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