baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Yep, this is typical political theory stuff, and fine up to a certain point (although 'protecting individuals against crime and tyranny' - this is only contingently true, some are more equal than others blah blah). I'm saying that without the integration of psychological perspectives, constructs like 'individual happiness' are allowed to go unchallenged, as though they have an obvious meaning.
People who live in states are comparable to dutiful children! They by and large don't challenge the state and abide by its rules with little question, even when they're absurd and/or morally wrong, and the state allows them to earn some pocket money to buy themselves nice things, and two days off a week. Challenge the state on any major point, and it's obvious what happens.
The permissiveness that exists is because people fought for it over many years, (as did the two days off)! It didn't arrive pre-packaged, presented to people by the state/ruling classes. You know this,obviously, but it bears pointing out again. Which links in to the law being pragmatic. It changes when there is sufficient public pressure (which builds up ultimately from a beginning of struggle), not because of morality per se. Women didn't get the vote because men in power became nicer and more moral, for example!
(Obviously the permissiveness also intersects with the need for people to spend more in their free time to keep the economy growing, and the need for a massive leisure industry.)
People who live in states are comparable to dutiful children! They by and large don't challenge the state and abide by its rules with little question, even when they're absurd and/or morally wrong, and the state allows them to earn some pocket money to buy themselves nice things, and two days off a week. Challenge the state on any major point, and it's obvious what happens.
The permissiveness that exists is because people fought for it over many years, (as did the two days off)! It didn't arrive pre-packaged, presented to people by the state/ruling classes. You know this,obviously, but it bears pointing out again. Which links in to the law being pragmatic. It changes when there is sufficient public pressure (which builds up ultimately from a beginning of struggle), not because of morality per se. Women didn't get the vote because men in power became nicer and more moral, for example!
(Obviously the permissiveness also intersects with the need for people to spend more in their free time to keep the economy growing, and the need for a massive leisure industry.)
The organisation of state and society in (say) the U.K. is partly the residue of tradition (see Burke) but also a contract that enshrines basic rights and protects individuals against crime and tyranny. It's not designed to answer philosophical questions of human happiness. This is only the task of politics for utopians. Political Utopias are not a problem, the Utopians who try to create them are. I suppose another way of defining the Left/Right in the modern liberal state is to talk about those who protect liberty and those who strive for equality; the former are conservative, in the sense that they seek to protect individuals from state intrusion, and the latter are utopians, in that they believe that state can be an instrument for creating a better society. The former protect individual happiness, the latter strive to create the conditions for universal happiness. So...
People are not like dutiful children, but the "present order" (for what it is) believes inequality is a human reality and the state should not try to eradicate it (current conservative position) while the opposing view thinks that wealth should be redistributed to some degree to approach some sort of equality (Labour welfarism). High-tax countries (Switzerland, say, or Norway) exist in the West, are generally accepted by their citizens, are content and well-run to an extent, but have other consequent(ial) problems.
Our European democracies have space for transgression to the extent that they are permissive societies -- which they are. There are taboos and limits -- artists afraid to turn their "controversial" work in the direction of Islam, say, or sexual crime, or snuff movies. Most of these are uncontroversial crimes, which I would not consider to be "amoral" or "pragmatic".
Last edited: