Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

This is a good topic. I look forward to some interesting discussion.




Consider: the Universe, fate, God, whatever force on believes determines events beyond human control, does not treat everyone equally. I inherently possess the ability to walk, someone born with no legs does not. Regardless of the conclusion one reaches, this idea is important in determining what the concepts of "fairness" and "equality" should mean.

Coming back to your idea, I think that most people in the US at least(I won't speak for other cultures), whether Randian or socialistic believe in the concepts of equal rights and equal opportunity for individuals. They have simply arrived at different answers to the question: What does giving equal rights and equal opportunity to individuals actually entail?

Does it mean that society/the government should give everyone nothing and let them go at it so that those who, by the workings of chance, begin with greater resources or ability are able to leverage them to the fullest and have a significant edge over others?

Does it mean that society/the government should make everyone as equal as possible in both resources and abilities/skills via wealth redistribution, mandatory and uniform state education, employment quotas that provide jobs for those of lesser ability, etc?

Most people, and I include myself in this category, feel that the correct answer is somewhere in between those two extremes.

I think a similar situation exists with government control. No one wants to live in Zamyatin's "One State" or Huxley's "Brave New World," but at the same time, no one wants to live in a completely anarchic world where there is no protection from extreme violence. Consider: from the beginning of human history families, clans, tribal systems, and feudal systems all arose organically to address the problem of anarchic violence.

Even today, pretty much everyone can agree that Person A's right not to be killed trumps Person B's right to murder Person A, even though that limits Person B's individual rights.



This is a somewhat different perspective, but statisticians sometimes say that statistics often don't measure what is important so much as what is easy to measure. In a representative government, a representative can't possibly be aware of the demands of every person he represents. Demographics present a convenient way to form a somewhat reflective picture that is simplistic enough so as to be comprehensible. If this is insufficient, then direct democracy is a possible recourse, although it has it's own problems in terms of being practical.



If this doesn't happen at all, then there is no society. This is the idea behind social contract theory. People enter into a contract with a government they empower, but also with one another to create and maintain a society that provides certain benefits(ex. police) to everyone at certain costs(ex. taxes) to everyone. The democratic elements of government present a way to change society from within, but if anyone can have the right to break their end of the contract with society/the government in the name of individual rights because that person believes things should be different, then the social contract society can't function. If I oppose the Iraq war, I can vote for politicians who will also oppose it. I have the right to demonstrate and criticize the government. However, I do not have the right to stop paying my taxes because the government's actions in Iraq do not represent my individual beliefs.

Once again, the question is more "how much is the right amount" than whether this should happen at all.



Both, it is practically impossible to exist in only one of those fashions. No matter how individualistic one is, the fact is that one does not exist in a vacuum and the decisions of others have an impact on one's life. The constitutes the effect of a collective. On the flip side, no matter how socialistic or totalitarian a state might be in it's attempt to make everyone part of a uniform herd, it seems impossible(at least without futuristic technology) to completely quash individual thought.

That's idealistic. The government's first purpose is to protect its citizens. That doesn't mean protecting all their rights - just their right to live. And the government expects some citizens (thankfully, not all) to serve the government so that the citizens' lives can be protected. In a way, every citizen born has the potential to "exist to serve the government." Because if every single person decides to be completely individualistic and only do things that are in his/her best interest, then the country falls apart. There are no soldiers to protect the borders (regardless of what people may say, protecting your country and putting yourself in the line of fire is not acting solely in your best interest); there are no people to work for the IRS taking money from people; nobody pays taxes, so the country is unable to better itself; and the economy gets completely screwed up because big companies are paying employees pennies per hour because its the business's right to pay as much or as little as it wants.

We all have to live by ourselves in our minds, but we cannot live by ourselves in the world. (Well, a guy can potentially live in the woods and eat only what he catches with his wooden weapons, but he cannot add to this conversation because he doesn't have the internet. And because he cannot add to the conversation, and because we cannot give anything to him, it's pointless to talk about him.) I think societies have existed for thousands of years because we are alone in our minds; we strive to be together on the outside to compensate for not being together on the inside. Regardless of the reason, people live together. There's no escaping that. And weighing which of the two is more important, the individual or the society, it's impossible to decide unless we're talking about extremes, because they are both very important. Should a person give up his individuality so the society can be a little better? Probably not. Should a society bend over backwards to make people a little more free? Probably not. But a person should be willing to give up some things for the sake of society; likewise, the society should be able to bend a little to accommodate people. People should be willing to pay taxes, and society should be willing to not stone people that are 90% metal due to piercings. (Not great examples, but you get the point.)