02-11-2010, 07:04 PM
Hi,
However, once it is accepted that society owes a responsibility to the individual (and, regardless of your feelings and political leanings, that has been accepted in most industrial societies including the USA), then the individual must owe a responsibility to society. If the state is going to pay your bills, then the state can (and should) require that you do anything reasonable to minimize those bills. Such as wearing seat belts, etc. The very fact that such laws are needed is an indicator that "people are too stupid to do the right thing, and so we must force them to change for their own good." Except that it is not so much for their good as for ours. That seat belt might make the difference between minor injuries (and minor costs) and major injuries (with major costs). Both the individual and society are well served by that seat belt. And yet, people are constantly ticketed for failure to wear them.
Of course, seat belts are only one (trivial) example But they illustrate many of the points involved. The balance of responsibilities. The interests of individuals and of society. The assumption of control following the assumption of liability.
Now, your proposed solution seems to be to remove all government involvement. Fine. Consider the history of the United States. At first, there was no social security, no Medicare, no educational system, no labor laws, no fire department, no police force, no army, no OSHA, no treasury, not even a central government. And it didn't work. So in 1781 they tried the Articles of Confederation. It was better, but not enough. Then, in 1789, the Constitution went into effect. Still better, still more government involvement, still not enough. But it was a framework within which what was necessary (and, sometimes unnecessary) could be accomplished. And in that framework, we have the situation as it is now.
Few, I would think, find the present situation ideal -- few ever have. There are problems, although just what they are is a matter of contention. There are proposed solutions ranging from the simplistic to the visionary. But to propose that we return to the status pre 1781 is probably one of the most simplistic of all. Do we really want to repeat all the mistakes of the past two and a quarter centuries?
We can go forward, we can go back, or we can stand still. There are no other choices. Unless one is happy with the present situation, then standing still is not an option. Going back does not solve the problems, it simply puts us in the situation that generated the problems in the first place. That leaves going forward. Will it solve the problems? Maybe not, but it is the only course that stands any chance. Progressive? What's the alternative?
--Pete
Quote:Edit: I'd throw in a heavy dose of elitism as well. The debate for progressive change starts with assuming people are too stupid to do the right thing, and so we must force them to change for their own good.No. The debate for progressive change starts with assuming that we, as a society, cannot let people suffer and die needlessly if we can help to prevent it. It is based on the concept that we are empathic members of humanity and not totally self centered individuals. Whether that argument is right is, of course, debatable. Few accept either extreme position, but where the balance should lie is difficult to determine.
However, once it is accepted that society owes a responsibility to the individual (and, regardless of your feelings and political leanings, that has been accepted in most industrial societies including the USA), then the individual must owe a responsibility to society. If the state is going to pay your bills, then the state can (and should) require that you do anything reasonable to minimize those bills. Such as wearing seat belts, etc. The very fact that such laws are needed is an indicator that "people are too stupid to do the right thing, and so we must force them to change for their own good." Except that it is not so much for their good as for ours. That seat belt might make the difference between minor injuries (and minor costs) and major injuries (with major costs). Both the individual and society are well served by that seat belt. And yet, people are constantly ticketed for failure to wear them.
Of course, seat belts are only one (trivial) example But they illustrate many of the points involved. The balance of responsibilities. The interests of individuals and of society. The assumption of control following the assumption of liability.
Now, your proposed solution seems to be to remove all government involvement. Fine. Consider the history of the United States. At first, there was no social security, no Medicare, no educational system, no labor laws, no fire department, no police force, no army, no OSHA, no treasury, not even a central government. And it didn't work. So in 1781 they tried the Articles of Confederation. It was better, but not enough. Then, in 1789, the Constitution went into effect. Still better, still more government involvement, still not enough. But it was a framework within which what was necessary (and, sometimes unnecessary) could be accomplished. And in that framework, we have the situation as it is now.
Few, I would think, find the present situation ideal -- few ever have. There are problems, although just what they are is a matter of contention. There are proposed solutions ranging from the simplistic to the visionary. But to propose that we return to the status pre 1781 is probably one of the most simplistic of all. Do we really want to repeat all the mistakes of the past two and a quarter centuries?
We can go forward, we can go back, or we can stand still. There are no other choices. Unless one is happy with the present situation, then standing still is not an option. Going back does not solve the problems, it simply puts us in the situation that generated the problems in the first place. That leaves going forward. Will it solve the problems? Maybe not, but it is the only course that stands any chance. Progressive? What's the alternative?
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?