When asking the question, "what should we do about x?", we are presuming the affirmation of the question, "Should we do something about x?"
This presumptuous attitude almost always leads to unnecessary regulation and law and the further polarization of society.
I tend to think when someone asks "what should we do about X" they, in reality, mean "we should do something about X!" but generally have no clue what they want other than "something."
And more times than not will accept whatever "something" someone else brings up even if it's a horrible idea.
When asking the question, "what should we do about x?", we are presuming the affirmation of the question, "Should we do something about x?"
This presumptuous attitude almost always leads to unnecessary regulation and law and the further polarization of society.
It is, unless youre a collectivist...
When asking the question, "what should we do about x?", we are presuming the affirmation of the question, "Should we do something about x?"
This presumptuous attitude almost always leads to unnecessary regulation and law and the further polarization of society.
Negative, it is unless you are an anarchist. I'm not a collectivist, yet, I recognize a vital need for a certain function that must be carried out by the government. This is the function of mediating between disputants. This, to me, is the essence of government and the reason why government is essential. Further, this function alone and its necessity entails that the government must also have a few more powers and roles (e.g., the power to protect and defend the presence and sanctity of that function).
Negative, it is unless you are an anarchist. I'm not a collectivist, yet, I recognize a vital need for a certain function that must be carried out by the government. This is the function of mediating between disputants. This, to me, is the essence of government and the reason why government is essential. Further, this function alone and its necessity entails that the government must also have a few more powers and roles (e.g., the power to protect and defend the presence and sanctity of that function).
In most instances, person X already has a preconceived idea about what they really want X to be but, need acceptance from the tribe to justify their idea.
I think arbitration does a lot of this. Courts are slow and inefficient and I'm not sure they are all that impartial either.
So, should we allow one interest to subdue another?
Martian supremacy over humans?
Predatory Capitalists over Capitalists over Democratic Socialists over Social Democrats?
Should we have that @$%&% tax!
Can group x decide choice n for group y?
That defines politics.
Hmmmm..What to do? What to do?
Please elaborate on why you made the statement as declamatory and how should relate to the general "us" as you see it.
Courts are slow and inefficient, but this is because we have radically expanded the state and the court now deals heavily in issues in which there are not actually two disputants.
I'm a champion of minarchy, but anarchy, preserved, leads to vendettas, vengeance, and regression.