Tyler ’s Comments (group member since May 09, 2008)

Tyler ’s comments from the Philosophy group.

Hi Bill --

We're thinking about the relationship between rights and liberties slightly differently, but what you say makes sense. I appreciate the way you lay out your examples. I was trying to express a similar (but maybe not the same) idea when I mentioned that liberties and rights often conflict so that one or the other has to yield.

The right to free speech is an example of one of the most rigorously recognized rights, but even it has limits at the margins, so what you mean by unalienable becomes a question even there. I mention that because what I've been considering lately is the way by which something we've come to recognize as a moral right becomes, or doesn't become, a political right. So I'm trying to see how the concept of alienable and unalienable rights plays itself out in both the moral and the political spheres.

I've read Republic but not Laws. It would be interesting to see the comparison.

Liberty is one thing--it is the free exercise of inalienable rights.

Okay, and those rights are distinct from one another, whatever they are. So there's not one liberty any more than there's one right, as far as I can tell. Or, to reverse the terms, is there a "right to liberty"? I don't think so, for the same reason, and for the further reason that rights and liberties are going to conflict at some point. If they never do, we wouldn't need courts or even government, would we?

Now let's say we dispense with any notion of equality, be it equal treatment (before the law) or any other kind, legal or moral. How, then, do you justify the rights? Once you dispense with a notion of equality, however that's defined, then you will have no basis for liberties.

Calling something an unalienable right doesn't help here -- all it does is move the question back to the state of nature. And again, how can humans have any unalienable rights or liberties if they aren't thought of as in some way equal to one another?

This points up the contradiction you drew attention to earlier concerning the Founding Fathers and slavery. The only way to argue against slavery had to in some way recognize a concept of equal treatment.

All I've said is that there is no one right to liberty because there is no one definition of liberty, and your post didn't provide one that I could tell.

There are kinds of liberty, and each one is justified independently of the other. That was my philosophical point. The problem is that liberties will often conflict with rights, most importantly the right to equal treatment. I think that right arises prior to the various liberties we have, and that the most important liberties will turn out to be grounded in the right to equal treatment.

We can say we have the liberty to drive any way we want, but that liberty must give way the government's policy of smooth traffic flow. Thus, we do not really have an unalienable liberty to drive the wrong way in traffic. The fact that not all liberties are this trivial just shows that there's no one liberty that subsumes every other one.

Robert, that's my point. The direction of politics did not radically change with the elections or the advent of the Tea Party. It may seem as if it did close up, but over the long run I don't see how either event changed the course of politics. It doesn't matter whether you're on the winning or losing side in an election that's not going to make much difference anyway.


Or maybe you could explain what it WOULD look like for common people to "insert" themselves?

If a mature democracy can't replicate an event such as what Egypt went through, then your question is well placed indeed. No, I cannot say what such an event in our context would look like. But I think Bill's earlier comment, that the system was designed to be broken, has relevance for us. The political system right now is completely static, or stable, if you will, and that's not necessarily healthy.

With philosophy books I've found that I almost always order them online, usually through a used book dealer. The ones that are used by college professors are extremely expensive. I've been using Barnes & Nobles' site with pretty good success.

Hi Nemo --

If you're interested in Plato that sounds like a great way to continue with him. The Republic is too idealistic and general as a guide to governance. It would be interesting to know if Laws has had a lasting effect on jurisprudence in the West.

Yes, I think Robert should be respectful toward his eggs and salsa, and the two should never be mixed together on the same plato.

How much more insertion would you need?

Obama's election and the rise of the Tea Party aren't examples of common people inserting themselves into the political process. They are examples of people being devoured by it.

Millions of Egyptians taking to the streets to put a stop to legal but criminal behavior by their government is an example of people interfering directly with the political process.

I agree with your earlier point that we can't have the same sort of revolution in a mature democracy. But that still leaves the fact -- or perhaps it's just my feeling of the matter -- that common people here cannot meaningfully affect the course of political events these days.

Hi Bill --

The inherent hypocrisy and inconsistency eventually worked itself out though, didn't it?

There is nothing inconsistent about it if the notion of liberty is detached from that of equality. I don't think there is a right to liberty as such because there are many kinds of liberties, and each is justified independently of the other.

Well, they certainly defended their liberty to keep slaves.

Or, perhaps, if the system wasn't designed to be broken, it has be from time to time to keep it responsive to people's needs.

I'm not calling for a revolution -- it's just the feeling I get that the system is permanently broken. So it's not a matter of replacing something; it's rather a matter of finding a way for common people to insert themselves directly into the political process, as they did over there, and which they need to do in any system from time to time.

