Contest thread: When does the state overstep its boundaries and become unjust?

[myp]

This is the first contest debate we are having on Political Fray and hopefully it will be the first of many (depending on the level of activity and response we get from all of you.) If this works out, we will probably be having these at least a couple times a month and maybe more.

The prize for this particular debate is $5 (via Paypal), but other debates will be varying amounts (not less than $5 though.) We (me and omeythehomie) will choose the winner based on who best makes their point as well as refutes other people's points. Personal attacks and anything against the rules or uncalled for will lead to termination from the contest, so don't try it- we are here to have a civilized discussion. Also, please keep in mind that the political beliefs of omeythehomie or myself, WILL NOT play a part in deciding who wins- we are going to be as impartial as we can and we will pick a winner based on who makes their point most effectively. Me and omeythehomie are not eligible to participate. This contest will end 1 week from this post date/time.

Ok, so here we go. The first contest topic is:
When does the state (government) overstep its boundaries and become unjust? Why do you feel this way? Defining what is and isn't just may help your argument as well, although it isn't required.

Edit: Contest is OVER , winner will be decided shortly. I will keep the thread open though for those who want to discuss the topic.
Edit again: And the winner is... Deanhills. We had some great responses, but DeanHills really stuck to the question as others focused too much on America itself, while the question was more of a broad question on the justness and the state. I've pmed you with details on how to get the prize Dean.

 

[deanhills]

Excellent idea! Is there a timeline for it? Think I would like to work on it, but need a few days, if that is possible?

 

[myp]

Excellent idea! Is there a timeline for it? Think I would like to work on it, but need a few days, if that is possible?

One week from the original post.

 

[deanhills]

As I see it, the Government's task is to articulate the rights and duties of citizens and to protect them from threats. When Government oversteps its boundaries and begins to asume more authority, big Government programs and policies tend to confuse the lines between citizen responsibility and government responsibility. As a result, citizens get to assume and expect that government will provide for its neighbors' needs. Applying this to the Federal Government of the United States, the Federal Government has been overstepping its boundaries for decades, maybe even centuries, with the permission of its citizens. It is a good example of big getting bigger, and fuelling itself and as a result society becoming weaker and completely reliant on Government programmes, the current health care legislation a good example as well, and the huge debt in trillions of dollars the result of it.

 

[Nemo]

"We have met the enemy and he is us."
- Walt Kelly

It is useless and insipid to argue that government has overstepped its bounds when we are to blame. To have twice elected a President who considers the Constitution "just a Goddamn piece of paper" is symptomatic of a more serious malady afflicting the American people for which we have failed to take responsibility. For those that live in a democracy, they should look first to themselves as responsible for their institutions of government. Ours is a constitutional republic - a representative form of government - and if you will not stand for elected office and serve, then give your support to one who will serve the public interest. The least one can do is cast an informed vote: for what value is the franchise but its exercise? Indeed, it is a fundamental failure of democratic principle when elections are determined by apathy and ignorance. Our elected representatives and officials are a reflection of our society; and, ultimately, ourselves. It is fitting that in a democracy the people should have the government they deserve.

 

[Dirk]

For those that live in a democracy...

Which excludes you, then.

a representative form of government

Yep, you choose who screws you over.

(And there is a very limited choice - anything but the two factions of the business party is a "wasted vote")

 

[Nemo]

No. As I said, you can stand for elected office yourself. If you are not going to play, then don't complain about the game.

 

[Dirk]

No. As I said, you can stand for elected office yourself. If you are not going to play, then don't complain about the game.

Not in your country, but it's hypothetically possible.

However, my rejection of rulers involves a personal resolution not to become what i hate.

I also think it would be extremely difficult to remain faithful to myself and my ideals, because as Bakunin so rightly said, power corrupts the best.

While i won't stand for election to the Bundestag or whatever, that doesn't mean i don't do anything. Indeed, people that think they control things through elections (they don't - they only choose others to rule them) are less likely to do something to actually change things. You know, that actually have a chance.

 

[Nemo]

Well, I would agree that change is certainly difficult - witness the troubled times we are undergoing today - it's very hard. The reason is that there is nothing more characteristic of human nature than its resistence to change. There is a strong preference to the familiar; and old habits, however bad, are hard to break - they persist in the face of perversity. Jefferson observed in the Declaration of Independence that mankind was more disposed to suffer evil than abolish its accustomed forms. But to change requires more than just independence of mind or spirit, it requires courage; for there is no action that is more deliberate or more daring.

