[FoRK] Misunderestimating "The" Tea Party
Stephen D. Williams
sdw at lig.net
Sun Mar 21 15:21:32 PDT 2010
On 3/20/10 9:28 PM, Jeff Bone wrote:
> Damien says:
>> I hate to say it, but this [EU example], in some way, this supports your argument, with
>> the subtlety that aggregation and disaggregation are happening
>> simultaneously - and seemingly supported by each other.
> No contest.
> The question is: how do we *aggregate* just the right set of stuff (and what, exactly, is that set) to allow disaggregation of everything else in order to optimize and localize social choices relative to individual preferences? Without question I agree with the *spirit* of both your EU argument and Russell's general tangent about what he unfortunately refers to as "civil liberties" but which more properly refers to some theory of basic rights. Aggregation to ensure some common, agreeable set of basic
Actually, based on , I think he was right to refer to civil
liberties. Civil liberties:
> generally refers more specifically to the protection of the
> individual's rights to form and express his or her own preferences or
> convictions and to act freely upon them in the private sphere without
> undue or intrusive interference by the government, ... may be seen as
> the logical correlates of the goal of *limited* government
while civil rights:
> emphasizes more specifically the individual's rights as a citizen to
> participate freely and equally in politics and public affairs in order
> actively to promote his/her preferred public policy alternatives
> through lobbying policy-makers and/or through personal participation
> in the electoral process ... are the logical correlates of the goal of
> /popular or democratic <democracy>/ government
Civil liberties are related to basic (human) rights, while civil rights
are the right to exercise influence on and through government, which
might be at odds with civil / basic rights if not bounded by defined
civil rights. When we evolve new civil liberties, we curtail civil
rights, permanently in most cases. When groups opine or, worse, scheme
to "restore" civil rights so that they can curtail civil liberties, we
should all cry foul. Many conservatives, some tea partiers included,
are after exactly this. Party foul. In several senses. Civil
luddites. Wishful & magical thinking at once.
It is clear that guaranteeing civil / human rights is better done at the
top of government. Or, to be clear, it makes sense for either Federal
or state/local enactment of protections for additional liberties. When
it is clear that they are correct, these local protections lead to
Federal protections. Federal protections of liberty (whether Federal
law or SCOTUS rulings) should override local restrictions, but local
declarations of liberty perhaps should also override Federal
restrictions in some cases. This should have happened on speed limits.
This is happening in California on marijuana. Are there any other examples?
Experimenting on restrictions is better done close to the need for a
restriction, which might be very local. A lot of confusion and conflict
comes from the fact that some things can be seen as both freedoms or
freedoms from something, like injury, while being a tax or restriction
or other kind of burden on others. Add a lot of wrong science, pseudo
science, overreaction, or other voodoo, and there is a lot of mistaken
government, however it usually corrects eventually.
Other aspects of government, like taxation methods, school tinkering in
positive ways (but not toward theocracy), public transportation should
be done mostly on smaller scales. To see if they work before w Except
perhaps for some leveraged funding for very long cycle public works:
large-scale bridges, dams, power plants, public transportation, etc.
> rights as well as to minimize unnecessary friction induced by arbitrary national boundaries is a good thing. That it comes at the expense of bundling lots of other preferences and aggregating them in a suboptimal way is not. How can we obtain the benefits of the former without the latter costs?
> *Civil liberties* are rights </wiki/Rights> and freedoms
> </wiki/Political_freedom> that protect an individual
> </wiki/Individual> from the state </wiki/Sovereign_state>. Civil
> liberties set limits on government so that its members cannot abuse
> their power </wiki/Political_power> and interfere unduly with the
> lives of private citizens.
More information about the FoRK