Society doesn’t have any responsibilities. It doesn’t have any rights. No needs. Nothing. It’s people who have these things. Individuals.
—Libertarian
Doesn’t it? Doesn’t society, as a collective of individuals (people), mirror the qualities of these individuals? I think the alternative is anarchy.
Libertarian’s thought-provoking statement stolen from the “Is sugar a drug” thread, in case anyone want’s to read it in context.
Peace,
mangeorge
I only know two things;
I know what I need to know
And
I know what I want to know
Mangeorge, 2000
Wow! That’s a lotta stuff in just a few words, and I swear I don’t understand any of it.
"Doesn’t it?"
No, it doesn’t. It isn’t a person. Anthropormorphisms do not imbue what they reference with any real humanity. When we say something like, “Genes know how to replicate,” we do not mean that genes are cognitive.
Society is a concept that doesn’t live or breathe. For an entity to be responsible, it must be capapable of being held to account. How do you hold a society to account for its “actions”? How do you “punish” it? If you punish the people (or some of the people) in the society, then it is they who are punished.
"Doesn’t society, as a collective of individuals (people), mirror the qualities of these individuals?"
Why? Is society a reflective parabolic of some kind? Society is merely a set. It has whatever attributes its elements have all in common. But elements of society, while having at least one attribute in common, might not have any other attributes in common!
That’s why a law that makes sense in south central Los Angeles might not make any sense at all in rural Wyoming.
"I think the alternative is anarchy."
Well, that’s just a false dilemma.
Meaningful freedom, freedom from coercion and fraud, is hardly anarchy. No one in anarchy is free except the strongest one.
While it’s good, when speaking in metaphors, to keep in mind that one isspeaking in metaphors, that doesn’t mean that speaking in metaphors is invalid. “Society” is a valid concept; people in aggregate have different properties that people as indviduals, and we need a way to speak about that. For instance, in order for a group of individuals to perpetuate their basic form of organization, individuals in that group must either reproduce or recruit members from other groups, and in both cases the new members must be brought to a state of mind similar to that of the rest of the individuals of the group. That is a societal need. The fact that society can, in a sense, be broken down to individuals no more means that society doesn’t exist than the fact the humans can, in a sense, be broken down to a bunch of cells means that humans don’t exist.
I disagree. I think that the statement “God is responsible for following through on the promises It’s made” is not made any less meaningful by the fact that, strictly speaking, there are no sanctions that can be taken against God.
From m-w:
Main Entry: 1so·ci·e·ty
Pronunciation: s&-'sI-&-tE
Function: noun
3 a : an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b : a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests
5 a : a natural group of plants usually of a single species or habit within an association b : the progeny of a pair of insects when constituting a social unit (as a hive of bees); broadly : an interdependent system of organisms or biological units
(Emphasis on the last sentence is mine )
Other groups to which we commonly attribute humanlike qualities;
Schools
Corporations
Sports teams
Clubs
Political parties
And so on.
You can’t apply logic and/or literal definitions to groups of people.
And groups of people do reflect (mirror) the collective attributes of those people.
And society is, in my mind, the antithesis of anarchy. False dilemma, my patootie.
Most of the “individuals” in our society are either in prisons or mental hospitals.
Peace,
mangeorge
Well, I think most of us accept as an axiom that governments must coerce - if for no other reason than for taxation - and accept as reality that every government is to some degree fraudulent. So I suppose freedom from coercion and fraud ** is ** anarchy.
I believe I said it is a concept but not a living breathing entity, New Age weirdness notwithstanding. It is just a set. A set of elements. The elements are individuals.
Non sequitur. God is incapable of any evil, including breach.
[/quote]
There are lots of ways [to punish society]: war, trade embargo, etc.
[/quote]
Oh, dear Lord.
Haven’t you seen Saving Private Ryan? Don’t you ever see the starving children on TV? You think society’s being punished? Incredible.
mangeorge:
Perhaps you meant to reference the aggregate set of all patooties.
Inductive fallacy.
Only the governments within your experience coerce. An ethically legitimate government will use only defensive and retaliatory force. Never initial force.
You seem to have made it clear that if you do believe that society does exist, you believe it is someone inert entity incapable of any participation in human affairs. Well, if an entity can have no interaction with humans, that’s pretty much the same thing as it not existing, isn’t? Practically speaking, that is. And if you’re going to bring such mathematical terms as “set” an “element” into this discussion, then I think this is a good time to remind you that it is quite common for sets to have attributes that can not be assigned to any individual element.
No, your statement is the nonsequitor. I made a claim about the meaningfulness of a statement; I said nothing about its truthfullness. Whether the statement is true or not is completely separate debate and is not relevant to this one. Whether it is meaningful, however, is relevant to this discussion. My point is that even if someone or something is beyond human justice, that does not make that being beyond human judgement.
(BTW, why did you insist on injecting your male chauvinism into my quote?)
Yes, I do. You don’t? What, you think the German society didn’t mind be invaded? I find that incredible. If I shoot someone in the chest, there may be more damage to the cells in the chest than to the cells in the head. Perhaps shooting the head would be more effective. But the whole body still suffers. What’s so complicated about that concept?
