Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!laura From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: legal by definition (governments are natural phenonema) Message-ID: <5058@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Thu, 14-Feb-85 10:57:01 EST Article-I.D.: utzoo.5058 Posted: Thu Feb 14 10:57:01 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 14-Feb-85 10:57:01 EST References: <24bb0e6d.264c@apollo.uucp> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 51 We did this one in net.religion about a year and a half ago. The attempt was to prove that religion X was a ``correct'' religion because it was a natural phenonma. We ended up concluding that either TV sets were natural, or religions were not. By some people's definition everything that is, is natural (including religions and TV sets). Whether govbernments are, or are not natural does not mean that they do not reflect a moral philosophy. The theocracies of Egypt reflected a remarkably different philosophy than contemporary Swedish society, or contemporary American society. Whehter the moral philosophy is expicit or not, and whether the government is consistent with its expressed (or inexpressed) moral philosophy is another matter. All governments share a desire to protect the ``protected ones''. However, they have differing approaches as to whom should be protected -- all mankind? all citizens? all citizens of a certain race? all citizens in the nobility? all citizens with so much cash? About the only thing constant is that ``the government'' is an automatic member of the ``protected ones''. But even this varies -- does this mean that the supremem ruler is above the law? or that the mechanism of government is subordinate to the ruler? or that rulers can change but the mechanism must not? or that the ruler can change the mechanism but cannot do without one? It depends (among other things) uponwhere it is commonly believed the authority of the governmetn comes from. For instnace, it is now commonly believed that the US governemnt reflects ``the will of the people''. Therefore, anything that it does is commonly believed to be ``the will of the people''. However, one only has to go to an anti-nuclear demonstration, or read articles contesting the right of the government to tax to see that reevaluation of the authority of the government is going on. Can a government claim to be doing the will of the people when a visibly large segemnt of its citizens are opposed to its activities. If it derives its mandate from being the will of the people, can it justify taking action on controversial issues at all? (Note, people, I am not a fool -- I understnad that governments *do* take actions and I furthermore understand that elections are much talked about as a good way of ensuring that a government reflects the will of the people. This is not teh justification I am looking for unless you can prove that elections do reflect the will of the people. And I am not interested in what *anybody's* dictionary says about the matter!) Laura Creighton utzoo!laura