What Is The Limit to Personal Freedom?

[Everyman]

Glen wrote: "If a physician is required by law, then the government would use a volunteer method first and I'm sure would find enough for that number. If that failed some compromise would be made to training others. "

That would be nice, but some states are finding it impossible to get cooperation from doctors. Some state medical associations, which are largely controlled by the more liberal members of the profession, oppose any use of doctors in capital punishment, and even threaten to expel any members who participate.

And consider this May, 2010 article: "The American Board of Anesthesiologists “has quietly decided to revoke the certification of any member who participates in executing a prisoner by lethal injection,” according to The Washington Post." Source:

http://www.studentdoctor.net/2010/05/...

And this, yesterday, from a German (English language) newspaper: "Doctors are backing a call by Health Minister Philipp Rösler for German drug firms to refuse to supply a key agent used in lethal injection executions to the United States." Source:
http://www.thelocal.de/society/201101...

Or this, five years old but still relevant: THE execution of a Californian man was postponed at the last minute yesterday after two court-appointed doctors refused to help to administer the lethal injection, a move that reignited America’s death penalty debate.

Michael Morales, who has been on death row since 1983 for the rape and murder of a teenage girl, was scheduled to die at 12.01am. But the execution was suddenly put off after the two anaesthetists withdrew, claiming their involvement would violate their medical oath to preserve life.

The involvement of the doctors, which had been ordered by a judge, was the first such case in the US..."
Source:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol...

So assuming that the death penalty is a public policy, here we see licensed professionals refusing to provide a government-approved service for moral reasons, and getting away with it.

They won't participate in a state-ordered killing, and there is apparently no penalty. Pharmacists won't participate in what they see as a state sanctioned killing (clearly it is a killing; whether what you kill is a person or not is a matter for personal conscience and belief) but are threatened with the loss of their licenses and professions and the waste of many, many thousands of dollars of education and many, many hours of preparation.

The ethical basis for this discrepancy is???

[[deleted user]]

In Canada, the death penality was eliminated in 1976. I don't know if you are aware of that. I was not aware that the health professions were stopping members by threatening loss of licenses. What hypocrisy. I guess all the physicians in countries with euthanasia should lose their license too. The government could theoretically charge the professional bodies with extortion. I recently read the pharmaceutical companies are no longer manufacturing certain products relating to this issue because of bad publicity. That is a larger problem than the professional bodies.

There are still options for the government. Change the method of execution to one which still has no suffering (except mental ) on the individual. E.g. Give them a heavy dose of hypnotic such as secobarbital in their cell, when they are unconscious,move them to the appropriate location, and use the guilotine. It may be sound gruesome but it is not like hanging, the firing squad, etc.

In Canada, the federal government killed the death penalty . Forgive my wording. Do all states have a death penalty and does the federal criminal law overide state criminal law?

Our national government could hold a plebiscite on the issue and legislate accordingly. They don't as it would probably mean a return to the death penalty with all ethical problems that entails. It also could cause major fractures in the country with the mors conservative provinces wanting the return and the more liberal,maybe the reverse.

If the great majority of people want capital punishement, change the mode or have guts enough to produce your own executioners or protect those within the professions against their own organizations.

Personally, I think it is a political dilemna not an ethical one for the government. The professional bodies are in the wrong. The government is between a rock and a hard place. How much money and how many lives are lost if the cost of keeping a killer alive is taken from the health care system or any other sevices which saves lives. Ethically no captial punishment probably wins, supporting the people who want capital punishment (if the significant majority) it is poltically right and debatable from an ethical point of view.



I believe in government by respesentation as they have the opportunity to have better informed opinions than the public. I think there has been one free vote in the house since the implimentation of the ban. They decided to support the existing legislation. However the government is on the high ground where the public still wants capital punishment. Serial killers of children create the most support for capital punishment.

The professions have boxed the government in on the issue. Change the system that healers do not have to be part of the execution process. If you do not want to take them to court, change the system of execution. Still a lack of government leadership.

[Tyler]

Hi Bill --

You seem to think that licencing power is an expression of complete right of the Government to completely control all commercial activity.

What is it in fact? Precisely that, by definition of the activity as commercial in nature. No government doesn't regulate such activity somehow. Whether it should be an inalienable right is a different question, and presumes a social contract of some sort. The question is whether rational agents in a "state of nature" would agree that this secures equal liberty. I don't think they would. Of course, equal liberty may not be what you're aiming for in establishing founding principles. But if that's the case, you have to sell people in a "state of nature" on some concept of inequality.