 

[porsteamboy]

I would say the Government hit the ground over stepping their boundaries and continued unjustly. First off they all but ignored the slavery issue and pushed the issue on to other generations to right the problem. A represenitive Republic for the people by the people, You couldn't vote unless you were a free holder, you couldn't vote if you were a women, or a sailor, there idea of we the people were white men in powdered wigs. They continued on with the unjust institution of slavery and unjust treatment of the indians ( which continues today. ) All men are created equal, which later became equal but seperate. I guess the real question would be when hasn't the Government over stepped thier boundaries and effected the minority unjustly through out history. Here is a liitle ditty that somes it up: The poor camplain, they always do, thats idle chatter, our system brings rewards to all, at least to all that matter.

 

[Nemo]

"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, . . . "the law is a ass - a idiot. If that?s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience - by experience."
- Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, Chapter 51 (1838)
. . .

I think that the previous post underscores the difficulties in dealing with the problems of society as a monolithic institution. We are a nation of laws and not men; however the law, which defines our rights, does not exist in a vacuum, but only within the framework of established social order. Society is a dynamic (not a static) structure; but at the same time it represents man?s resistence to change. In this, one must be mindful that the progress of every civilization has been a constant struggle to bring stability to an uncertain world. The invention of banking and credit brought standards of reliance and accountability in trade and commerce; while government and laws based on precedent provided some predictability in applying the rules of social intercourse; and established religion perpetuated the myth of the triumph of good over evil. The law is but one form of social expression that exists as an integrated system; one cannot abstract it from the established social order. It is self-reflective; i.e., it is a reflection of societal values. Is the law fair, or just? No. Is the law, as Mr. Bumble says in Oliver Twist, "a ass - a idiot" (is it blind to experience that men use it to their own perverse ends)? Yes. But that merely begs the question; for to say that the law is bad is to say that the society it serves is bad, and, ultimately, that man is bad. As with any man-made institution, the law comes cap-a-pie with all the faults and failings of human nature. Would you change things, you must change man; and human nature being what it is, that is not likely to happen anytime soon.

 

[myp]

Ok, we are about twelve hours over, so I will end the contest here. I will pick a winner shortly, but you all are more than welcome to continue the discussion.

 

[porsteamboy]

"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, . . . "the law is a ass - a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience - by experience."
- Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, Chapter 51 (1838)
. . .

I think that the previous post underscores the difficulties in dealing with the problems of society as a monolithic institution. We are a nation of laws and not men; however the law, which defines our rights, does not exist in a vacuum, but only within the framework of established social order. Society is a dynamic (not a static) structure; but at the same time it represents man’s resistence to change. In this, one must be mindful that the progress of every civilization has been a constant struggle to bring stability to an uncertain world. The invention of banking and credit brought standards of reliance and accountability in trade and commerce; while government and laws based on precedent provided some predictability in applying the rules of social intercourse; and established religion perpetuated the myth of the triumph of good over evil. The law is but one form of social expression that exists as an integrated system; one cannot abstract it from the established social order. It is self-reflective; i.e., it is a reflection of societal values. Is the law fair, or just? No. Is the law, as Mr. Bumble says in Oliver Twist, "a ass - a idiot" (is it blind to experience that men use it to their own perverse ends)? Yes. But that merely begs the question; for to say that the law is bad is to say that the society it serves is bad, and, ultimately, that man is bad. As with any man-made institution, the law comes cap-a-pie with all the faults and failings of human nature. Would you change things, you must change man; and human nature being what it is, that is not likely to happen anytime soon.

Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.

 

[Nemo]

To say that right is right and wrong is wrong, petitio principii, only begs the question (viz., it assumes the existence of justice independent of the law. What is justice but the vindication of right over wrong? But then who is to say what is right and what is wrong? What may seem right to one might well be wrong to another. Is there an absolute answer? - Even reasonable men can only agree to disagree on the issue. And so who decides? Does the majority (however wrong-headed) rule? Is that really fair? Are the scales of justice truly equal? Can the law be unjust, unfair and inequitable? The jury is still out on these questions. A word to the wise: In this world of men and money, you can have as much justice as you can afford.

 

[myp]

I have picked DeanHills as the winner because it directly responded to the prompt and he explained why he beliefs such. The other entries were good as well, although they focused too much on the US (the prompt was more about justness and the state in general.) Having said that, I felt that Nemo's entry was mostly geared towards constitutional republics, whereas the prompt was geared to a larger arena of government. Porsteamboy's focused on the United States more as well. Don't worry though, we will be having more contests soon, so everyone should get a chance to win and I hope there are no hard feelings- I just tried to pick who I thought best argued their point in relation to the prompt.

By the way Nemo, this was a very thought-provoking and interesting post, thanks for sharing: http://www.politicalfray.com/showpost.php?p=7794&postcount=11