Rather quick to shout “Fallacy! Fallacy!”, aren’t you? Mind explaining just what the fallacy was? All I saw was someone laying out an axiom. Since axioms are, by definition, not supported by arguments, I don’t see how an axiom could possibly be arrived at by means of a fallacy.
What I thought I made clear was that society is a set. It isn’t capable or incapable. It is a set of elements. Its elements are people. They are capable and incapable.
If you refer to the set of voters, you are doing so for convenience, in order to talk about something that all the elements have in common. The only thing in common among elements of society is humanity. To say that society has decided this or society needs that is absurd unless you’re talking about needs that every person has, like the need to breathe air.
But to say that society has decided sugar is or is not a drug is meaningless. The fact is that some people in the society have decided that sugar is or is not a drug. Namely, those with the most political clout. They are the same ones who might submarine you by deciding that some people don’t need any air.
Nothing at all. It’s called authoritarianism. It’s the belief that individuals are irrelevant. They are to society like cells are to a body.
I did. I explained that, “Only the governments within your experience coerce.” You even quoted it.
Huh? Axioms are not not supported by arguments. Axioms are induced, and you must often argue the truth of your axioms by inductive reasoning.
I even debated a guy once who, it turned out, rejected the axiom that A is A.
Lib., what you miss in this discourse is the concept that society is not simply the set of individuals, but the set of individuals who subscribe to it. As such, while they may be desirous of change in it, they accept it as a working project, and suppress their antisocial characteristics voluntarily to make it work. For the most part, this is done totally subconsciously and effectively involuntarily, but when brought to the surface is done by choice.
By this context, society does have rights, privileges, responsibilities, and other socio-ethical qualities. These qualities are the sum (or perhaps more than the sum?) of those individuals who participate in it.
Please note: this is true even in Libertaria. It is constituted by a social contract of libertarians who choose to enact the golden rule (as appropriately modified) as the standard of behavior between them, allowing all behavior that does not contravene it. Or do I mistake your understanding of it?
I think there is another side to this individual also has a responsibility to society, such as get a job and get off wellfare. If I see a rabbed dog I have a duty to shoot to protect my fellow man.
Well, I wouldn’t call imprisonment of someone who is peaceful and honest a “subscription”. In a Fabianist society, you must cooperate whether you “subscribe” or not. And if you are given a choice not to subscribe, then your society is a libertarian one.
Well, I’m not sure, just from that, what you think I think.
All who are peaceful and honest in Libertaria are volunteers. I’ve made that point so many times, that I am coming to realize that I am not making it clearly enough. Perhaps I need more exposition. After all, I am the most long winded poster (for which I have documented proof.)
When I say “all” I mean “every single last one of the elements”. I mean “no exceptions, not even one”. I mean that there aren’t any people, zip, zero, nada, nunca, de rien, nihilo, nothing, none, nobody — who has not given consent to be governed.
Otherwise, it is some context other than a libertarian one.
How does the fact that it is a set make it neither capable nor incapable? And if it is neither capable nor incapable, then is it your position that “society” has no practical meaning?
Individuals do not have any need to reproduce (or immigrate) in order to survive. Society, to survive, requires either reproduction or immigration. Sounds like society has a need that isn’t shared by any of its members.
It is a subjective statement, but it isn’t meaningless. It means that whoever has the power to decide it has decided it. As to who has that power, that’s subjective.
The belief that damage to any individual damages the rest of society is authoritarianism? Says who? And how does saying that every individual matters mean that individuals are irrelevant? Are cells in a body irrelevant? If you cut your finger, does it not hurt?
Do you know what a fallacy is? It’s an argument or portion of an argument that is invalid. To show what the fallacy is, you must show what argument or portion of argument is invalid. You can’t just say what’s wrong with it; you have to say what it is.
I think what part of the problem is here is confusion between the ideas of Axiom(self evident) and Premise(something you base an argument on). Taking the “governments coerce” as an axiom means that it must be self evident, which I’m not sure it is. However, simply taking it as a premise means that it must be proved.
I would say that it can be proved that Governments coerce. Governments are based upon laws. (This I am taking to be self evident based upon the meaning of the word government(the body which governs (makes laws)) (essentially, a government that is not based upon laws is anarchic and not a government) Laws are formulated such that they must be obeyed, and are reinforced by the threat of punishment. Essentially, Laws are supported by violence. Governments are based upon laws. Hence, Governments are coercive, or are based upon violence.
Well, when someone says “I consider this an axiom”. that means they consider it self evident. Whether something is self evident is itself not subject to proof; either you think so or not.
Not necessarily.
There are two different ways of viewing the statement “All governments coerce” (actually, there are an infinite number of ways, but I’m trying to keep it simple). One way is to consider “government” to have a definite meaning prior to the staatement, and the statement to be commenting on that meaning. The other way is thinking about it is that since “government” is a vague term, the statement is an attempt to clarify just what one means by the term “government” i.e. “Part of what I mean by ‘goverment’ is ‘an organization that coerces’.” Since “government” is a rather vague term, the latter use does make a certain amount of sense, although it can cause a lot of rancor if people don’t understand that that is what you’re doing.