I have to say I'm riveted by the revolution in Egypt (and Tunisia). Part of it is that I get this sneaking sense that I'd somehow like to do here what they just did there. But why? Don't we already have democracy and freedom? Why does it feel to me as if we don't?

Perhaps it's just your point: we have a two-party system that feels like it's actually a one-party state. Nothing meaningful seems possible in the current political situation. And that's what it felt like in Egypt, too.

I hope you're right about those steps amounting to a check on costs. And the exclusion of pre-existing conditions is significant, too.

The problem is the insurance companies themselves. As far as I can tell, they have no incentives to hold down premiums. And because the government is committed to getting everyone on private insurance plans with no corresponding limits on what those companies can charge, I think the costs are going to keep going up and the bulk of the increase will end up hidden in the general deficit.

In other words, this scheme, like the financial bailout, will amount to an unlimited transfer of wealth from public to private hands, and the taxpayers will inherit the bill. This modus operandi of government action nowadays is explained by the need for pragmatism in politics -- unless somebody gets paid off, nobody gets anything.

But this very pragmatism is the wider issue that makes differences between the two ruling political parties comparatively minor. Yet this way of doing business isn't even part of the political debate. The result is that the government has lost its ability to plan ahead and can only do what the politics of the moment dictate.

For this same reason, I don't think these calls by the Tea Party for massive spending cuts are going to come to anything. Somebody has to be paid off to take any action, so the end result will be a wash.

With the political system the way it is now, cutting spending will mean that we will not have universal health care coverage, and universal coverage means we will not be able to control spending. Why does it have to be that artificial dichotomy? That's the issue neither party addresses. They have both embedded these rules into the political system, and we have no other polical parties powerful enough do away with this modus operandi.

My point is that the gains from universal health care are as you say, but they will not stand under the current political system.

I'm glad your relationship with your food is strictly Platonic.

The scope of the Obama expansion is greater, but the nature of each program is the same, each being devoid of meaningful ways to hold down health care costs. If that's the case, doesn't that point to some broader issue that makes the particular disagreement between the two parties comparatively minor?

Hi Nemo --

Are you reading this as part of a philosophy class? For Plato, it seems like an awfully large book.

I guess I'm just flabbergasted that people can say there is not much substantive difference between Bush and Obama. I guess it has something to do with the reference point.

Yes, I agree. I'm using a more inclusive reference point. The disagreements between the parties are relatively minor in light of the big picture.

Here are a couple of examples. When Obama took over, he retained all of Bush's financial advisors. Why would he have done that? Because he and Bush aren't that far apart on issues pertaining to financial regulation -- neither wants to change the status quo.

As another example, people were infuriated by Obama's expansion of health care. But Bush did exactly the same thing back in 2006, when he created a vast new program, Medicare Part D, to cover the costs of prescription drugs. There are questions about cost containment in both cases, but in neither has that been addressed.

About the Greek idea of democracy, I can see that people didn't like the majoritarian nature of it, even at the time. I think the ancient Greeks were confused about the idea of the majority having the right to have its way. It took a lot of time before philosophers began disputing the idea that "rights," whatever they are, could properly be attributed to a group of people, such as a majority.

The idea that rights can belong only to individuals took off rather recently, and it's the recognition of that idea that has made democracy a viable alternative to other forms of government. So Patrice is right -- democracy works only because of a Bill of Rights.

It draws attention to what a vague word democracy is. When people say they want it, I'm not sure I automatically know just what it is they're insisting on.

About Obama and Bush I'll say that I see a difference in style, but little in substance.

About the wars what strikes me is that we seem to know what we're fighting against, but the country has no clue what it's fighting for. That is both dangerous and morally compromising. It reminds me of Vietnam.

About the Mideast revolutions, I'm certain that they're the real deal, and that the people, at least in Tunisia and Egypt, are bringing about democracies that protect minority rights at the same time. I'm very surprised.

Hi Aloha, and welcome. Robert's right -- we don't throw eggs excessively here. If we did, we wouldn't be thinking in a philosophical spirit, and it's that quality that sets us apart.

Since you're a fan of SciFi you know that if technology and science advance enough it will raise philosophical questions about personal identity and even transhumanism. Many thought experiments in philosophy deal with this; the study of the mind is a major philosophical topic as well as a scientific one. The field is in flux.

One book that takes up the mind and personal identity from a philosophical angle is The Constitution of Selves. I liked it and you might be interested in the author's approach to the question of identity.