same idea of what society should look like but that's what the word "utopia" is about.

It's much more natural, intuitive and practical for people to just get together with others of a like mind and go for it. If everyone would just respect a few fences we could all have our various utopias. It used to be difficult or impossible for a small group of people to rule over millions of people. Now it's done to an extent that would have been unimaginable a couple hundred year ago.

It ain't natural and I'd be willing to take a bet almost every major war in history is due to this and now there's hardly a single place on Earth that some group or another hasn't claimed they have ability to rule over anyone there (maybe the middle of the ocean or the South Pole but that's ridiculous. Who gave these people the right to do this? Maybe a few people did but for the most part it's simply a matter of intimidation and it's destructive to everyone).

Consider 200 years ago if you were traveling somewhere and happened upon a stranger on the road. How many people would feel they had a right to intrude into that persons retirement planning and make them join a social security system? I have a feeling such an attempt would have been laughed at as the nonsense it was. Yet we routinely vote on these things assuming every Tom, Dick or Jane must abide by the decision.

I know one thing that still would have been around 200 years ago, the simple courtesy of not assaulting a stranger you happened to meet on the road.

[Osborn F Enready]

A couple of excellent, and well worded posts Steve, and I agree.

A nice explanation of the libertarian view point. I like the "few fences" analogy, well done.

[Ken Carman]

Hmmm... societal obligations. Seems that's pretty damn subjective. I actually agree with the poster quoted to a certain extent. But that's just my take.

What were "societal obligations" in Nazi Germany? Do only the leaders opinions count or is there a societal obligation up and above whatever way the wind is blowing in a free society, or whatever the blowhards say in a less than free society? Do we access the bible, the Koran, Jesus, Vishnu or The Flying Spagetti Monster? Maybe the God of the Great Broken Hymen? Do our personal beliefs count or are we but tools of the state or whatever concept of God we may believe in?

While it may be fun to argue what our obligations may be... not burning the flag or burning the flag, not following orders when their wrong or following orders no matter what, protest or support the troops... the term becomes pretty damn objective, almost to the point of meaningless given a wider view.

What a can of worms.

Most good debates often do open up such items and let it all slither out.

[Autolykos]

Ken,

My point was actually about the general concept of "societal obligations" and the fact that those in favor of any form of "societal obligations" use it as a cover for simply wanting government to force others to do as *they* want.

- Rob

[lsbskins1]

Socital obligations start from a moral prospective. If you are claiming that there is no way to ever arrive at any moral concensus, I would disagree. You are, in my opinion, arguing from an ass-backwards point of view. You are trying to justify not doing what you don't want to do. Does society have an obligation to it's member to raise a police force to catch, stop and/or arrest murderers? I think the concensus opinion would be that it does. That being the case, there is such a thing as a sociatal obligation. Having established (hopefully) that there is such a thing, we now can move on to discussing the bounds and limits of those obligations, but to continue to claim that there is "no such thing" is to fly in the face of the facts on the ground and common sense.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Autolykos Ken, My point was actually about the general concept of "societal obligations" and the fact that those in favor of any form of "societal obligations" use it as a cover for simply wanting government to force others to do as *they* want. - Rob

Yes, and I think it's a valid point. But I think there are other facets to the same concept/issue that can be explored, hopefully without cluttering the thread too much.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Socital obligations start from a moral prospective. If you are claiming that there is no way to ever arrive at any moral concensus, I would disagree. You are, in my opinion, arguing from an ass-backwards point of view. You are trying to justify not doing what you don't want to do. Does society have an obligation to it's member to raise a police force to catch, stop and/or arrest murderers? I think the concensus opinion would be that it does. That being the case, there is such a thing as a sociatal obligation. Having established (hopefully) that there is such a thing, we now can move on to discussing the bounds and limits of those obligations, but to continue to claim that there is "no such thing" is to fly in the face of the facts on the ground and common sense.

Not sure if you're answering me or the start of the thread, so here goes...

Societal obligations start from a moral prospective. If you are claiming that there is no way to ever arrive at any moral concensus, I would disagree.

Where we should get our concept of "obligation" is quite subjective. But where do we get it from, historically and other wise? I argue the opposite: quite concrete, sometimes far too concrete. It's a little too easy for society to arrive at a consensus to... burn witches, label everyone who disagrees with them as commies, crucify a savior, demonize Jews... one can even find a connection between what good portions of society condemn and how some may feel this turns into an "obligation" to nail Gays to fences in Texas or burn down African-American churches...