This the totalitarianism, in act and spirit, which comes of always giving 'the public good' priority.

The public good is a neutral concept that cannot be defined as totalitarianism or anything else on the bare definition of it. My point is that this concept is the only means by which individuals can be protected from the predations of others, and the only means by which the idea of a society would make sense to persons in a hypothetical state of nature.

If we hold the idea that all men are created equal as realistic, each person must have equal liberty. No private association can uphold this principle, and if you have any ideas along that line, I'd like to hear them. Thus, a notion of the public good is the only guarantee we have of our individual freedoms.

[Tyler]

Hi Everyman --

The state could conceivably require some doctor to be present at an execution if the taking of life is an explict part of the agreement by which doctors are licensed. But this just throws more light on the morality of the death penalty, and we'd be more likely to see the death penalty ended than for that requirement to be enforced.


That, of course, begs the question what is the public good and who decides what it is.

I agree. But that in itself doesn't make the concept of the public good immoral.

[Tyler]

Hi Glen --

If I'm correct, no doctor or pharmacist in the United States will agree to assist in an execution, and this is the source of the problem with lethal injection.

We really do have to have trained executioners in this country, because the personnel who carry out lethal injections now botch what they're doing over and over again.

Now, on top of that, the company making one of the chemicals used in lethal injections has ceased production to avoid having that chemical used in this way. It may be the end of lethal injection as a means of execution.

[Everyman]

Tyler wrote: "The public good is a neutral concept that cannot be defined as totalitarianism or anything else on the bare definition of it. "

The public good is a meaningless phrase in and of itself. There is very little, if any, objective agreement on what constitutes the public good.

Some phrases have central agreed meaning with disagreement on the fringes. Freedom of religion, for example; there is, I believe, general agreement that this means you can worship whatever god or non-god you want to or don't want to. There are still some fringes, sch as the issue we have been discussion of whether freedom of religion allows a pharmacist to refuse to fill a legal prescription when filling it would violate his or her religious beliefs. But the core of what freedom of religion constitutes is, I think, fairly broadly accepted. (Even if one lives in a country in which freedom of religion is not accepted, I think there is general philosophical agreement on what it means.)

The public good is a very different thing. I can think of very little that gets broad agreement as being in the public good. Oh, a few things -- freedom from being murdered, unless you're in Stalinist Russia. But even such basic things as we agree on in this country -- the acceptance of private ownership of property subject to government power to take it, for example -- isn't universally accepted as a public good; many argue the contrary.

Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, and others tried to come to some understanding of the concept of public good, but they didn't succeed, in my opinion.

It's nice in theory. But in reality, each of us has our own concept of what the public good is, and those concepts can be vastly different.

[Everyman]

Tyler wrote: "That, of course, begs the question what is the public good and who decides what it is.

I agree. But that in itself doesn't make the concept of the public good immoral.
"

I never said it was immoral, and if my post suggested that, it was a misstatement. But as my previous post points out, the public good is a pretty contentless phrase.

[[deleted user]]

Tyler wrote: "Hi Glen --

If I'm correct, no doctor or pharmacist in the United States will agree to assist in an execution, and this is the source of the problem with lethal injection.

We really do have to..."

It is my understanding that the health professions are threatening any of their members who would be willing to participate. In other words, the profession is stating that no one in the profession should believe in capital punishment. I would suggest the great majority would agree with them but there are always exceptions. I found it interesting in our country that we have had physician strikes in certain provinces but they didn't seem to think that was wrong because they had enough working to prevent any deaths. Deaths actually dropped but that's another issue.

It could be perceived in USA that the health professions are acting as a lobby for eliminating the death penalty. All the govnernment has to do is eliminate their involvement in the process to solve the political problem. The ethical issue will always be divisive.

[Everyman]

Another, this time gruesomely graphic, example of the question, who defines the public good?

In Afghanistan, a couple is stoned to death for adultery. She was sold in an arranged marriage, but ran away to be with her married lover. They were captured and condemned by the Taliban, and stoned, she almost to death (after which she was shot to death), he to death.

The story is here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...

The pertinent quote for our purposes is this:
Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid defended the stoning.
He told the BBC: 'Anyone who knows about Islam knows that stoning is in the Koran, and that it is Islamic law.
'There are people who call it inhuman - but in doing so they insult the Prophet. They want to bring foreign thinking to this country.'

For the Taliban, the public good is to follow the teachings of the Koran, and the humanistic thinking of the West is rejected as foreign thinking, which is for the most part factually accurate.

