A New Society

[A1lion835]

I've been contemplating the concepts of what rights should be given to people, such as right to gay marriage (I'll use this a lot), and how the law process is carried out. It's my view that, regardless of what you feel about the morality of an issue like gay marriage, it shouldn't matter because it's not your business. Why inflect your morals on other people? I've been trying to figure out how to articulate this for about a week and I think I've found it. This hypothetical society is, at least, close to ideal.

-------------------------------------

First, let us define the most basic unit in this society -- the right.

Right -- An action that either:

A. interacts with other members of society in such a way that, if this right were granted to all people, would not result in any one individual's rights being infringed upon, and also would not result in a significant overall drain on society.

B. does not largely interact with other members of society or the society as a whole.​

This sounds like a pretty good way of running a society, right? Hopefully yes. If not, consider the following. In most modern societies, laws are made based off of their effect on other people. This is why theft, murder, assault, ****, and so many other actions are illegal; they negatively affect (and infringe upon the rights of) other people. This system takes the same basic concept, that the rights of all should be respected, and extends it more broadly over society. That way, people's own beliefs do not lead to bias in cases like gay marriage, because these issues are addressed in the same way as the rest of society.

In addition, the following are rights (which I will refer to as Basic Rights) that trump all other rights. Some of my society's axioms, if you will.

1. Freedom of expression (freedom of speech, press, religion, etc.)

2. Right to fair trial, and right to claim trial if rights are infringed upon

3. Right for rational citizens to vote on governmental systems (democracy)

4. Right to physical safety / self-defense (e.g. no 12-year-olds on the highway, and defending if attacked)

5. Right to pursue happiness -- This right means that individuals should not directly and greatly take away each other's happiness, but that taking offense at others' pursuit of happiness (i.e. gay marriage / inbreeding) is not a valid concern. The pursuit of happiness should not infringe on other's rights (specifically #4). In addition, this right does not cover impacts of what the people (by vote) decide (the government).

6. Right to Rebellion -- The right to overthrow the government if the people believe it is sufficiently corrupt.

An extremely important rule to work out is the following: by electing their representative government, the people relinquish some rights to the government. If the gov't determines that said rights being exercised by the people are bringing more weight to society than good (for example, mass homosexuality leading to a rapidly declining birth rate), they may take whatever measures necessary to lift the weight off of the society. In the example of homosexuality putting the population in jeopardy, the government might need to go as far as forcing procreation between pairs of people if no other solutions exist.

In addition, the following are not rights.

1. Making other individuals perform forced labor

2. Imposing excessive fines/bail; performing cruel and unusual punishment

3. Forcing civilians to house soldiers

4. Right to Ignorance -- Not being educated or using mind-altering drugs. The negative effect of having people who are incapable of functioning within the society is too great.

5. Right to Restriction -- Aside from those with criminal records, the government may not force any citizen in the country to stay there.

Astute readers will notice that these rights draw heavily from the US system. As a US citizen, I can say that it works pretty well concerning the legality of certain deeds based on other people's rights. Moving along...

As an example of how this system works, consider Person A who wants to verbally Person B; this is contradicted by Basic Right #5, as A would be greatly and directly hindering B's right to pursue happiness. However, exclusion of an individual from a group (which, for reasons I can't begin to fathom, is often considered "bullying") does not directly inhibit the excluded's right to pursue happiness, and in addition aids the group in pursuing happiness, provided they have a rational reason for exclusion.

Now, based on the axioms I have defined above, we can derive some more rights. These are all either from the basic definition of a right or more directly implied by a Basic Right. Of course, this list is not complete.

1. Right to consensual physical interaction -- Physical contact should be consensual. To put it bluntly, high-fives are good and **** is bad. Accidentally bumping into other people in the hallway is not bad. Intentional, nonconsensual contact can be brought to court and dealt with case-by-case. This is implied from Pursuit of Happiness.

2. Right of Possession -- If Person A owns something, it is his to do with as he chooses. This means, obviously, that stealing it is unlawful. This also applies to life. Unless a victim agrees to it, murder is illegal. At the same time, a member of society has the right to commit suicide. If the individual who wishes to die (let's call him Person X) is prevented from doing so by another individual, X can pursue legal action for the emotional trauma they have gone through. This is implied from Pursuit of Happiness.