The use of "obligation" seems like marching orders to me. Living in the South as I have for many years I imagine that some communities not too far from where I live led people to believe it was their "obligation" to wear sheets and pointy white hats.

So the question comes back to whose morals? My morals? The bible? The term "obligation" seems an invite not to think for oneself but blindly follow.

Does society have an obligation to it's member to raise a police force to catch, stop and/or arrest murderers?

I would say yes, for the most part. What if the policeman chases down what winds up being a case of mistaken identity and ends up causing an accident? The officers at Waco believed, were told, there were children being abused and might be killed by a self-sacrificial cult with dangerous, illegal, weapons. Yet many who argue "obligation" now condemn these same people. Things get sloppy and less firm when looking at the much reviled revealer of truth: nuance.

No such thing?

No, I think we need to be a lot more careful about declaring what is and isn't an "obligation," and I'm very interested in what obligations society has towards it's members. In a free society people should never be owned by the state.

"Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" is meaningless if forced down the throats of a populace owned or enslaved by the state. Unless the state is dedicated to keeping members safe and free, obligation is but slavery performed by serfs.

[lsbskins1]

It was a response specifically to what Auto had said. I believe he simply wants to justify his lack of compasion and desire to help others by crying "tyrany... you can't make me!" I could be misreading his meaning, but it has been my expierence that the people who claim that "charity" from government, "enforced" by taxation is wrong, are really people who believe that poverty is an inescapable circumstance that can not be affected because they believe that most poor people are stupid, lazy or both. It is usually the arguement of an elitest mindset. "You are forcing me to participate in a useless program, and I resent that and should be able to refuse to allow my tax dollars to fund such a useless endevor. It is not rational, so it must be tyrany." Of course, I believe that this is not true. I believe that the government should be involved in creating an even playing field because I do not believe that all or even most poor people are stupid or lazy. I do know and accept the fact that because of the economic principle of scarcity, we will always have some level of poverty. The idea is not to erradicate poverty, the idea is to prevent it from becoming a permanant situation for a heriditary social underclass. So, when someone says the things Auto has said, I respond.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: lsbskins1 It was a response specifically to what Auto had said. I believe he simply wants to justify his lack of compasion and desire to help others by crying "tyrany... you can't make me!" I could be misreading his meaning, but it has been my expierence that the people who claim that "charity" from government, "enforced" by taxation is wrong, are really people who believe that poverty is an inescapable circumstance that can not be affected because they believe that most poor people are stupid, lazy or both. It is usually the arguement of an elitest mindset. "You are forcing me to participate in a useless program, and I resent that and should be able to refuse to allow my tax dollars to fund such a useless endevor. It is not rational, so it must be tyrany." Of course, I believe that this is not true. I believe that the government should be involved in creating an even playing field because I do not believe that all or even most poor people are stupid or lazy. I do know and accept the fact that because of the economic principle of scarcity, we will always have some level of poverty. The idea is not to erradicate poverty, the idea is to prevent it from becoming a permanant situation for a heriditary social underclass. So, when someone says the things Auto has said, I respond.

Interesting stance. I tend to agree, although when government does such things I've always felt that money messes up the good intentions. Taxes culled for such purposes should be used to purchase services and goods. Hence just avoiding giving money to vendors who may just waste it. Obviously this all should be monitored and audited. this way to avoid Halliburton like routines.

Slightly off topic but I thought it was an important add.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said:
I could be misreading his meaning, but it has been my expierence that the people who claim that "charity" from government, "enforced" by taxation is wrong,

I say:
I didn't say that, but I would. It is wrong, and its also another term for "legalized extortion".

Isbskins said:
are really people who believe that poverty is an inescapable circumstance that can not be affected because they believe that most poor people are stupid, lazy or both.

I say:
Not all cases, but certainly some of them. People who have more kids, to earn more money from welfare are a fine example. Famillies that have "generations" who have lived on welfare are another example. People who work at a job just long enough to collect unemployment are a good example, as well as those that collect aid programs while working under the table and not admitting it.

Any person saying ALL poor people are that way because of those reasons though, is pretty ignorant and simplistic.

