Was the goal of this thread really about philosophy and understanding?

Anyway, I'll respond in a bit about my political thought.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Ok, now how does that explain what the functions of govt should be? For example, should a govt build roads?

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Yes. I have no clue why people with different applied opinions do what they do. I was interested in whether they knew.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

When you say someone has a right to life, you are saying that govt therefore is instituted to provide life, to give people food, shelter, clothing, healthcare? What about at the expense of someone else?

In regards to freedom how do you see balancing one persons freedom to succeed vs someones inability to succeed? ie, if one person lives in a depressed area with no hope of improving, should the state reduce the quality of life for one person to increase the quality of another?

Im not arguing, just trying to get clarification. You speak in terms of what you want the state to do for people who need help, but not what it avoid for the people who dont need help.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Political philosophy IMO is an extension of one's ethics, or lack thereof, so while it may seem to redundant saying that it is about establishing a just society, all that really does it get to the heart of the matter - what is justice? What each of us considers justice is probably what we seek to achieve when developing our political thought - I can't really imagine why the case would be otherwise.

It's not often that such a direct question is asked, so it is difficult IMO to come up with a concise but developed answer. Nonethless I agree with much of what has been said so far; a just society is one in which the people are involved in its government, which must depend on the consent of the governed. While it is administered by men, it is ruled by law, which itself must recognize certain moral imperatives while also balancing a flexibility to reflect a people's mores and changing times. For example, the law should enshrine individual rights like freedom of thought, expression, religion, assembly, etc., and it should maintain a government restricted in its powers. At the same time, the law cannot allow someone to peaceably assemble just anywhere (in my living room, or in the President's), just as a government must have the authority to act on the behalf of society at large in ordinary as well as extraordinary times (i.e. war).

I'm still hung up on issues of distributive justice. Does one's inability to fulfill a most basic liberty (i.e. I have the 'positive liberty right' to eat, to live under shelter) affect my negative liberty to refuse something, such as providing food or shelter, or at least money for those things? Now, if we think of a scale such as a vagrant, stinking of alcohol, walking up to me and demanding these things, that sounds ridiculous that I have a moral and legal obligation to give him or her food and shelter or some monetary equivalent. But what about in a society where a majority are in such conditions, or even 80, 90 percent are, simply because they had the misfortune of being born where they were? That's not a just society. Does this count as an 'extraordinary time' in which a government must act in ways it usually does not have the authority to? These aren't just rhetorical questions; societies around the world face problems like this, and globally the distribution of wealth and basic goods are certainly far from meritocratic or anything resembling justified. Of course, the world has no political authority which could act on behalf of global society as a whole, but that still raises questions - as a state or province could enact laws on behalf of the nation as a whole, could a nation enact laws on behalf of the world as a whole? This certainly happens (at least when they perceive such an international law to be in their interest), such as the signing of the UN Charter and many of its Conventions, but not so much in the area of redistributing wealth to those that cannot fulfill basic needs like food, water, shelter. I.e. the G-8 or G-20 signing a treaty that obligates them to send money or goods to regions living under particular conditions.

I'm not necessarily advocating these things - I'm just pointing out that it is generally thought as reasonable and just for a government to have extraordinary powers in extraordinary times. And while many of us here do not think it is right for a government to take from one solely to give to another, is there no gap in the well-being of a society's people that might lead to a different if temporary conclusion, particularly when it is obvious that their suffering is not a result of any individual action or mistake? I don't have any ulterior motive with the above question, such as justifying some oppressive Soviet system or the government taking all your stuff because it says someone out there has no food, though I have a feeling I'll be pounced upon for doing so. I want to state clearly that those kinds of governments are not just; I think the above is a legitimate question. Sorry for the length.

Edit: Also, in the above paragraph when I say "extraordinary power" I don't mean to call for some war-time government to wage 'war on poverty' by property confiscation and all that. I'm saying that while wealth redistributive policies may be thought of by some as immoral in ordinary times, perhaps they are called for in societies in which the socioeconomic gap has reached a certain point (or at least the latter end of the gap is in absolute poverty). That is the point of my question.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

National defense, a common form of currency.

National defense covers infrastructure maintainance (roads and bridges), immigration, import & trade policies, and disease tracking and control (CDC).

__________________
Obama isn't change...

He's just a different kind of wrong!

Within reason. I would err on the side of limited govt. If you cant easily prove that something the federal govt is doing will directly affect our national security, then it shouldnt be done. Swine flu vaccinations do not directly protect us from foreign invasion for example. A general ability to protect us from biological attack does however.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Of course, it does. The purpose of government is to encourage and support cooperation while actively discouraging conflict. In your example the answer would be yes, because building roads encourages cooperation between disparate entities.

__________________

If it isn't at the expense of someone elses fundimental rights, yes. I like Aristotles view of a states role in Politics TBH, it seems quite a good summing up of how I see the states role overall (with a certain reinterpretation...)
In orde to increase that persons ability to achieve, yes. I'd support the state doing that to a certain extent; obviously I wouldn't support it imprverishing the successful area and driving the buisness out but it ca be done through far more subtle means than that.
As I said, so long as those criteria are fufilled then I think it should not pealise those who don't need help. I also think that we should recognise that those who have become sucessful havn't done it on there own; they're supported by society and thus have a duty to support society themselves. I still believe in other, less ke rights but to me the core ones are the most important.

__________________

Heres an example then. You live in a small village. Theres a river nearby, you need water. You have a bucket. My philosophy is you are responsible for going to the river and getting water. Is it your philosophy that the village is responsible for bringing water to you because you have a right to life?

CND, this goes for you to. Your govt that exists to promote cooperation. How does it apply to this example?

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

I dont agree that they havent done it on their own. Yes, they had state security so that they werent killed by invaders. But, taking fronteirsman for example. They had the idea to explore, they put together the resources to enable it, and they put the work in to go. Does this mean they should give the state a percentage of whatever they find? My philosophy would say no. They own the product of their labor. The only thing due to society is to protect the lives of fellow citizens from invasion as was done for them.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

I just have one question for people who think the government is incapable of doing anything right.

If the government is incapable of doing anything right, why do you trust your national defense to them?

Interesting example, and one that dosn't exist in a real society. If you unable to get that water yourself, then yes, it does. If not its your duty to your village to get the water, unless your doing somehting thats also useful to the village.

__________________

I would argue that a frontiersman, in the terms of his connection with his 'state' dosn't really have one to obliged too. A buisnessman, on the other hand, does.

__________________

I believe that politics is a necessary evil. I refer to it as evil because it has a long, storied history of turning good people into bad, all while ignoring the citizenry.

By and large, I believe that most people who get involved in politics do so for the right reasons. They just tend to get corrupted before they get the chance.

As for the citizens, I believe that you have every right to do as well as you can for yourself. You also have the right to know that what you have won’t be taken away from you and given to someone else, simply because someone else has less than you. If someone else doesn’t work as hard as you, they shouldn’t have what you have.

I believe that if you want something, and you work hard for it, you can have it. There are simply far too many examples of this for it not to be true.

I think that believing in something doesn’t give you the right to insist that everyone else assume your point of view.

I believe that the two most important rights we have are contained, in order, in the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Anyone who would violate the rest of our rights can often be dealt with by an application of the first two…

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...