Ampersand has once again provided multiple interesting links. The links that prompted me to comment were those to Positive Liberty. Jason at PL often provides well thought-out articles that are worth reading. However, I found the set of articles identified by Ampersand (one, two, three) not to be up to his usual standard.
In this series of articles Jason argues that there are basically three types of political arguments:
[Jason] suggested that three types of arguments tend to dominate American political discourse today. Almost invariably, we justify our political thoughts based either on the will of the majority; or on some theory of justice, understood as a proper apportionment of reward and punishment; or on pluralism, the idea that life is somehow better (though not necessarily more just) when a country permits many different modes of life to exist simultaneously, whether or not the majority of citizens find those practices particularly moral or well-suited to themselves.
He goes on to discuss some political topics, analyzing them with regard to these three basic types of arguments and why they are or are not effective or appropriate. Unfortunately, I disagree with his descriptions of the three types of arguments and his rejection of other types of arguments.
First he declares that democratic ideas of majority rules are not related to justice. I would argue that justice is the foundation of democratic processes. It was in response to the injustice of being ruled without having any say in how that governance should be done that led to the revolt which established this country. We have certainly gotten many things wrong and don't have as fair a system as might be possible, but it was an attempt at creating a just system.
Clearly, part of the purpose behind the rule of law is to protect the rights of some against others, usually the weak against the strong since the strong can often direct events to their own advantage. Still, the rights of the strong must also be protected, as in enforcing collection of legitimate debts. The reason, it seems to me, that people submit to the authority of government is because they accept the social contract which is the basis of a large group of people living together. I think that this is something which libertarians, especially Libertarians, seem to lose sight of.
The idea of majority rule is just because it gives those who are ruled a say in how they are ruled. If someone is abusing their authority then they can be voted out. People are willing to submit to leadership by someone they didn't choose because they hope to be able to have a chance later for someone who better represents their views to be elected. If Jason can suggest a form of government in which people who have different goals and motivations can live together fairly that is more just than one based on majority rule, I'd like to hear about it.
Jason defines his second type of politcal argument as one based on justice. I think that he defines this too narrowly as "a proper apportionment of reward and punishment." Justice, as I see it, encompases fairness as well as reward and punishment. If two people have conflicting demands for a limited resource, then finding a just accomodation between them would involve considering their different claims, how they are each affected by the outcome of the decision, as well as how society might be affected by the decision. Again, this comes back to the social contract by which we agree to be governed. Just because someone can do something with "their property" doesn't mean it is fair to everyone else involved, which includes neighbors and potential future generations.
As for his politcal argument type of "pluralism," this argument now carries weight because it is an outgrowth of and response to injustices of the past. Thus, the arguments that it is better for there to be a reasonable representation of men and women as well as different ethnic groups is in response to previous repressions of people who were not white men which is still a factor in our modern world. As for his later arguments against various environmental arguments as being based on pluralism as some weirdly indefinable benefit of having multiple varieties of animals and plants which considers the imagined thoughts and desires of animals while planing actions, I will say that there may well be a fringe group of environmentalists taking this tack, but I think that the majority of people who are concerned about environmental issues are more concerned about the continued viability of life and quality of life on the planet which we all share. There are multiple examples of ecological disasters caused by people's ill-considered actions. Avoiding future disasters of a similar nature is clearly an issue of justice for those who will follow after and must live with the consequences of our actions.
In his third article Jason dismisses fascism as a different type of political argument with this statement:
In a comment to an earlier post, Paul suggested that fascism--the doctrine that the strong must rule over the weak--was an exception to this three-part system. I believe that he is correct, although fascism is only a minor current in American politics today.
I don't understand where this definition of fascism came from. Perhaps he was thinking of Nazism as being justified by the theoretical superiority of the Aryan race. However, definitions of fascism that I've seen such as this one from the Wikipedia don't match what Jason and Paul mentioned:
The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that-exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
-uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
-engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and
-espouses nationalism and sometimes racism (ethnic nationalism).
I would say that many of these features are frighteningly present in our current administration. If you cannot see elements of this in many of the actions of Bush's government then you're not paying attention.
It is difficult to comment on some of Jason's specific statements since I reject much of the basis. However, I feel motivated to point out a few things.