We are horrified by this, both the sale into marriage and the stoning, but obviously the crowd who stoned them or the society which allowed her to be sold into marriage were not, but saw this as an element of the public good, keeping their society pure to the teachings, as they understand them, of the Koran.

Whither the public good??

[[deleted user]]

I have read a few books on the middle east and Islam. Also read many books on Christianity. What the governments of the past have done in the name of religion is sometimes difficult to comprehend.

There is really no answers except the hope that the more radical nations from the norm will eventually learn or be forced by economics or international dissaproval which has some bite. South AFrica , even if it still has significant problems, comes to mind.

Separation of state and religion helped in the west but I'm not sure that is workable with the historical background of that part of the world. It took us until the 20th century to begin the long process of having better equality of the sexes and we're not finished. Hopefully historical events in the near future will improve the lot of women in many parts of the world. Mass communication and access to education through same may be part of the solution.

I also think new immigrants to the west and more progrssive countries also helps. They often send money home and are a more trusted voice of the realities of living in a richer and/or more tolerant country.

Perhaps the "public good" in the long term will relate more to the international community rather than individual states. Thats a long way into the future.

[Everyman]

Glen wrote: "I have read a few books on the middle east and Islam. Also read many books on Christianity. What the governments of the past have done in the name of religion is sometimes difficult to comprehend. ..."

Isn't there an inherent core bias in what you say that the public good is what liberal Westerners consider the public good? Why shouldn't the true public good be the Islamic version of the public good? I know neither you nor I really believes that, and I doubt that anybody on this board does. But a huge number of people in the world do believe that the world would be a better place, with a better public good, if everybody converted to Islam and the rule of the Koran were the universal rule of mankind.

That's the core problem, isn't it? You (and I and others) truly believe that our version of the public good is better than their version of the public good, and that if as you say " Perhaps the "public good" in the long term will relate more to the international community rather than individual states" the public good that the international community adopts will be our version of the public good and not theirs.

But with the birth rates in Western countries dropping and those in Muslim countries continuing to rise, and with the forces we see in Lebanon and North Africa seeming to move those countries more toward the fundamental Islamic view than the Western democratic view, it's by no means clear what the international community will eventually settle on, if it ever does.

[[deleted user]]

Everyman wrote: "Glen wrote: "I have read a few books on the middle east and Islam. Also read many books on Christianity. What the governments of the past have done in the name of religion is sometimes difficult to..."

I think a place like Malaysia has a somwhat differenct approach to Islam. I doubt very much that the international community will be our version of the public good.

I won't pretend to know what it will be , but half the human population is female and I don't see the female population with the support of at least a strong minority of men will lose that fight. Women in the Islam world once were better off than Christina women accoding to Karen Armstrong one of the most important religious historians in the English speaking world. It will change again.

People like Karen Armstrong are stressing the similarities among C,I, and Judaism They are bascially related. Look what happened in Christian Germany. Was that Christianity speaking or being manipulated by polticians. We think the Christians burned down the Library of Alexandria.

Of course I believe (bias) some sort of representative govnernment is politically more feasible. However, the French president has more power (or used to ) than any other leader of the west. He's elected but has close to one man rule if I understand corrctly.

Relgious tolerance was pretty good in the empire of Genghis Khan. All religions were tolerated. But if you tried to play a part in secular rule, you were basically dead. I figure that is more likely to happen than have Hindus Buddhists, Ch.Is. and J all march together and agree on one ideology.

I guess I'm an optimist. Islam as you know is like Chrisitanity in that there many sects. There are so many interacial marriages happening in B.C. that the religious configuration is very confusing.

There would be major war if one relgious ideology tries to dominate. I know quite a few Asian Christians but the biggest single group in our province are not affiliated with any religion. I do believe that is the future for more of the world in the future.

People will change if it means life over death. I suspect eventually the earth will have a lot less people caused by one thing or another. Fighting over a limited number of resources will become a larger problem than any ideology unless the population is controlled.

We can be thankful we live in North America where we are practically surrounded by water. Unfortunately the best moral values doesn't win but the most power. Like it or not Canada, USA and Mexico future are very closely connected. Try for a complete international community but make sure we three are close to the same page. I include Mexico because Americans will never feel safe with unstable Mexico at their border. Reduction in American fear of losing control in domestic affairs is probably more important than international affairs. You want the majority of Americans on the same page at least domestically. The Mexican immigration issue is your new civil right issue( with obvious difference )in my perspective. Solving that issue will make you much stronger than say resolving the problem of North Korea.

