Author
|
Topic: Jurisprudence (Read 3234 times) |
|
romanov
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 112
Reputation: 7.88
Rate romanov
Doctor of Philosophy? What disease is that?
|
 |
Re:Jurisprudence
« Reply #15 on: 2004-09-06 13:56:49 » |
 |
Ok, take your point about the Q factor. Maybe it's just me arguing semantics, but my point was that happiness is only part of fulfillment.
As to the other point:
Very good question. But my initial instinct is to say no. I'm going to do a bit of research on this (because the question intrigues me) but my initial response is that the psychology of groups and that of individuals are markedly different. Consequently, we cannot treat groups as mere aggregates of separate entities. I'm sure a game theorist of chaos theorist would agree with me on this.
Everyone reading this has probably experienced the way a crowd seems to have a mind of its own.
If the behaviour and psychology of groups and individuals can be demonstrated to be different, then different legal methods of controlling that behaviour must be prescribed.
In legal terms, there's a very good example of the dangers of this strategy- corporate law. Treating corporations like individuals (as US law has done since Nixon, I think) has had a number of destructive side-effects across the world, on property rights notably.
The key question, I suppose, is one of deterrence: can individuals and groups be deterred from harmful acts in the same way?
romanov
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
 
|
|
Re:Jurisprudence
« Reply #16 on: 2004-09-06 14:16:03 » |
|
Quote from: romanov on 2004-09-06 13:56:49
Consequently, we cannot treat groups as mere aggregates of separate entities. I'm sure a game theorist of chaos theorist would agree with me on this.
|
Even if we treat groups of people as agents, that doesn't imply we necessarily need different laws for them.
Quote:
Everyone reading this has probably experienced the way a crowd seems to have a mind of its own.
If the behaviour and psychology of groups and individuals can be demonstrated to be different, then different legal methods of controlling that behaviour must be prescribed. |
Does the same go for individuals with different behaviour and psychology? I think not.
Quote:
In legal terms, there's a very good example of the dangers of this strategy- corporate law. Treating corporations like individuals (as US law has done since Nixon, I think) has had a number of destructive side-effects across the world, on property rights notably. |
The main problem there seems to be limited liability, which is *not* afforded to individuals.
Quote:
The key question, I suppose, is one of deterrence: can individuals and groups be deterred from harmful acts in the same way? |
Abstractly, yes. Both have attributed interests which they try to protect and make decisions based on how actions are expected to affect their interests.
|
|
|
|
|
Beneficientor
Adept
Posts: 22
Reputation: 7.47
Rate Beneficientor
Fidei Defensor
|
|
Re:Jurisprudence
« Reply #17 on: 2004-09-08 23:37:30 » |
|
Thank you for your replies.
I apologise I wasn't present for the start of discussions. Apparently I have some catching up to do.
There is much for me to respond to here. I'll approach each post in turn.
NB Apologies for my misuse of the word "memeplex" in one of my original posts.
In response to my comment that I would like all, wherever possible, to have access to equal opportunities, David comments:
Quote:| It would be nice if that was possible, but given that we are all born with different genetics into different families I don't see how that is remotely possible. So what do you mean? |
I mean that my idea of a good government is one that seeks to provide all its citizens with the basic initial facilities to pursue their goals and preserve their life. Naturally, as you point out, all people begin life with a different genetic makeup that could provide them with advantages and disadvantages. Their financial, family and other beginnings, too, play an important part.
My suggestion, however, is simply that an ideal government should provide some basic provisions to level the playing field to a reasonable level. A person born into a poor family, for example, should, like all others, have access to healthcare and an education comparable to that which a rich person could receive if no welfare system existed. The essential gist of my comment was to move away from the socialist ideal of utter Utopian equality (which, personally, I find oppressive), and move towards a middle ground in which everybody has a reasonably equal capacity, or a similar starting point, from which to pursue their individual goals, if not reach them.
I believe it should be the responsibility of each person to furnish the means to their aspirations, but the duty of a benevolent government to help each person to the starting line.
Essenitally therefore, where possible, I advocate a government with welfare provision.
In response to my note that I hope to focus on the fundamentals of government to begin with, paying attention to welfare issues later, David replies:
Quote:| I brought up that point because it seems to contradict your ideas about social medical aid. But I'm willing to leave it for later. |
I don't feel it does contradict my ideas about welfare provision because I advocate a Zero Tax Policy, for the very reason that it would indeed be a contradiction otherwise. A Zero Tax Policy is the only way of resolving this problem without resorting to a government acting in the manner of a commercial enterprise (user fees, for example) or a charity (which I fear is an unreliable route for a stable government).
I say towards the end of my post that whether or not a Zero Tax Policy is economically possible, on the large scale a welfare government demands, remains an open issue at the moment. That is a matter I would like to consider further when appropriate.
I concur with Romanov's first post. Eloquently put.
I agree with the essential import of the assumptions cited in David's next post.
