Power of the state over the individual, or of individuals over the state?

[Amorphos]

Power of the state over the individual, or of individuals over the state?

It seams that people either extreme left or right see the state as having more power than individuals, perhaps even that the collective of individuals. I don’t think an individual can have an absolute freedom, nor should the collective have absolute power over an individual. I also have concerns about people in power seeing that as an extension of their own god given power over people ~ even if subconsciously.

What gives the collective more power than the individual? I would see its power as purely as a factor of mediation between the collection of individuals, so in essence one individuals rights are empowered by giving the same rights to all. The collective sphere [state] itself should be completely powerless in all but this?

Governments seam to think they can make drastic decisions for all individuals, due to their position of power, however I think as most liberals do, that individuals are quite capable of making decisions. So its in part a question of direct democracy over current democracy, should the state be there purely to act for us or itself?

This brings us to an important other factor, that of knowledgeable position. I can see how people can be empowered simply by have more experience and knowledge on a given thing, which is balanced by the desires of individuals. In this case should we not have referendums on things like war or joining with other states e.g. the EU and its currency, and the us owning our banks [in the main]. Should all of Britain not vote for if northern Ireland or Scotland should be independent, there are many such issues, and many smaller issues like that of law and culture, who gets to say what is what.

Empower the state or empower the individual?

[Silver Guard]

There's an easy reason the collective has more power then the individual, there's more of them then there is of you. The world is run by consensus, not by individual demand, the minorities are always subdued by the opinion of the majority.

The government acts as a mediator between conflicting opinions and so protects minorities in democratic systems. However it also requires the power to subdue those who act against the interests of the majority, or chaos would ensue. The power to do so must be strong enough to do this by force if necessary, and to inact contraversial laws when in the best interests of all.

[Prince of Yunderup]

In Australian democracy (which is largely based on the British system) the members of parlaiment in theory are voted in there to serve the Australian people in particular their electorate or state for senators. One of the major difference between our system and Britains is we have a senate which is voted in instead of the house of Lords. So in theory the government of the day is there to serve the population, one of the main reasons this system is not more individualised is cost, we have referendums in Australia but they are rare because they cost enormous amounts of money who's going to pay for that? Tax payers. It has been suggested here to cut costs that referendums could be held at the same time as elections but our elections are every 4 years that's along time to wait to decide an important decision, and then what decisions go the people and which don't? Plus there is the issue Silver Guard has pointed out of the protection for minorities.

[Amorphos]

There's an easy reason the collective has more power then the individual, there's more of them then there is of you

Sure, but that’s not what I am getting at here, I am wondering [one one level] if or to what degree govt should act for the people/individuals, as opposed to acting for itself. Chosen groups even if a majority are either an empowerment of the individual or of state.

However it also requires the power to subdue those who act against the interests of the majority

So the Chinese get the say in a potential world democracy? or islam gets to say what the law is when they become a majority? you see the numbers game is problematic esp when it doesnt suit the main powers [the west] in the world!

Here I am more thinking about the philosophical basis than politics.

-------------

the major difference between our system and Britains is we have a senate which is voted in instead of the house of Lords.

that’s how it should be imho all you need now is to become a republic [as do we].

So in theory the government of the day is there to serve the population, one of the main reasons this system is not more individualised is cost, we have referendums in Australia but they are rare because they cost enormous amounts of money who's going to pay for that?

Good point, but we have the internet rather than admin and paper costs, so maybe not so valid in the future if not now. For major decisions I may be a good idea to add them to elections, however we would then be voting for those decisions and not the party.

on another level if the 'rights' of individuals versus the state, was fundamental and lawful, this alone may make a big difference in the way govt acts!

i'll try to make some charts to show what i mean, if i get time.

[Amorphos]

Example;

Small groups/minorities are catered for to some degree in democracy, but if we extend the minority factor to the individual then this can over rule the minority or majority factor. For example; if sharia law was imposed by a majority, it could be contended by the rights of the individual according to the level of empowerment we give the individual. That is where it takes away the power of the individual, in favour of a group.

[Prince of Yunderup]

that’s how it should be imho all you need now is to become a republic [as do we].

