Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jaxian
I think you're wrong about the definition of anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of any form of political authority. It is not a culture state, it is indeed a political state. For example, a group of animals in the forest might live in anarchy because they have no political authority. However, there is no reason to believe that this group of animals has attained some cultural state that has made laws superfluous, it simply means that they have not yet evolved enough as a society to create a political authority for the benefit of everyone.
|
A group of animals in the forest doesn't have a body politic, and to refer to them as living in anarchy is a category mistake that trades on the amphiboly of the term "anarchy". Politics, as a subject, in not applicable to animals.
Anarchy is very much a cultural state rather than a political state, because the absence of political authority in an anarchist society is like the absence of political authority in a forest full of animals, non-applicable. It is not a case of a group of people getting together and arriving at a political consensus to live without political authority, but rather a group of people living without political authority because their culture precludes it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jaxian
While it may be true that if a society becomes culturally perfect, they will no longer need laws and can resort to anarchy, it is not necessarily the case that anarchy is only present in a culturally perfect society. But I should reinforce this point: anarchy is the absence of political authority, not a cultural state of perfection.
|
I'm not claiming that anarchy is "culturally perfect" nor "a cultural state of perfection". Instead I'm pointing out that in order for a society to be without political authority, political authority must be culturally un-necessary. Any attempt to discard the institution of political authority in an archic culture simply leads to a power struggle as the vaccuum in the culture is filled. Such a struggle is anarchic only in the pejorative sense, much like we might call any opinion we don't like "liberal".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jaxian
Harm is not what contravenes legally recognized rights; it is that which lowers the happiness of a person or persons.
|
Utilitarian schemes of "happiness" and "utility" are notorious for their lack objectivity, which is why much more useful deontological rights are used to determine harm in a liberal society. If you want to define harm in terms of happiness, then you're working according to the wrong political system. In order that any definition of harm not fall to issues of relativism, it must be politically defined in terms of rights for it to have objective status.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jaxian
I should also mention that not all political rights are protected by the Constitution but by laws passed by the legislature, and thus a law that violates a political right might not be unconstitutional.
|
A law that violates a political right in this manner would simply be a case of conflicting laws, and the conflict would have to be decided through the application of constitutional law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jaxian
Again, you are working with the wrong definition of anarchy, so it is understandable why you might misinterpret what I've said. Also mention that removing usless or harmful laws should not qualify as "dismantling" the state, for the ultimate goal is to institute only the necessary laws to make the state work, not to slowly remove government alltogether.
|
I beg to disagree. I am working under a very good definition of anarchy. For one thing, it does not confuse anarchism with liberalism. Removing un-necessary laws is a liberal activity, rather than an anarchic one.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jaxian
I am not quite certain what your suggestion here is. It is my opinion, however, that in a liberal state, the best way to protect rights is to deny the government the ability to create laws which violate those rights. Whether that is best accomplished by enumerating things which the government is not allowed to do or by listing only the powers that the government is allowed is a different discussion, I think.
|
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm pointing out that in a liberal state any changes to the legal system that protects rights involves rejigging the entire system. This is such that denying the gov't the ability to violate your rights will inevitably lead to the violation of other's rights.
06-06-2005, 02:32 PM
Hybrid Mode