[Tyler]

The public good is a meaningless phrase in and of itself. There is very little, if any, objective agreement on what constitutes the public good.

The public good is an uncontroversial concept. It refers to disinterested action on behalf of society as a whole. In particular, it contrasts with the notion of private association. The only entity in society capable of acting for the public good is the government.

It may be debateable whether a particular act of the government works for the public or private benefit, but that there is a public good in the first place is beyond dispute.

It might be said that all acts are irrational, hence there is no such thing as a disinterested act. But to argue that people cannot think rationally about what's in their interest is a doubtful proposition. Moreover, if that were the case it would be, by the same token, impossible to determine any private interest.

People who think rationally can and do reach agreement as to what contitutes the public good.

Afghanistan is a perfect example of what happens when the concept of a public good is missing from a society. No warlord in the country rules on a disinterested basis. The enforcement of Islamic principles on the public is not a disinterested act; it's an example of state run for a private association, Islam.

The motivation for denying the concept of a public good is the idea that equal liberty cannot be given to people who are manifestly unequal. The alternative to democracy, so the reasoning goes, is some form of corporatism, which means the mediation of group interests. That's because only a democracy governed by an explicit social contract can guarantee individual rights. If you take power from the state, you don't return it to individuals; you merely transfer it to private associations that will act only for the private interests of their members.

[Tyler]

I'm not denying the existence of a 'public good' or that it shouldn't be a consideration in governing. I just disagree that it is the primary consideration.

I'm not saying the public good is a moral basis for society, but rather that it is the only means by which such a basis can be established. If individual rights, or liberties, or equal justice, or whatever, is to have priority over other principles, then it is only through a concept of a public good that that priority can be enforced.

I do not believe that equality means equal outcomes for each person. On the other hand, the more pronounced inequality becomes, the greater the chance is that the private interests of those who in the best off position will render meaningless the equal rights, liberties, and access to justice of those in worse off positions.


Of course you may doubt the sincerity or the rationality of these atrocities committed for the public good. Unfortunately, I think you'd be wrong. According to the Taliban, 'rationality' means adherence to their interpretation of Islam.

The Taliban are not rational because modern Islam doesn't even admit of rational principles in the first place, regarding them as Western imports. They're certainly not disinterested in the way they govern, either, because a private association, Islam, is the basis of their government.

[Tyler]

Hi Patrice --

Didn't Madison consider this in Federalist 10? That factions will develop and they will compete and the end result will be the best government for the country? I think he was realistic.

These interest groups Madison had in mind developed against the backdrop of a Bill of Rights, which is the part of the Constitution that builds in our individual rights in advance. I agree that it was realistic to expect these groups to pop up, but the individual still could count on the disinterested protection of the law. What I wonder is whether modern interest groups have become so powerful that they can render the Bill of Rights meaningless.

[[deleted user]]

The "public good" however you want to define it could be considered but what happens will be "politically feasible". Your "Bill of Rights" was idealistic for its time and didn't match reality. I could see how it could be questioned by interest groups

As mundane Canadians,we had in our original constitution of 1867, "peace, order, and good government" Doesn't that grab you. Some left wing people currently say this is a distortion as documents before the BNA act said " peace, welfare, and good govenment." What a debate? Maybe so, but in 1867, the USA was the centre for liberal ideas not UK. or Canada. After all the loyalist, orangemen and the French Canadians who were used to something similar close to a theocracy were conservative. The statement gave the state a lot of latitude.

Of course we now have a charter of rights with our new constitution which is only about 30 years old. It has a not withstanding clause in it which gives the governments more flexibility. The pro and cons have been debated. I suspect it was included to deal with any serious political problems which are created by the charter. The Canadian supreme court is trusted with enforcing the intent since its implementation.

I hope to compare your old document and our new one to see what priorities are the same and which differ. Also the relationship between the court and government relating to the document. I thought it would be a good learning experience.

[Everyman]

Tyler wrote: "The public good is an uncontroversial concept. It refers to disinterested action on behalf of society as a whole. In particular, it contrasts with the notion of private association. The only entity in society capable of acting for the public good is the government. "

As long as you divorce "good" from its normal usage and just use what you said as a valueless definition of public good, that's fine. But when you try to put value in it, as you do when you say "on benefit of," it returns to being a nullity because there will never be agreement on what is and is not a benefit. (Just ask those who are for and against Obamacare.)

When you say "the only entity in society capable of acting for the public good is the government," I can only assume that you think that Andrew Carnegie was not acting for the public good in setting up libraries, that the Salvation Army is not acting for the public good in feeding the poor and nurturing the needy, that Harvard University is not acting for the public good in educating the citizens (well, considering how it educates them, maybe you're right there). But I think most people would argue that a number of private individuals and NGOs do indeed act for the public good as much as, or more than, governments do.