I disagree only slightly with the tone of the comments on social contract. Laws, I feel, should be limited to social behaviour alone- that is only actions that affect other "sentient agents" (a pithy term). Actions that affect no others should be outside the scope of imposed laws. Law, in the form of general legislation/statute, in my opinion, should be a kind of guideline.
For example, if a law was passed with the consent of 80% of the population of a group, then an agent "X" who broke the law, adversely affecting group member "Y", would know that Y would be 80% likely to press charges, or, more simply put, there would be an 8/10 (4/5) probability that Y, being any random group member, ascribed to the law and voted/would have voted in favour of it. Furthermore, it is also a warning that if Y did indeed press charges and X were found guilty, the prosecution authorities, being tied to the laws, would find breaking the relevant law to be an illegal activity and would impose the associated reaction/penalty.
So, from this reasoning, the function of law is primarily to act as a probability indicator to people that any given person will find a certain action, imposed on them, objectionable, and furthermore, to show that any person found guilty of breaking the law, if prosecuted, will be subject to a certain specified response. Is there agreement on this definition? If yes, we have our first potentially codified element of Virian policy on Social Contract/Jurisprudence that can be put to the vote.
The important issue raised here is the applicability of law. Take an illustrative nonsense story for example.
Let's say that group A has a law forbidding the use of a certain gesture that is considered to be rude.
Another group, B, however, is a culture strictly governed by protocol and etiquette, and it is highly offensive, and therefore illegal, not to respond in like to the gesture they use as a greeting that A finds illegal.
Imagine that a member of group A and a member of group B happen to meet each other in unclaimed, neutral territory. The group B citizen, according to good manners, greets the citizen from group A with the gesture. A is disgusted, fails to respond to the gesture and immediately goes off to report the actions of B and launch a prosecution. B is equally horrified that A failed to respond properly and goes to report A to B's prosecution authorities and launches a prosecution.
The question is, whose laws prevail- A's or B's? Should A be extradited to the courts of B and put on trial, or should B be extradited to the courts of A and put on trial? Should neither be put on trial? Should both be put on trial?
I suggest that if neither were put on trial, then terrible crimes- such as murder, committed by outsiders against citizens of certain groups could go unpunished if the laws of each group weren't mutually recognised.
If both were tried, then either could be subject to horrible punishments for actions that were considered trivial or irrelevant in their home group.
As I posit in one of my original posts, the appropriate action is to see what freedoms are involved and what freedoms are being inflicted upon. Freedoms to "do", I reasoned, are inferior to freedoms "from". The exercise of a freedom "from" a certain thing, is passive. It requires the cooperation of others- to respect the freedom, but it doesn't demand it. It doesn't force itself upon anyone. It is passive.
Freedoms to "do" certain things, however, if exercised, in some cases inevitably force themselves upon unwitting people who may object. They are actively involved and are at risk of disturbing the freedoms of others, which runs contrary to the general "Toy World" rule of the preservation of freedoms.
In the case of A and B, it is B who acts, and A who is forced to endure an action. B is exercising a freedom of sorts, and A is being subjected to it. Therefore, A has the general moral grounds for launching a prosecution whereas B does not. In this case whatever actually happened, of course, would depend on the diplomatic relations between A and B, the influence and power of the forces they commanded, and their respect for freedoms on ethical grounds.
Romanov next comments:
Quote:| The rule of law is a necessity. History has more than enough examples of societies who disregard it in favour of dogmatic ideals and regret doing so later. |
Quite so, but hopefully we will reach conclusions based on reason that follow from a simple axiom, without having to review history for support.
My ideas on free will are still in the process of formation. As it stands I feel the knowledge, philosophy and sicence needs to advance further (seeing as consciousness studies are a relatively new breed) before we can begin to make assertions on a firm footing, but so far, my approach is similar to that of Dennet's, with a bit of Buddhist reasoning thrown in. We have certain forms of technical freedom even in a deterministic environment- and can behave "as if" we have free will either way. For all practical purposes the implications remain the same.
Quote:| This may have some legal/ social implications regarding the notions of intent and the role of rehabilitation. That's something to discuss later, though. |
I agree.
In response to Romanov's enquiry to David:
Quote:| What's your opinion on the responsibilities/rights of groups/individuals? Again, I think we should keep it to first principles for the moment. |
David replies:
Quote:| Off the top of my head: it is the right of the individual to maximize their subjective Q factor (i.e. pursuit of happiness) and it is the responsibility of the individual to play be the rules or suffer the consequences. It is the responsibility of the group to create the rules, and the right of the group to enforce them. |
I concur with David's description, however I would soften the language. I would prefer to say that it is the responsibility of the individual to respect other individuals, with the relevant laws of the group they belong to acting as the appropriate guidelines, and with the warning of the prescribed consequences of failure to do so. I don't believe it is the responsibility of the group to create the rules, rather it is their preference to have rules and cooperate in their drafting and enforcement.
Just a quick note- whilst I colloquially use the term "Rights", I don't actually believe anybody has any, you could say, "God-given" "rights". I think it's obscure to presume people intrinsically have rights, because they obviously don't.
