you seem to think that the only way to solve potential problems is to turn over our minds and rights to government, so it can make all the tough decisions for us.

I am not promoting anarchy at all. It is necessary to have government to invest it with the sole authority to exercise physical force, in RESPONSE to those who initiate it first. Another job of government is to enact judicial decisions, which is what Law Courts are for.

I think your comments about tribalism or feudalism take some justification; what makes you think this would happen at all? Individual rights would still have to be protected; government would still maintain a police force. But individual rights would be off-limits, and that requires universal freedom regardless of what the majority want. If you accept the premise of man as a moral being, individual rights are NECESSARY in social circumstances. And if you accept this, democracy is necessarily immoral.

“That is, the right to exist, and ergo the right to maintain one’s life by any means necessary, the right to produce and have sole ownership over the fruitage of one’s own work – ergo the right to property.

In other words, freedom to do anything except violate the rights of another human.

Therefore, the only moral purpose of government is to protect the individual rights of its citizens. Establishing law or rule by majority vote is NECESSARILY to sacrifice the rights of some people to others.”

…seems to be advocating anarchy. By what mechanism would society function under the described system? I think that nations would be at serious risk of collapse, leading to tribalism and feudalism, taking us backward by 500 years or more.

I think the problem with most forms of democracy is that the terms of government are too long, the voting process is unwieldy, and politicians are largely unaccountable once they’re elected to office.

Further, I think the US flavour of democracy is not ideal. Proportional representation and the electoral college can make the vote of the individual irrelevant. As much as I love the US (I spend a lot of time there), I do think the UK form of democracy is superior.

the US is the best form of government in the world today, and the best in the history of mankind. It’s not perfect at all, but it’s the best we’ve got currently.

The Founders did a very good job writing individual rights into the Constitution, and limiting the power of government over the individual. This is the first example of government that was built around individual rights from the start.

Imagine if the only laws the government could enforce were those that protected personal rights… The scope for corruption and bribery and influence would be severely limited, because what the government could actually DO would be so restricted. E.g.: passing laws against freedom of speech, or passing censorship laws, or the Patriot Act, or politicians voting themselves new payrises, or taxing more successful people more than others, or granting religions tax-exempt status, etc etc; there’s no need to make the list as long as possible, you get the point. Any democratic government that has the authority to infringe personal rights is necessarily rule by mob.

I’ll just add, needless to say, that government should be a paid servant. It should serve people, not the other way around.

Democracy usually also entails protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. In the U.S., for example, this has, until recently, been even more important than majority rule. In fact, the U.S. is not truly a democracy at all since we have no national election. However, until very recently, protection of minority rights was a hallmark of our form of government. The founders did an excellent job on the point. The current administration is also doing an excellent job at undoing it, but that is another issue. Even there, it is not truly about majority rule. In the current case, it is actually a very vocal and loud minority taking away the rights of the majority. Ideas on how to stop it and get back on track?

1alberich1,

Here and there, there are some notable exceptions. Jains will not even kill an insect and walk with brooms to sweep them out of harms way. Therefore, Jains seem unlikely to be as lethal as most other religions. It is probably also why they are far less numerous. (I just love to disagree with people on minor points, it often shows how correct they actually are on the major ones. In short, I agree with you wholeheartedly, especially with respect to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion (always singular in my posts).)

Oh, and you’re right about God Delusion as well. I see it at about $13 incl. shipping at the moment.

@ Onset: thanks for the comment, it wasn’t too long at all. I don’t think Britain should invest its time and money to try and “save” the Sudanese people, but we should clearly act to protect the interest of our citizens. Whilst barbaric cruelty and immoral judgement may be the status quo over there, that doesn’t make it right, and pandering to the warped ethical subjectivism of a backwards culture isn’t the answer either. The British government should demand the immediate release of its citizen, or Sudan should face the consequences, whether they be economic or military. And no, I’m not overacting. If governments learned that they cannot abuse the rights of people, even one person, they wouldn’t do it. At least not to those citizens of another country.

The Sudanese government deserves no respect or tolerance in this matter. And until it changes it attitude to rights, deserves no respect on anything.

It all stems around the fact that the British Govt. threatened the Sudanese govt. with sanctions if they don’t clean up their act about the huge numbers of displaced people in Sudan.

Sudan is nearing a failed state status, innocent people are dying all over the place. The Govt. needs to build up support from its people. The Sudanese don’t like the Brits much because of what happened over a Century ago (Look up Generals Gordon and Kitchner).

What better way to join the people in a common cause, thereby forgetting genuine ills, than by attacked the old Colonial power?

The teacher involved in this case has been caught in the crossfire. Two British Muslim Lords have gone over there to sort out the sorry affair.

I don’t think Islam’s reputation will suffer as greatly as that of Sudan. They are the ones who have behaved disgracefully.

If only they reacted with the same zeal to all the innocent deaths at the hands of the barbaic rebels as well as Govt.

Sorry for the overlong comment but I felt it was necessary.

It’s one of the reasons why western religions are on the decline. We used to burn blasphemers at the stake. Now we tolerate it, and religion is losing its influence as a result.

What do you suggest in its place?

Let’s be clear about our definitions. By democracy I mean the rule by an elected party/person as dictated by a majority of the population; and by “rule” I mean the ability to pass any law within (or not within) reason.

I am not against the principle of voting for policy in matters where individual rights are not violated.

I reject democratic rule on principle because it necessitates the violation of the rights of at least some people for the the wishes of the majority. In short “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” is something I reject. Sorry Spock.

What I would put “in its place” is universal freedom with constitutional guarantees, and those guarantees would be those that are necessary corollaries of individual rights. That is, the right to exist, and ergo the right to maintain one’s life by any means necessary, the right to produce and have sole ownership over the fruitage of one’s own work – ergo the right to property.

In other words, freedom to do anything except violate the rights of another human.

Therefore, the only moral purpose of government is to protect the individual rights of its citizens. Establishing law or rule by majority vote is NECESSARILY to sacrifice the rights of some people to others.

I am quickly becoming convinced that tolerance for religion may have to be declared a relic of the past. In this high-tech age, religion has just become too dangerous to allow it to continue to grow unchecked.

God Bless Ignorance and Intolerance!