Perhaps, though, we're in a semantic issue here. If you want to define "public good" as "actions of government which are believed by the government to be for the public benefit," okay. (Although that means that when the South African government believed that Apartheid was a benefit to the country as a whole, they were acting for the public good. Which I can accept if that's how you choose to define the term.)

[Everyman]

Tyler wrote: "The public good is an uncontroversial concept. It refers to disinterested action on behalf of society as a whole. In particular, it contrasts with the notion of private association. The only entity in society capable of acting for the public good is the government. "

Here's a question for you, Tyler. Under your use of the term, is everything that a government does by definition for the public good? Everything both the Bush administration and the Obama administration (and the Stalin and Hitler governments) have done was for the public good?

If not, how does one know which things that a government does are for the public good and which are not?

[Tyler]

Hi Everyman --

Here's a question for you, Tyler. Under your use of the term, is everything that a government does by definition for the public good?

No. Not everything a government does is for the public good. I don't mean to bring in the concept of "good" at this point. My point is to establish a distinction between a sphere of shared disinterested action from one of private association.


...how does one know which things that a government does are for the public good and which are not?

That's a good question. Even if the government acts in a disinterested or impartial manner, that doesn't mean what it does is right. So now what needs to be decided is what distinguishes a right, or just act, from a wrong one. At this point, the question of what the good is becomes relevant. The judge of whether the government's actions are good is not up to the government. It is up to the citizens and courts to decide, hopefully on the basis of an implied or explicit social contract.


I think the examples you give of Carnegie and the Salvation Army are public goods as long as they are disinterested acts. They may or may not be. The problem with private associations is that non-members have no say in their policies, whereas every citizen has has an unalienable moral claim on the government equal to that of any other citizen.

[Everyman]

Tyler wrote: "The judge of whether the government's actions are good is not up to the government. It is up to the citizens and courts to decide, hopefully on the basis of an implied or explicit social contract. "

That's a very modern Western concept, isn't it? Throughout most of history the citizens have had very little to say about what their government did, and the courts were generally subject to the Crown and hardly qualified as an independent agent to judge whether the government was doing good or evil.

And suppose that the citizens and courts agree that an action is good; does that make it so? After all, the majority of citizens throughout much of the country, and certainly the courts prior to the Civil War, approved of slavery and would have said that it met the requirements of a public good.

And there is also the question, can something which is inherently not good become a public good? For example, burning down or otherwise destroying peoples houses is not a good ting, but where a fire is consuming part of a city the government may burn or bulldoze certain houses to create a fire break to protect the rest of the city. It would seem, then, that in some cases the generic definition of the good may not be able to be applied to the public good.

[Everyman]

Patrice wrote: "It seems to me that the desire for government control and direction is a reflection of the general pessimism about human nature. "

That fits with what I see as the core philosophy of most politicians, and of virtually all liberal politicians: I know how you should run your life better than you do. And the corollary to that: and I will pass laws to make you live the way I think you should.

Very few people who believe that people should basically be left alone to decide what to do with their own lives as long as they don't directly injure others become politicians.

What specifics of what I'm talking about? They are legion. Laws requiring seat belt use and child seat laws (I don't trust you to care for your children properly so I'm going to pass a law to force you to do it the way I think you should.) Ditto for laws requiring helmets when riding bicycles or motorcycles.

Smoking ordinances. Marijuana use. We think these are bad for you and we don't think you can make the right decisions for yourself, so we're going to impose our better thinking on you.

Our county just passed a law requiring every homeowner with a septic tank (and that's most of us) to have it inspected annually (for a significant cost and, of course, a fee to the County to oversee the program). They don't trust me to care for my septic tank properly.

Seattle is contemplating an ordinance requiring any property owner to get a permit (at a cost to the city, of course) before they can cut down any tree on their property. And permission will only be given for valid (in the city's eyes) reasons. We don't trust you to manage your trees so we're going to make you do it the way we think you should.

And on and on and on.

[[deleted user]]

Perhaps New Guinea had the most primitive society in the 19th century. It is my understanding that homicide was a major reason for death. A man would kill to gain another man's wife and she could not do much about it. If he had anything of value , he was a prime target for men with nothing. Me, I prefer the incovenience of government. Do I trust human nature. Not much. The desire for power by the individual is more dangerous than that by the government. We at least have some control of government. I think we would be surprised what would happen if the police force or military did not exist. It is not controlled as well as we like but the alternative is much worse particularly for women. Government to a great degree has enabled women to gain more equality. Some men in society would love to see things go back a few hundred years where slavery and subjugation of women was the norm.