Actually the republic question was one the last referendums that we had. The monarchists won but I think a lot of people (including myself) voted against becoming a republic not because they're monarchists but because the alternative model being offered was very similar to the US model. Others I think just didn't want change.

Good point, but we have the internet rather than admin and paper costs, so maybe not so valid in the future if not now. For major decisions I may be a good idea to add them to elections, however we would then be voting for those decisions and not the party.

I like the internet idea that would be so much more efficient.

on another level if the 'rights' of individuals versus the state, was fundamental and lawful, this alone may make a big difference in the way govt acts!

i'll try to make some charts to show what i mean, if i get time.

It would be good to think it would make a difference but there are some pretty dodgy politicians that would say they where acting for individuals and then do the opposite.

[Amorphos]

The monarchists won but I think a lot of people (including myself) voted against becoming a republic not because they're monarchists but because the alternative model being offered was very similar to the US model.

Interesting, I didn’t know what the proposals were, really they should have just asked ‘republic or not’, everything else are secondary issues ~ but no doubt they planned it like that.

I like the internet idea that would be so much more efficient.

Indeed, and would allow for individual issues to be sorted out as above. Most people have access to the net, and those who don’t can go to their libraries.

It would be good to think it would make a difference but there are some pretty dodgy politicians that would say they where acting for individuals and then do the opposite.

As they tend to, I am not sure how it could change but I’ll keep thinking on the matter, I am pretty sure that there could be a mechanism for power exchanges.

[Silver Guard]

Sure, but that’s not what I am getting at here, I am wondering [one one level] if or to what degree govt should act for the people/individuals, as opposed to acting for itself. Chosen groups even if a majority are either an empowerment of the individual or of state.

No man will ever act in a way which is self-detrimental, we simply are not designed like that. Our every action is to improve from our current state. So yes powerful people will act for themselves, we just hope that in doing so they aid us.

So the Chinese get the say in a potential world democracy? or islam gets to say what the law is when they become a majority? you see the numbers game is problematic esp when it doesnt suit the main powers [the west] in the world!

Rule of the majority is the only efficient way of ruling, as it is the only way which guarentees the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Again we just have to hope that the minorities are aided as well.

[Jingles]

It seams that people either extreme left or right see the state as having more power than individuals

Sorry for nitpicking, but The extreme left don't believe in the state over the individual, they believe in the people as a whole actually BEING the state.

Belief in the power of the individual is essentially a core belief of Liberalism, so I'm not sure how to contribute to this debate, not being a Liberal.

[Boyar Son]

power over the individual state is better in my opinion.

[Habelo]

It is sad to see how long gone we are from the democratic view we once had and was given to us by the blood of our ancestors. It is sad to see that the white man chooses the path of apathy in times of peace and with that path, let society fall into corruption and evil. Something that his great grandfather probably deid for; to give it to him in the first place.

The state is the majority of the people, the state is all of the individuals compressed into one will. Or atleast that is how a democratic state did look like when the idea was still young. So you see, the state is the indivual so he is neither above or under his fellow comrades. And anyone who do think that the state is above or under the individual is either a hypocrite or does not truly believe in democracy.

[Amorphos]

The extreme left don't believe in the state over the individual, they believe in the people as a whole actually BEING the state.

True, but in effect this just gives the state absolute power [at least potentially] [cites stalin], this is why I feel there needs to be a mechanism for power distribution.

Belief in the power of the individual is essentially a core belief of Liberalism, so I'm not sure how to contribute to this debate, not being a Liberal.

I know quite a few conservatives who believe in the individual over the state.

-----------

Our every action is to improve from our current state. So yes powerful people will act for themselves, we just hope that in doing so they aid us.

Indeed, and this is the flaw, we are to some degree powerless and under the umbrella of the nanny state.

Rule of the majority is the only efficient way of ruling, as it is the only way which guarantees the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.

I would go more for the greater idea over the lesser, amounts of people seam irrelevant as they can vote in idiots. There should be more interaction and debate between people and govt, and the best resolution of a given matter is what rules, rather than the most people saying what is what.

--------

It is sad to see how long gone we are from the democratic view we once had and was given to us by the blood of our ancestors. It is sad to see that the white man chooses the path of apathy in times of peace and with that path, let society fall into corruption and evil. Something that his great grandfather probably deid for; to give it to him in the first place.