Jason made a facetious argument about rock music being the most popular music therefore only rock music should be played on radio stations as a reflection of the will of the majority. However, even the link he provides to back up his claim that rock music is the most popular shows that less than 25% of the population prefers rock music. Using this plurality as an example of the absurdity of majority rule is simply nonsensical. Further, this example is used to foster his argument that the FCC should be eliminated because they are trying to do a similar type of censorship based on majority preference for non-obscene broadcasts. I might be willing to entertain an argument that the restrictions put on broadcasters need to be changed, but I don't believe that the FCC should be abolished. The electro-magnetic spectrum (EMS) is a limited resource which should be available to all. There has to be some mechanism for ensuring that competing interests do not interfere with each other by using conflicting technologies. I think that many changes need to be made in the way our EMS is managed, but eliminating all government involvement does not seem to me to be a reasonable response. Jason quotes from the Ayn Rand Institute concerning this:
Broadcasters should not have to plead to the authorities for annual licenses, any more than a homeowner should have to beg for an annual license to use the patch of land he has developed.
I believe that most people do have to make an annual petition to continue to use the land they have developed. This is called property taxes. It is part of the social contract I've mentioned before. We agree to this because of the recognition that these taxes help support the society of which we are a part, and thus it is appropriate for those making use of these societal resouces on a temporarily exclusive basis to pay something for that privilege. I say temporary because even wholly owned property will be turned over to some other entity (whether an heir, the state, or someone else) when the owner dies.
Posted by JoKeR at September 19, 2004 09:47 PM | TrackBackJoker,
First, I am afraid I still believe that the argument from democracy does not presume to settle issues of justice.
Compare a democratic election to a Supreme Court decision. In obeying a Supreme Court decision, we defer to the findings of what are supposed to be very impartial and very wise individuals--even if we don't agree with them. In an election, we merely defer to the greater number. This more than anything else illustrates the difference between the arguments from justice and from democracy. There are indeed relations between the arguments, and you've done well at distinguishing them, but I do not think that they should be conflated.
As to the argument from justice being too narrow in my original post, I agree. I'm guilty as charged. Justice is also employed in fair apportionment arguments where praise and blame aren't so clearly at issue.
There remain a few more minor observations:
--On fascism, I am thinking primarily of Hitler's comments that the German race was the superior race of the world, and that the Jews were inferior. His solution to this problem was not to uplift the Jews, or to hold a vote on their fate. It was simply that the Germans, as the stronger race, should rule over and ultimately destroy the weaker. I'm quite confident that Paul was thinking the same.
--On radio stations, the argument was meant to be facetious. I knew that rock didn't have a clear majority, but I didn't think it mattered because the argument was so ludicrous on its face.
--On property taxes, I agree that some form of taxation is necessary. I reject the notion that we somehow do not "own" our property merely because we pay taxes upon it; I also reject the notion that we own property only by permission of the government. It is the existence of property itself that necessitates government to protect it.
My preference would be for a universal sales tax because it might do a great deal toward eliminating the pernicious idea that we only hold property by government privilege, not by our inherent right. Such an idea is mere feudalism to me.
Posted by: Jason Kuznicki on September 20, 2004 06:01 PMI agree that democracy does not settle issues of justice. The point I was trying to make is that democracy is the best we've been able to come up with to this point for determining our leaders and making decisions. It is better (read that fairer) than dictatorships, rule of might, devine right of kings, or anarchy. Actually, anarchy would be pretty good if we did not have greedy bastards who would be willing to claim more than they need or can even use in order to achieve whatever ambitions they have without regard for others. Individual majority rule decisions might well be unfair or unjust, but I think that majority rule with protected individual rights is the most just system overall of any government system of which I am aware.
Regarding fascism, I'm just trying to demonstrate that fascism is more than just a philosophy of the strong should rule the weak. A feudal system could also be based on the claim of the strong ruling the weak. I don't claim that Bush Inc. are Nazis. I think that they are moving towards a fascist government.
I recognize the facetious nature of the radio station argument. However, I don't think it works even as a reductio ad absurdum argument for your stated belief that the FCC should be abolished.
I agree that the type of taxes and rate of taxation are open to debate. I was not saying that we only hold property by government privilege. I was saying that we hold property by social agreement as recorded and enforced by our agent, the government. There are societies (such as the Africans depicted in "The Gods Must Be Crazy" movies) where personal property is an unknown concept. There is the communist approach where the state owns everything. We have adopted a different social contract than they have fashioned. In ours we recognize personal property and are willing to defend each others' rights to possess such property. I think that many people today have so fully accepted this understanding of possessing personal property that they have lost track of the support and agreement they receive from others for their possession. It is only by mutual consent that we agree that there is personal property. As the saying goes, we don't own the land, we are taking care of it for our children.
Posted by: JoKeR on September 20, 2004 11:55 PM