[Everyman]

Glen wrote: "Perhaps New Guinea had the most primitive society in the 19th century. It is my understanding that homicide was a major reason for death. A man would kill to gain another man's wife and she could ..."

Don't overlook the phrase in my post "as long as they don't directly injure others." Obviously we all, or almost all (and I believe the most ardent atheist would want a policeman to come to his aid if a group of people were beating him to death) want a government which prevents (or at least punishes after the fact in a hope to deter) people from killing us, stealing our goods, beating us up, etc.

Mine was not an atheistic creed at all. Government has two very legitimate functions: One, to protect citizens from direct harm from others, and two, providing the infrastructure which is necessary for a civilized society but which is impractical or impossible for each individual to provide for himself.

As to your silly straw man, it's not worth the pixels to respond to.

[[deleted user]]

You may call them silly straw men and they are a very small number but they do exist and sometimes manage to gain power in undeveloped countries.In the 20th century, I can think of a couple in developed countries. Sexual slavery is still an illegal practice throughout the developed world inluding our two countires. It is also true that a great many men in western society did not want to give women the right to vote in the early 20th century. I sure the odd one still exists and more in other parts of the world.

I thought you would respond as you did. You were, in my opinion, getting a little too harsh in the other direction. When we cut back government service we assume it will not impact on those services that we think will be kept intact. Our military was underfunded for years. The RCMP also had problems and is still requiring some more attention by the government. We are actually in the opposite political swing that you are in.That has been the case for most of the 20th century.

When it comes to septic tanks, second hand smoke, helmets, and seat belts, there are reasons for these laws as you are probably quite aware. I had lake shore property in a regional district that was lax on inspections. The septic system installed for the house next door was done incorrectly and will polute the lake. Unless you are willing to let a quadraplegic die from a motorcycle or motor vehicle accident , it cheaper to try to enforce wearing a helmet than having you and I keep them housed. Second hand smoke is a health hazard and does injure others.

I like Patrice's quote. I'm not sure if it is from The Wealth of Nations but it is on my "to read shelf". In our constitution it was "peace,order,and good government". More than half the fathers of Canadian confederation were Scots.

Our current Prime Minister at one time was the head of the National Citizens Coalition a very right wing think tank. An intellectual type with a PhD in economics. He is still very right wing but in some areas he has moved closer to the centre. Why? To govern, he has to be pragmatic enough to make certain things politically feasible. He is reducing the power of the federal goverment by reducing taxes and giving more economic power to the provinces. We'll see if that is good or bad. I find it interesting that so many in the public think they already know the answer. Our federal tax revenue , as a portion of GDP is at its lowest since the mid 1960's. That policy is neutral, until we see how the provinical. municipal , and private sector utilize their increased independence.

The amount of personal freedom we have, in my view, is directly related to good govnernment. Of course, it is practically impossible for the large majority of the public to agree on what that means.

[Tyler]

Hi Everyman --

Post 374: suppose that the citizens and courts agree that an action is good; does that make it so? After all, the majority of citizens throughout much of the country, and certainly the courts prior to the Civil War, approved of slavery and would have said that it met the requirements of a public good.

Does majority opinion determine what constitutes a disinterested act by the government? No. Disinterest has to be part of a social contract.

The idea that all men are created equal is in the Declaration of Independence, and the Contitution reflects an effort to safeguard that principle and guarantee that the government acts in a disinterested manner -- for the public good, that is.

Pragmatism intervened because the "thumb on the scale" Adam Smith mentions inserted itself into the writing of the Constitution. Slavery was in the interest of a private group, not the public interest -- we can all see that -- and it took a war to wring that private interest out of the Constitution.

The fact is that what the DOI says about all men being equal has been a hotly disputed point to this day, though one wouldn't expect it to be. Side by side with that idea is another, that men are manifestly unequal and that government based on equality is bound to fail. It's that competing idea of the status of individuals that lent moral support to the institution of slavery, plus a host of other evils we're all well acquainted with.

The two competing ideas are at war with one another even today. Here's the problem: Slavery was a legal institution, but it is hard to say where exactly a legal right or obligation comes from, even in obvious cases.

To my mind, the law and the Constitution must have a moral basis of some kind, a social contract by which individuals hold society to moral law. Moral reasoning, for its part, has to be disinterested reasoning -- otherwise it doesn't count as moral in the first place.