Interesting, can you elaborate? I think there is way too much crime and the industries that support it, e.g. gambling, porn, drugs, so I think a good old fashioned conservative attitude is needed to limit such things, although on the other hand I believe in the greater dynamic, so more freedom is good.

the state is the individual so he is neither above or under his fellow comrades.

I think this is the problem, when we make the collective into a singular it becomes one voice and not that of many, so is the state the individual, or is it an individual? In other words does it become a societal alter ego kinda.

[Habelo]

I dont believe that gambling or porn or drugs is something bad. It can be used in a bad way sure, but that includes everything, even water
And many things can be used in a good way as long as you have some common sense (which seems really to have gone down the drain in modern times) and common sense is something you gain from parenting and a decent education system; sadly both of these has almost completly disapeared in our modern apathy of the white man.

I believe in freedom only if it supports happiness. So in a sense i dont give a about people not having freedom, i only care if it hurts their happiness.

On a side note, i just saw avatar. Makes me sad i will pray to thor for a better future for my specie...!

[Nietzsche]

Empowering the individual has been a cornerstone of Western ideals for centuries. However, that is beginning to turn. The State is on the rise and it's rising everywhere.

[Amorphos]

I dont believe that gambling or porn or drugs is something bad. It can be used in a bad way sure, but that includes everything, even water

I think anything that leads to or has included within it, ‘bad things happening’ is bad ~ simply put. For example gambling can and often does cause all sorts of pain for families, if there was a limit on how much money someone can use gambling then its negatives would not occur and people could enjoy it for the game. However this means acting like a nanny state!

See how on every issue you have people who cannot control their urges, and that means either bad stuff happens or the state has to have a measure of control over the individual. The problem is that such excuses are always used by the state as justification for laws on the issues [esp with the current govt], and yet really we are talking about a minority of people not having control over themselves, then that is being used to the detriment of the majority of individuals!

Is the answer then to let such minorities fail and learn by their failure? it’s a difficult choice as innocents are always involved. In the case of gambling I think gambling establishments should take a moral stand, people who use such places should have an account which can be monitored so they cannot over spend. Of course such establishments would not want to do that so again it would need pressure from the law.

I believe in freedom only if it supports happiness.

Can you think of an instance when the two are not mutually supporting?

--------------

Empowering the individual has been a cornerstone of Western ideals for centuries. However, that is beginning to turn. The State is on the rise and it's rising everywhere.

Indeed, the individual really has little say, we can vote for our own leaders and parties, and that can and often is overridden by the secondary rule of e.g. the EU.

[Habelo]

I dont believe to punish the whole becuse of others mistake, so no i dont believe that we should bann gambling, however you could make it restricted(as in no commercial etc) and more friendly. However this wouldnt be a problem if people just cared alill about their surrondings.

As for freedom, i can think of many scenarios, the easiest one might be giving a bullied little dude a gun when he is at school

[Amorphos]

I dont believe to punish the whole becuse of others mistake, so no i dont believe that we should bann gambling

that’s something of a contradiction, the only reason to ban gambling would be because it is the individual punishing others ~ not the whole but those around them could suffer from the debt etc. one guy on the radio got loans to act like the big man, and ended up loosing his house, wife and family. As you say it is not a problem if proper controls are put in place, the internet though is not exactly conducive to such controls.

As for freedom, i can think of many scenarios, the easiest one might be giving a bullied little dude a gun when he is at school

The people who bully him are taking his freedom and if he reacts by killing them he is taking their freedom, so I don’t see that as a very good example of freedon not bringing happiness as in both cases freedom is lost.

[Habelo]

I was talking of how the aspect of giving him the freedom of having a gun.

[Amorphos]

I was talking of how the aspect of giving him the freedom of having a gun.

Freedom to have a gun is one thing [if that is a freedom?], freedom to use it irresponsibly is quite another.

[Habelo]

But you give this individual the freedom to have a gun he will then hurt himself and others, alas if i take away his freedom he will be happier and others will also be.

I came up with another example, if i take away a alcholics freedom to drink, he will not be hurt by it. So freedom isnt allways the same thing as happiness as you said.