3. Right to Free Marriage -- Marriage can exist between any two partners. This is because it does not considerably drain on society, does not infringe on any other rights if granted to all citizens, and does not interact largely with other parts of society. Again, being blunt: guys can marry guys and brothers can marry sisters, because it's no one else's ****ing business. However, members of unions that are deemed to not have sufficient genetic variety (close inbreeding) may not create offspring with each other. Also note that there is no maximum number of marriages per person.

4. Right to Hunt -- People may hunt species for any purpose. However, if overhunting of a species occurs, the government may prohibit its hunting to help keep the ecosystem stable and diverse.

It is important to note that individuals' rights may be restricted if they are not deemed to be rational and educated until such time that they are. For example, adolescents cannot vote because of their developing minds and possible bias/pressure from parents. An individual without proper education should also not vote.

This is a more ideal society than we see in most (dare I say all?) parts of the world today. In this society, your rules aren't arbitrarily declared by the government; every individual has the exact same rights (unless they are willingly relinquished), and these rights are defined in an elegant, recursive way. It completely eliminates the passing of ethical laws based on people's own ethical standards (such as with outlawing gay marriage), and instead only considers the ethics of the situation.

There are probably a few minor holes in this system of rights, but I don't think three more Basic Rights would be unable to patch up any holes. At the same time, there are probably possible contradictions in my system, but I'm sure the rights can be adjusted to remove them. What do you guys think?

 

[Dre89]

Talk about exploding onto the PG scene.

This is a very modern system, sounds like Social Contract Theory.

There are only a few issues I have with your post. The major one is that these appear to be the conclusion, not the premises. You've basically just stated what you believe, but you haven't shown why.

Secondly, with regards to marriage, you say marriage can be between any two rational people, but is it just limited to two people? Do you endorse polygamy? Do you also endorse drug taking? Endorsing these appears to be consistent with your system, but you didn't specificy whether you endorse these or not. If you do not endorse these practices, you need to explain why, as rejecting them appears to contradict the trend of your system.

 

[A1lion835]

I appreciate the feedback ^_^ . I've actually posted some other threads already, but my activity hasn't been much in the past two months.

I hadn't actually checked anything on this when I posted it; it's all been in my head. I agree that it sounds like Social Contract Theory (having just read the Wikipedia page, for perspective). I've added the issues of polygamy to the OP: I have as much of a problem with people having multiple wives as guys having husbands and brothers marrying sisters (none). It's none of my business. I actually hadn't thought about that when I posted it (I guess just showing that we're all sometimes narrow-minded) but the original wording was vague enough that it didn't condone or condemn it. As for drugs, there's nothing inherently terrible about an individual using them, though if their mind is proven to have been altered enough they should lose rights similar to those of the non-educated. If the entire society began using these drugs, I think it would be necessary for the government to outlaw them based on the harm they were doing.

 

[Dre89]

Is there an issue with the entirety of society practising polygamy?

With the drugs, you said it's ok as long as it does not become universalised, at which point it would need to be banned. But can you really allow a practice which cannot be universalised? Also, you could not universalise homosexuality, so the same issue stands there as well. Also, what is your stance on suicide? That cannot be universalised either.

The issue I have with allowing non-universifiable acts is that you're essentially discirminating between people who can do it and people who can't. To me, if it's non-universifiable, perhaps there is something wrong with the practice to begin with.

I like your post, it was logical and structured well. The only problem is (and it's a big problem) is that you just stated your beliefs, you didn't state the reasons why this is the optimal societal system. You really need to do that. An important part of that argument will be justifying the belief that if a practice does not harm anyone, that automatically makes it permissable.

If you can make that argument (it doesn't have to convince me, I just need to see that you can logically back up your conclusions) I'll +1 you in the Jedi Council.

 

[A1lion835]

No, I don't find an issue with an entire society practicing polygamy. Unless we go to the super-extreme case where every male is married to every female (and vice-versa) and there's some kind of absurd Westermarck effect on all the children and no one wants to breed.