Moral reasoning is difficult, uncertain, but fascinating to us who think about how best to protect the individual in society. So it's at the level of moral reasoning, specifically about the social contract, that we can determine what the limits to personal freedom might mean.

So I think you're right about moral concepts, especially the concept of "good." There are many ideas about this, but I think, at the very least, that there cannot be an explanation of what's good that doesn't include another moral concept, that of justice. The two are intertwined.

The example of fire that you give raises the question of priority. I think there is a public good, the general safety, that trumps the private good of the individuals whose houses are burned. But for this to be a morally good act, we have to be able to say that the fire department acted in a disinterested manner in its selection of which private houses would have to go. The only reference point by which the firefighters could establish that objectivity is the public good. Unless they can do that, they didn't act morally, and that means they shouldn't have been able to act legally either.

[Everyman]

Tyler wrote: "Slavery was in the interest of a private group, not the public interest -- we can all see that"

We don't all see that. Slavery was very much in the public interest of the Southern states. It was the foundation on which their economies were built. Without slavery, there would have been far less and far less profitable economic activity to support the population, provide for the general welfare, etc.

This doesn't of course mean that slavery was "right," at least in our modern, "enlightened" view, but to say that it didn't serve the public good, at least as I understand the term "public good" is, I think, simply not true.

[Everyman]

Tyler wrote: "Does majority opinion determine what constitutes a disinterested act by the government? No. Disinterest has to be part of a social contract. "

I guess I need to understand better what you mean by "disinterested." Every act of government benefits some people at the expense of other people, so to that extent there are always interested people who will benefit from the act and interested people who will be harmed by it. What is your definition of a disinterested act, and what are some examples of true disinterested government acts?

[Everyman]

Tyler wrote: "To my mind, the law and the Constitution must have a moral basis of some kind, a social contract by which individuals hold society to moral law. Moral reasoning, for its part, has to be disinterested reasoning -- otherwise it doesn't count as moral in the first place. "

I take from this that you believe that there is some objective standard of morality which exists outside of human creation -- a sort of Platonic eidos of the good. Am I correct in assuming this? There are a lot of questions to address about that, but no point in addressing them until we're in agreement about the principle.

[Tyler]

Hi Bill --

What other kind of equality do you think the writers could have been talking about?

I'm not trying to distinguish different versions of the concept of equality. I am contrasting the concept with the poplular notion that men are manifestly unequal.

[Tyler]

Hi Everyman --

Slavery was very much in the public interest of the Southern states.

I disagree. Slaves were the private property of a landowning class. The benefits of slavery went to that class, the curses of it to everyone else, including the slaves.

The only way I can see to argue that it was in the public interest is from a utilitarian standpoint, but I disagree with using utilitarianism as the basis for a social contract in the first place.

What is your definition of a disinterested act, and what are some examples of true disinterested government acts?

I think you're confusing the unequal distribution of benefits of a government action with the action itself. Disinterest applies to the government's justification for acting. We know that any government act will benefit someone and cost someone else, but we don't get rid of the institution for that reason. The point of living in a society should be that the greater benefit of belonging to it outweighs the particular costs to us.

The firefighting example illustrates the point. If a fire breaks out, there is presumably a best way to fight it. Let's say this entails a fire line that means tearing down all houses in its path. If the firefighters follow the objective rules of firefighting, fine. They are acting in a disinterested manner for the public good.

But if they avoid tearing down some of the houses because the owners of those houses complain to the mayor, then the public good, public safety in this case, has been sacrificed to the private interests of particular citizens. That means that the people whose houses were torn down and the people whose houses are at risk are, as citizens, unequal to the people who successfully interfered with the objective process of firefighting.

[Everyman]

Tyler wrote: "he firefighting example illustrates the point. "

But taking the principle of the firefighting example -- that they are tearing down some peoples' houses in order to save the houses of others, but as long as they don't do so based on who owns the houses but based on the best practices (aren't the best practices to save the most you can, and isn't that utilitarianism, which you reject as a basis for government?), it's okay.

By that definition, it seems to me that slavery was also disinterested, assuming that the government didn't favor any specific slave owners but just benefited a class of citizens generally for what they saw as the public good.

And I don't agree with you that slavery wasn't for the public good. You say "Slaves were the private property of a landowning class. The benefits of slavery went to that class, the curses of it to everyone else, including the slaves." Actually, many people in the South, and in the North also, had household slaves (Ben Franklin, for example, Patrick Henry, to name just two). Many families had a household slave or two who couldn't have afforded a aid servant. So where was the downside for anybody except, of course, the slaves, who were in the position of the folks whose houses are burned down to save the others?

