The way to show government should intervene into personal lives

[MadMojoMonkey]

@Bananastand: Strawman, much?
My point was that the purpose of a gov't varies by culture and population, and your point was, "Look at 'Murica!" while ignoring all the interesting points about the varieties of State governance.
You're not wrong about America's Federal government, but you're not on the same topic as the thing you called FALSE. You haven't compared it to anything to show identical purpose.

If you want to bring it back to a non-strawman argument, then you need to cite how other world governments (not only the federal gov'ts of the world, all gov'ts at all scales) meet the same purpose as America's government, and keep in mind that plenty of those governments are governing small populations with very different international and societal pressures to contend with.



I have not confused purpose with function. The function of a government is 100% objective. The function is what it actually does, not what it SHOULD do.
The purpose is what it SHOULD do, which is perfectly subjective.

You're pigeon-holing this conversation into one about "American" and "Federal" government, which is trivial.
Of course any single government at a snapshot in time has an objective purpose. It's erroneous to assert that said purpose is unchanging.


***
@wuf:
The point is conflict resolution. How that manifests depends on what conflicts we're talking about and the historical context of past reactions to past conflicts.

Go back to your example of the world of 2 people and one grows an apple tree, but the other comes along and picks all the apples. Who rightfully owns the apples?
Clearly the one who grew the apples says, "Those apples would not exist if not for my effort, that effort is my claim to the apples."
Just as clearly, the other one says, "Your effort is nil. The tree and grew the apples without your effort. I had to walk over to the tree and reach up real high over my head to pick some of those apples, anyway. IF effort matters (and I'm not saying it does), then my effort is greater than yours."

etc.

There is no objectively "rightful owner" of the apples, only 2 people with a dispute. They can cite any moral or ethical arguments they like, but that's not likely to sway the other party, who has different morals and ethics. In the absence of a majority to coerce one of the apple guys into acquiescence, there is only an argument. It doesn't matter who the majority awards the apples, of if it can force a compromise where apples are shared. All that matters is that a precedent is set, around which other conflicts will be resolved. The next time there is a dispute about apples, the standard is now set and the dispute is more quickly resolved. However, this is only possible because there was unequal disagreement in the addition of an outside party to resolve the conflict. If 2 parties disagree, but are equally strong (politically), then there is no morally right course of action. Moral rightness is simply a trivial artifact of tyranny of the majority.

[wufwugy]

@wuf:
The point is conflict resolution. How that manifests depends on what conflicts we're talking about and the historical context of past reactions to past conflicts.

Go back to your example of the world of 2 people and one grows an apple tree, but the other comes along and picks all the apples. Who rightfully owns the apples?
Clearly the one who grew the apples says, "Those apples would not exist if not for my effort, that effort is my claim to the apples."
Just as clearly, the other one says, "Your effort is nil. The tree and grew the apples without your effort. I had to walk over to the tree and reach up real high over my head to pick some of those apples, anyway. IF effort matters (and I'm not saying it does), then my effort is greater than yours."

etc.

There is no objectively "rightful owner" of the apples, only 2 people with a dispute. They can cite any moral or ethical arguments they like, but that's not likely to sway the other party, who has different morals and ethics. In the absence of a majority to coerce one of the apple guys into acquiescence, there is only an argument. It doesn't matter who the majority awards the apples, of if it can force a compromise where apples are shared. All that matters is that a precedent is set, around which other conflicts will be resolved. The next time there is a dispute about apples, the standard is now set and the dispute is more quickly resolved. However, this is only possible because there was unequal disagreement in the addition of an outside party to resolve the conflict. If 2 parties disagree, but are equally strong (politically), then there is no morally right course of action. Moral rightness is simply a trivial artifact of tyranny of the majority.

Bonds held in escrow by agreed upon arbitration could be one powerful tool for conflict resolution. There are variations on that theme that could work for different situations.

[BananaStand]

The purpose of a gov't is whatever its citizens decide its purpose is

Did North Korea's citizens decide that it's government's purpose should be to starve and oppress the people?

The purpose is what it SHOULD do, which is perfectly subjective.

False. Especially when you combine it with the first quote. You're saying that the government is SHOULD do whatever it's citizens decide it should do.

Maybe you've heard this one lately......"The government should make it illegal for nazi's to say nazi things around non-nazi's"

^That's a totally subjective statement about what the government should do. The vast majority of people in this country agree with the underlying sentiment of distaste for nazi's. But that doesn't mean that the government SHOULD make a law, no matter how hard you wish for it to happen. Now lets say there was 1 nazi left in the whole country, and all 325 million other people decided that they wanted a law banning nazi rhetoric.

Let's say hypothetically that the vote is literally 325 million to 1 in favor of the law. LEt's say that all but one citizen has "decided the gov't's purpose" is to squash nazi speech. Let's say that all but one citizen in the entire country feel that there SHOULD be a law stopping nazi talk.

The OBJECTIVE reality remains....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

To a degree, you're right. Some people in the late 1700's got together and decided what the government's purpose is. It was based on their philosophies, opinions, and experiences at the time. I guess you can call that a 'subjective decision'. But after it was ratified into a constitution....it's no longer open for edits.

Sorry if that's all too America-centric for you. But knowing what I know about wuf's posts, I think its safe to assume that America is a central discussion point. But if you prefer the international flair....then please explain how North Korea can oppress and starve people if those same people are responsible for dictating the government's purpose?

[boost]

banana-

You are objectively an inferior interlocutor.


MMM-

I mostly agree/am intrigued by the directions you've headed with this. One thing I disagree on is what seems to be an assumption that morals are ultimately subjective. In the given scenario, if there is not apple scarcity, the apple grower's efforts are moot, as keeping track of ownership is a needless burden and worsens both men's lives-- the in the case of scarcity, the apple picker's merits are moot, as disincentivizing the apple grower from growing apples makes both men's lives worse. We needn't consider whether one man is stubborn and beyond reason, as this doesn't have any bearing on an objective morality.

[MadMojoMonkey]

One thing I disagree on is what seems to be an assumption that morals are ultimately subjective. In the given scenario, if there is not apple scarcity, the apple grower's efforts are moot, as keeping track of ownership is a needless burden and worsens both men's lives-- the in the case of scarcity, the apple picker's merits are moot, as disincentivizing the apple grower from growing apples makes both men's lives worse. We needn't consider whether one man is stubborn and beyond reason, as this doesn't have any bearing on an objective morality.

We all hold certain values as inalienable by presumption. Among them in your above critique is the presumption that there is any value in either or both apple-guy's lives, or specifically that "worsening" their lives is either objective or immoral. Sure, they're humans in the story, and as humans, we want to assign value to humans' lives, but that is not objective value. (To be clear, I don't disagree that there is value in human lives, but only that it is objective value.)

What if we replace the humans with brain parasites, and the argument between them is over which one gets to parasite your brain? Is the inherent value in their lives of any concern to you at this point?

Maybe not the best example, but I think it makes the point, in a passable way.

How about this, then: The "obvious" objective morality I hold is not identical to the "obvious" objective morality you hold, which is a problem for both the obviousness and the objectivity.

[Jack Sawyer]

@Bananastand: Strawman, much?

LOL