You raise an interesting point about the practice being unable to be universalized. I think my process would still stand, even if banning was required; the fluctuation of people who take drugs (from all, to none, to unbanned and beginning growth) reminds me of the fluctuation of a population in time with the food source in biology. It could just be the natural flow; the system is not perfectly balanced, but it always tends to balance after the carrying capacity of the society is reached.
...
On the other hand, after thinking about it more, I'm leaning towards saying that each member of this society should be educated and remain educated until their brains begin to break down. That way, rights should not need to be taken away from individuals. Essentially, I am removing their Right to Ignorance.

On the topic of homosexuality, the possibility that all of society would become homosexual seems incredibly slim, but disregarding that, egg cells could simply be combined with sperm in a lab. Whether having two of one gender parent has a good effect on the child is a separate issue.

My views on suicide make it difficult for me to argue about this, but for the sake of this argument, I'll pretend that stopping suicide is always beneficial.

Suicide also has a similar solution. It seems unlikely that the entire society will go through a suicide epidemic (I'm not aware of one happening in history), and if all the members of the population wish to die, after making sure they have considered it greatly, I don't think there's anything the society should or could do, even making it illegal. If the majority of society wishes to die, will the policemen fence up the bridges, pools and lakes, control all the drug, weapon, rope, and poison purchases and monitor all the civilians? That seems like an infinitely worse policy than allowing suicide.

Working on the OP, although schoolwork and need to sleep may win over that in about an hour and a half.

 

[Dre89]

On the suicide issue, even you will probably concede that there are times when suicide should be prevented, for example in the cases of parents of dependant children.

So when addressing mass suicide, the majority of these people will be those parents, so it is owed to the next generation that they have a generation of good parents.

I also don't think the argument "it's unlikely that everyone will become homosexual" works. Sexuality is psychological (that doesn't mean I'm saying they consciously choose to be gay, they don't choose it, but there's evidence that sexuality is psychologically influenced) so suppose the media starts heavily backing homosexuality. Gradually, as homosexuality becomes more and more endorsed, to the point that it is actually preferred, more and more people will become homosexual, to the point where the majority of the race becomes homosexual. The point is if it's hypothetically possible, it needs to be addressed. Using technology to accommodate the procreation problem seems a bit expensive, and doesn't apply to developing countries.

Also, with any practice that can't be universalised, at what point do you ban it? 70% of the population practising it? 80? 99%

 

[A1lion835]

My view on suicide is that it is often bad, but not always. If the parents are willing to kill themselves just to be free of a disabled (I believe that's what you mean by "dependant" -- otherwise, please clarify) child, I don't believe they're good parents, but the children should be sorted into good foster homes, preferably of relatives.

I wasn't trying to get out of arguing against you, just stating an important feature about our topic. If mass homosexuality became an issue to the population, the government (who I gave more rights in the OP on my last edit -- you might want to read it over again) should do whatever it takes to make the population stable again. This could go as far as forcing people to procreate, as well as applying pressure on the media to back being straight.

In this particular case, I think the line should be drawn when the government decides that the drain on society is too great. For example, if people are constantly destroying their brains and it is having (or reliably projected to have) a large effect on the society, the government will need to put stricter laws in place. Similarly, if a small increase in drug usage results in a disproportionately large drop in productivity, the gov't should regulate the usage until it is at its former level.

That's it for me tonight.

 

[ballin4life]

Having a government at all infringes on the right to pursuit of happiness because it is a non-voluntary system.

I take a lot of issue with democracy/representative government in particular. I don't agree with 51% of people being able to tell the other 49% what to do.

It's also extremely dubious to say that the government really knows what's "best" for society (if such a concept can even be defined clearly), and you appear to give the government way too much power on that front (they can do just about anything as long as they claim that it is what's "best" for society).

 

[jaswa]

Dependent child would cover disabled people but means what it looks like, a child who depends on parental figure, eg. a 15yr old going through school living at home with their parents is a dependent child - they don't know how to live on their own and they're not educated enough to make it on their own either.

Just clarifying that, on my phone atm so won't add anything else.

 

[A1lion835]

Having a government at all infringes on the right to pursuit of happiness because it is a non-voluntary system.

I take a lot of issue with democracy/representative government in particular. I don't agree with 51% of people being able to tell the other 49% what to do.

