Monday, September 18, 2006
Mas en La Democracia en Estados Unidos
A thought from dT on Democracy in America:
The principle of the sovereignty of the people governs the whole political system of the Anglo-Americans...In the nations by which the sovereignty of the people is recognized, every individual has an equal share of power, and participates equally in the government of the state. Why, then, does he obey the government, and what are the natural limits of his obedience? Every individual is always supposed to be as well informed, as virtuous, and as strong as any of his fellow-citizens. He obeys the government, not because he is inferior to those who conduct it, or because he is less capable than any other of governing himself; but because he acknowledged the utility of an association with his fellow-men, and he knows that no such association can exist without a regulating force. He is a subject in all that concerns the duties of citizens to each other; he is free, and responsible to God alone, for all that concerns himself. Hence arises the maxim, that every one is the best and sole judge of his own private interest, and that society has no right to control a man's actions, unless they are prejudicial to the common weal, or unless the common weal demands his help. This doctrine is universally admitted in the United States.
Sounds pretty good, up until the end there...Any thoughts on the subject?
I like the voluntary governing approach of the "utility of association". I have some problems with the "prejudicial to the common weal, or unless the common weal demands his help". I think these are the essential problems and inherent costs associated with organization,governmental regulation, and the creation of "society". Can there exist an true anarchic "society"? Are we doomed to always be coerced from above?
The principle of the sovereignty of the people governs the whole political system of the Anglo-Americans...In the nations by which the sovereignty of the people is recognized, every individual has an equal share of power, and participates equally in the government of the state. Why, then, does he obey the government, and what are the natural limits of his obedience? Every individual is always supposed to be as well informed, as virtuous, and as strong as any of his fellow-citizens. He obeys the government, not because he is inferior to those who conduct it, or because he is less capable than any other of governing himself; but because he acknowledged the utility of an association with his fellow-men, and he knows that no such association can exist without a regulating force. He is a subject in all that concerns the duties of citizens to each other; he is free, and responsible to God alone, for all that concerns himself. Hence arises the maxim, that every one is the best and sole judge of his own private interest, and that society has no right to control a man's actions, unless they are prejudicial to the common weal, or unless the common weal demands his help. This doctrine is universally admitted in the United States.
Sounds pretty good, up until the end there...Any thoughts on the subject?
I like the voluntary governing approach of the "utility of association". I have some problems with the "prejudicial to the common weal, or unless the common weal demands his help". I think these are the essential problems and inherent costs associated with organization,governmental regulation, and the creation of "society". Can there exist an true anarchic "society"? Are we doomed to always be coerced from above?