They don't take into account:
The way the government has sided with corporations, and disenfranchised the common man.
The way corporate rights has superceded citizens rights.
The way inflation has been manipulated to further lower the value of YOUR dollars.
The way the Constitution has been trampled, and left for dead.
The 156 year bi-partisan monopoly on politics.
The way that corporate America pleaded for more educated, skilled workers.
The way that corporate America said that now that it has those skilled workers, it can't afford to pay them.
The way the robots that were supposed to create jobs, took jobs.
The way technology was supposed to be BENEFICIAL to us all, and not just a wireless tether to the office.

Add to that a lack of accountability, bad decision making, democracy run amok, a ridiculous defense budget, deficit spending and bad morals, and you have the U.S. government, circa 2005.

Isbskins said:
"You are forcing me to participate in a useless program, and I resent that and should be able to refuse to allow my tax dollars to fund such a useless endevor. It is not rational, so it must be tyrany."

I say:
You seem to have a reasonable handle on it, so what is the problem? What don't you understand about legalized extortion?

[mr.perfecto]

Why is it that people who value freedom so much don't exercise it and leave?

[Osborn F Enready]

Well Mr Perfecto, the Constitution was written to protect my rights as well as place limits on the government that we put in power.

Unfortunately, this corrupt system you support, has no contract, no constitutional foundation, nor any true logic behind most of its decisions that appear to the naked eye.

So my answer:

Maybe I would leave, once I quell this insurrection in my own nation, but until then, I will be a soldier to the cause that has ALWAYS been the United States mission. The quest for Liberty, and Justice for all under a constitutionally limited, democratic representative republic.

If I left now, while so many enemies were behind the lines, I would feel a traitor.

What's your excuse for supporting, feeding, and ego-stroking the enemy again? Oh, thats right, you are one........ silly me.

[SteveA]

Quote by: mr.perfecto Why is it that people who value freedom so much don't exercise it and leave?

A freedom to leave. Cute.

I was going to comment similar to Osborn but let's just for the heck of it assume that a lot of people did leave the U.S. to be free elsewhere. Where would they go?

If they went to Iraq, the U.S. would just force a U.S. approved government there. If they went to Mexico or Canada, we already have a lot of plans on merging security and economic interests there as well. There are other countries in the Middle East and South America that the U.S. has assisted in changing governments. We've got 777 military bases around the world.

I have a feeling if people desiring less government and in the U.S. and others trying to hold the Neo-conservatives at bay, left, and what remained were sycophants to Bush, we'd only see more interventionism abroad. So it's hardly even an option to leave as Neo-cons would just "free" everyone after they left. Did you hear what Bush's inauguration speech was about? More than half of it was about helping free every other country in the world except the U.S. Nope, I was born here too, but more importantly I've helped build this place too. Against my better judgement, I don't think I'll up and leave what I helped created, and I think I've got an obligation to stay and stop people from trashing the place. My children are going to have to live in this world too.

[Osborn F Enready]

The funny thing is, these same people that want people like me to leave, make it sound as if when I DID leave, the U.S. would stop interfering with my way of life, AS IF the U.S. was an isolationist in foreign policy!?!?!?!?!?!!?

Another funny thing is, when I argue for our current corrupt system to go BACK to its more isolationist stance, to prevent people OUTSIDE our nation being invaded by us, these same people who tell me to leave so I am not messed with, tell me that isolationism doesn't work, and they thing it is imperative that we invade, crush and destroy all that don't think like "they" do.

The whole argument is a diatribe of contradiction, hypocrisy, and just plain ignorance of our current state of affairs.

[SteveA]

I love Lew Rockwell, it seems like they always have good articles:

Pyramids of Power
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff27.html

Here's a quote from it:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,"

"We the people of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,"

"We, the undergraduates of the University of California Riverside, bestow governing authority to the Associated Students of the University of California, Riverside, an autonomous and unincorporated student government,"

"We, the multinational people of the Russian Federation, united by a common destiny on our land, asserting human rights and liberties, civil peace and accord..."

So if people are socially obligated to support the Constitution and it says one thing, while you're socially obligated to follow the President, and he says something else, and were' socially obligated to follow the police, and churches and Congress and State legislators and our neighbors etc. etc. etc., then who do we follow when they want different things? I think noone. You just skip the noise and go on your own personal common sense and people you trust.

Social obligations only carry meaning with social institutions you value. How many tyrannts have we seen throughout history because of people believing they were socially obigated to follow suit? And if someone else told you to commit a crime, does that then release you of all liability? I don't think so.