It's also extremely dubious to say that the government really knows what's "best" for society (if such a concept can even be defined clearly), and you appear to give the government way too much power on that front (they can do just about anything as long as they claim that it is what's "best" for society).

The representative government is not non-voluntary; the representatives, by definition, are elected. I haven't gone into great detail about how the government would work, but I can go down that tangent if you'd like.

The representatives would make choices both based on how it would influence society and if it would start a rebellion. If the government decided that all baby male children should be brutally slaughtered in the name of society, it would cause mass riots and an overthrow of the government. If the people believe that the government's not doing the best for the people, then it's their right and duty to put a stop to it. Thank you for bringing up that point though; it makes me feel like the Right to Rebellion should be a basic right, from a technical standpoint. I also feel the need to stop BR #5 from covering decisions that are carried out because of a vote.

 

[ballin4life]

Representative government is still non-voluntary.

If my candidate loses, then I never voluntarily allowed any representative to govern me.

Also, I never voluntarily joined the society in the first place.

And it's not necessarily true that the people will overthrow an unjust government. It happens sometimes, sure, but there's plenty of examples like Nazi Germany, where the people supported the unjust things happening, and the Soviet Union, where the people were forced into subservience by their government (they didn't have the strength to revolt).

 

[A1lion835]

If you are dissatisfied enough with the government or the society in general, you can go to another country, live in the wilderness, protest, run yourself, or any number of options. Laziness isn't a basic right (albeit technically a right by definition ).

Nazi Germany was not overthrown as a combination of becoming a police state and because Hitler fed the people a future they wanted to see. However, you have a point that the government would have too much power. The only government I don't see that being a potential problem in is a pure democracy, but the flaws in that system are much too evident. I'll work on trying to figure out how to reasonably lower the government's power.

 

[El_LoVo]

I have one question before I can add anything else.
Why do you believe we need a government in our society?

 

[Darxmarth23]

I have one question before I can add anything else.
Why do you believe we need a government in our society?

Well, the "need" for a government comes from our fear of having our rights taken away.
A governments duty is to protect our rights.
On paper at least.

Progressing society etc is not the governments job unless the institution takes up that role.

 

[A1lion835]

I apologize for my long absence.

After reading and thinking more about this, I have some better arguments, as well as some flaws. I originally thought of this idea to remove "victimless crimes", which is one of the best oxymorons I've ever heard.

The illegality of mind-disabling drugs can be supported more strongly. The drain on society for these individuals' health care costs makes society a definite victim.

The government exists to uphold rights, economy, war, and keep things running smoothly. As long as there are good checks and balances in place to control its power, there shouldn't be a problem.

My biggest flaw comes with the laws on suicide. According to my system, the individual, regardless of intellectual maturity, can take their own life whenever they want. But can using force be justified if they're a danger to themselves (and isn't that a victimless crime)? If yes, is that individual also not allowed to leave the society? If they are allowed to leave the society, they could simply leave and then kill themselves. And if they are not allowed to, to what age can the government police its residents? Wouldn't that defeat the society's purpose? Hypothetically, I would be a huge supporter of Right to Die. But in reality, since suicide can often be prevented (depression is often the only cause), I'm not so concrete. It comes down to this: is it morally just to do something to someone, against their own will, "For their own good"? Should individuals or groups be allowed to commit those actions if they are held legally responsible for the pain the victim goes through?

I'm suggesting these partly to play devil's advocate, but also because I need answers myself.

 

[ballin4life]

I don't know what your point is about health care costs. Society is not victimized if those drugged out people pay for their health care. Plus I'd need a pretty strong argument that drugs cause significant health care costs anyway.

Lastly, I don't think you can say that "society" is a victim because that is ill-defined. Society is just a collection of individuals, so you should be able to point directly at the individuals that are harmed by an action.

There are never good checks and balances in a government (and who even gets to decide what constitutes "good checks and balances" ... let me guess - the government?).

On paternalism: I am strongly against paternalism in general, but I can see myself acting paternalistically in certain cases (e.g. preventing a suicide or holding an intervention for a drug abuser). But I would only do this if I honestly thought that the person would thank me afterwords. The vast, vast majority of paternalistic actions do not satisfy this criterion. There are plenty of drug users who do not want to end their habit and would be harmed by an intervention, for example.