The economy of the South depended on cotton, which depended on slaves. No slaves, very little cotton production, and therefore a lower standard of living for most people in the South (the merchants, ship owners, sailors, farriers, teachers, and on and on who benefited from the wealth generated by cotton). And, more expensive clothing for almost everything, since cotton was a relatively cheap and widely available cloth.

So, who other than the slaves, and a few abolitionists whose morals pinched them, was hurt by it?

[Everyman]

Tyler -- it seems to me that no democratic government can be truly disinterested. The voters will vote for the people whose policies they believe will help them, and the politicians will respond to reward those groups who voted for them and, in sadly too many cases, those whose public support or campaign contributions enabled them to obtain or retain office.

[Everyman]

Patrice wrote: "And as awful as this may be, wasn't the fine education of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. a result of the slave labor that saved them from manual labor? The "aristocracy" of the south th..."

That's a fair point. It could fairly be argued that but for slavery, we would be singing God Save the Queen instead of the Star Spangled Banner before baseball games.

[Everyman]

Bill wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Benjamin Franklin and others succeeded just fine in getting a good education without slaves to provide time for it. ..."

But did his parents own slaves while he was growing up, to give him time to study and not have to go out to work at the age of 11 or 12 as many at that time did?

At the very least, he probably had servants, who while technically free weren't paid much more than slaves. With no labor saving devices at the time, to be in the middle or upper class pretty much required having either servants or slaves.

[Everyman]

Patrice wrote: "Yes he did. But he was a printer, not a farmer. I'm not endorsing slavery! ;-)"

I don't think any of us are endorsing slavery. But one can not endorse it but still recognize its importance to the society, just as one can not endorse Manifest Destiny but recognize its importance to the development of this nation.

[Tyler]

Hi Everyman --

Msg 392 But taking the principle of the firefighting example ..."

After reading your response I realized this wasn't as good an example as I first thought. Setting aside the utiltarian aspects, the standards of firefighting themselves are actually a non-moral good. As a result, the example doesn't really address the original question about the meaning of disinterest.

Let me answer that this way: When I use the term "disinterested" in defining the public good, I mean impartiality or absence of bias in acts of government. A better example here is the legal principle that all citizens are equal before the law, which means judges must apply a law equally to each citizen.

By defining the public good as disinterested, I'm referring only to the way the government carries out its policies. Disinterest is a universal quality, like the idea of good, and we as thinkers have to decide what particular principles or acts are examples of it.

Whether the policies by which the government acts are fair or good is a separate question, and this relates to the discussion of slavery. But that I'd like to put that off for another post when I have more time.

[Everyman]

Tyler wrote: "When I use the term "disinterested" in defining the public good, I mean impartiality or absence of bias in acts of government."

That's nice theoretical principle. Do you believe it is in fact possible in government? Do you really think anyone in power in government is able to completely disregard their friendships, the people who have supported them or helped get them where they are or given them money, their family members or members of their social group(s), their former colleagues, celebrities of any stripe, to treat them all precisely the same as they would a homeless person sleeping under a bridge in San Francisco? I don't think it's even theoretically possible to realistically believe that any such idea of government can exist. Certainly we know it is far, far from the case in governments today in this country, or in fact any country I can think of.

I just believe it is so contrary to human nature as to be not even a theoretical construct. Oh, one can I suppose theoretically imagine it, but then I can theoretically imagine a government run entirely by voluntary donations from the citizenry with no taxes, no fees, no charges, no collection agency, no favors of any kind to donors, just people freely and voluntarily giving government whatever money they want to whenever they want to with no expectation of direct return but just because that's the right thing to do. I can theoretically imagine such a government, but I know perfectly well it will never exist.

[R.a.]

"Holy *$!"

Much 'ado' during my rest . . . Well, it'll take a bit now to 'catch up' and then see if I have anything enlightening I to contribute.

Hmmmmm.

[Suneel]

Opening up an old thread here, but I just saw the introductory question, and it got me thinking. The fine balance between personal freedom versus oppression brings to mind a favorite quote of mine from Thomas Jefferson:

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny".

This nice statement undoubtedly applies to the broadest questions of freedom/human rights—ones that humanity has faced for thousands of years. But now that we are in a different era, we face a whole new bunch of questions that our ancestors never even had to think about, e.g.with the internet and other revolutionary technology.

Mankind needs to look at the debate from a new angle.