Many delcarations of human rights, with admirable intentions, speak as if human beings are somehow mysteriously embodied with an inviolable attribute called a "Right". I don't believe this is the case. Rights are implicit aspects of the laws made and respected by groups that tacitly imply installation in the individual.
To elaborate:- People who join groups do so because they want rights that will be respected by the group, but they don't inherently have them outside the group. A right needs two things; A person to have it and a person to respect it. If either are absent the notion becomes meaningless.
Rights are inevitably a trade-off. The group takes away the right of the person to infringe upon the right that is to be awarded to them. In clearer language; "We will give you the right to live if you give up your right to murder", for example. In joining a group, the individual has to decide how much his or her right to live is worth when compared to his or her right to murder (note that the words "Right" and "Freedom" can be interchanged here). If the individual decides his or her right to life is more valuable than his or her right to murder, then the trade is a good one and they will join the group.
Romanov then comments in reference to the use of the term "human":
Quote:You may even want to change 'human' to 'sentient'.
|
I agree. "Sentient" is a nice word, but it covers a multitude of sins, notably the fact that a good definition of the necessary qualifications for any being to participate in the kind of society we are attempting to outline is lacking. I suggest, seeing as this Social Contract/policy will be designed invariably for humans we don't shy from using the word, but point well taken.
I agree with your further suggestions, but I don't feel we yet have the necessary keystones with which to integrate them. I am sure abstinence from the use of unnecessary force will flow naturally from the conclusions we reach, but I think until that point we shouldn't rule out anything. If we find the results of our deliberations are unappealing to us, then we will obviously have gone wrong somewhere.
The definition of a group, I think should go something along the lines of:
"A collection of separate sentient entities acting cooperatively or gathered together by some cause or for some mutual purpose."
I'm open to any appropriate modifications on that. It's only a matter of wording though- I don't think the precise nature of a group in terms of semantics is drastically important to the enquiry, but I agree it's useful to know exactly what we're talking about.
Romanov then comments in a later post:
Quote:| Everyone reading this has probably experienced the way a crowd seems to have a mind of its own. |
That could indeed be the way it often appears, but it's an emergent phenomenon. Ants working without any central direction, and on simple principles, can construct great complex anthills that seem to have been designed. That said, consciousness is most likely an emergent phenomenon as well.
However, seeing as human beings are separate biological entities whose thoughts are not physically integrated with each other (only through communication), for all intents and purposes we can treat individual humans as the discrete building blocks of society.
In a later post, referring to Romanov's comment about corporate law, and the legal identity given to corporations in certain legal systems, David says:
Quote:| The main problem there seems to be limited liability, which is *not* afforded to individuals. |
This is not entirely accurate. Corporations in modern commercial countries are a kind of legally recognised "individual" per se, but the limited liability isn't attributed to the "person" that is the corporation. The limited liability is given to its shareholders. The corporation is an unlimitedly liable entity that can go bankrupt just like any other "person" in the normal sense, it's simply that none of its constituent parts are individually completely responsible for it. Corporations have limited liability in order to resolve ownership issues.
If ten thousand people want to set up an organisation, no single one is the founder, as in a traditional business. The business therefore has to be mutually owned, and seeing as each individual ownder can come and go, selling their share on, the corporation has a financial existence that is separate from its owners. Just as we wouldn't expect a particular part of our brain to be sued for failing to pay debt, legal systems often recognise groups as entitities separate from their constituent parts. A corporation therefore has its own funds, and individual shareholders are only responsible for what they put in. Corporate law is perhaps something we should go into [much] later!
Finally, I agree with David's comments about the applicability of law as regards groups.
Is there agreement on the basic axiom "All should be free to do as they please, except where that freedom conflicts with the freedom of others."?
And are we agreed on the twofold nature of freedom?
And are we agreed that freedoms "from" generally take precedent over freedoms "to".?
If so, we have good grounds for taking the debate onwards.
|
|
|
|
|
Beneficientor
Adept
Posts: 22
Reputation: 7.47
Rate Beneficientor
Fidei Defensor
|
|
Re:Jurisprudence
« Reply #18 on: 2004-09-28 03:48:55 » |
|
To give more structure to the debate, I suggest we establish two goals.
1. To draw up a Virian Charter. To do this I think we should first establish the axioms upon which a Charter is to be based. One central axiom, I feel, should be the core from which the others flow logically. The central axiom will, therefore, require a sound logical basis and thorough supporting arguments. My personal choice for a "Prime Axiom" would be Liberty- Freedom, but that will be for discussion.
2. From the Charter, the thought experiment can continue by formulating a Constitution best fitted to the Charter- that is, a mechanism of government, jurisprudence, social contract etc. that best embodies the values of the Charter.
So to clarify.
1. Axiom/s- "The goal/primary tenet of a Virian Government is to..."
2. Charter- a thorough codifiable formulation of the values held true by Virians, and their associated miscellanea.
3. Constitution- The full description of the elaborate workings and intricacies of a Virian Government and Social Contract.
I think we've had a good preliminary warm-up to get the topic started, so how about we begin on axioms?
Unless, of course, there are alternative suggestions for a starting point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
