Turn on thread page Beta

Private sphere and the extent of government influence watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    I've already answered it. Rights don't exist independently of the government (which means they're not really "rights"). The only rights that I concede exist are the right to life, liberty, and property (because just about every society in history has respected or claimed to respect those rights), all within the nation of one's citizenship.
    So you are saying:
    1) There is no private sphere and the government has a right to intervene in the individuals affairs.
    2) Just because societies in the past have respected certain rights, you accept them.

    Whats your problem with Marxism then? :p:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Public spending does crowd out private investment which is the engine of gorwth for any economy, however we do NEED a public sphere. The argument is about it's size and scope.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    So you are saying:
    1) There is no private sphere and the government has a right to intervene in the individuals affairs.
    2) Just because societies in the past have respected certain rights, you accept them.

    Whats your problem with Marxism then? :p:
    There are no such thing as "rights".

    I don't really accept them as "rights", more like a part of a moral code that's common to all of humanity. Ones you try to expand that code beyond the basics (no stealing, raping, killing), you're going to fall into the trap of applying your morality to nations that don't share it.

    I think Marxism has some interesting aspects to it, none of them in the economic realm though. But I don't see the relevance seeing that Marxism claims that the socioeconomic structure constantly changes, which means assuming that something will exist in the future just because it existed in the past would be considered a fallacy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    There are no such thing as "rights".
    Then why do you claim to be a liberal? :confused:
    You've just argued that whatever the state does is right, which is the total anathema of liberalism (always looking to limit the power of the state).

    Is there a private sphere? Yes or no will suffice.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    Then why do you claim to be a liberal? :confused:
    You've just argued that whatever the state does is right, which is the total anathema of liberalism (always looking to limit the power of the state).

    Is there a private sphere? Yes or no will suffice.
    It's called being realistic. The state has the ability to do whatever it wants if it is allowed, and it is our job as citizens to prevent it from doing things that infringe on our freedoms (however we define them). I did not say anything about the state being right or wrong. I try to avoid normative arguments as much as possible.

    Everything is potentially under the purview of the state; I don't see the need for the distinction for areas where we should allow the state to do what it pleases and areas where we should resist it. The only distinction I believe in is the one between what happens in a state and what happens between them (due to a lack of a government on the international level).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    It's called being realistic. The state has the ability to do whatever it wants if it is allowed, and it is our job as citizens to prevent it from doing things that infringe on our freedoms (however we define them). I did not say anything about the state being right or wrong. I try to avoid normative arguments as much as possible.
    You're not answering the question.

    Of course the state has the ability to do something. It doesn't make it right.

    Everything is potentially under the purview of the state; I don't see the need for the distinction for areas where we should allow the state to do what it pleases and areas where we should resist it. The only distinction I believe in is the one between what happens in a state and what happens between them (due to a lack of a government on the international level).
    So if the state rules, for example, that gays are not allowed to have sex in their home, is that right? They can pass such a rule, but is it right?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    You're not answering the question.

    Of course the state has the ability to do something. It doesn't make it right.
    And who decides whether or not something is right? Everyone makes that determination for themselves; they don't need some rights specialist to tell them that the government has the right to intervene however it wants in the "public" sphere but that the "private" sphere is not to be infringed.

    So if the state rules, for example, that gays are not allowed to have sex in their home, is that right? They can pass such a rule, but is it right?
    See above. I don't see why there should be any qualitative difference in my opposition to a state policy of discrimination against gays (a supposedly private issue) and a state policy of nationalization (a supposedly public issue). Any attempt by the state to infringe on our freedoms should be resisted; the entire public and private distinction is irrelevant.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And who decides whether or not something is right? Everyone makes that determination for themselves; they don't need some rights specialist to tell them that the government has the right to intervene however it wants in the "public" sphere but that the "private" sphere is not to be infringed.



    See above. I don't see why there should be any qualitative difference in my opposition to a state policy of discrimination against gays (a supposedly private issue) and a state policy of nationalization (a supposedly public issue). Any attempt by the state to infringe on our freedoms should be resisted; the entire public and private distinction is irrelevant.
    So to conclude:

    If an Israeli citizen wishes to go to Pakistan (or vice versa), or an Israeli company wants to trade with a Pakistani one (or vice versa), is it right for their respective governments to stop them from doing so?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    So to conclude:

    If an Israeli citizen wishes to go to Pakistan (or vice versa), or an Israeli company wants to trade with a Pakistani one (or vice versa), is it right for their respective governments to stop them from doing so?
    It's up to the people of Israel and Pakistan to decide.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.