Jokay, first let me say bravo for giving us a good topic. And to all who respond ad hominem - google the term and learn why you aren't taken seriously.
As to the core of the question: this goes to balance. How does society, through the mechanism of government balance the following issues:
Tragedy of the commons: the dilemna where the independent actions of many, each acting in their own best interest, result in actions that are detrimental to the group as a whole.
Tyranny of the Majority: the case where a majority enforces its will on a minority - regardless of the ethics/morality of the issue.
When does "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of one"?
How does government "theoretically" regulate behavior for the best benefit of all? These are all questions of balance that can only be examined in the whole. Sure, there will always be cases of individual situations, that when taken alone, out of context with respect to all other cases appear to be adjudicated improperly, but I suspect that these are rare outliers that are merely an artifact of humans making decisions.
As for the core issue of Human Rights, the devil is in the details. What are the specific rights that ones refers to? Humane treatment? One could argue that the prisoners that the US are holding in Guantanamo Bay are being treated humanely, as they get better food, shelter and ability to pray than they did in their own land. Yet one can equally argue that because they are imprisoned, that they are separated from friends and family, and denied freedom of movement - and hence their human rights are violated. Let them free and some will actively try to kill you. Imprison them forever and you punish some for no crime. How to choose?
As for the Government, any government, they are responding to what they perceive as desired by those they listen to. This is not the general populace, for they never really have a voice. To listen to the masses, while it seems correct, rapidly leads to tragedy of the commons, the tyranny of the majority and issues such as association fallacy. Mob rule is not a good solution.
I think the best thoughts on this come from one of Britian's best: Sir Winston Churchill:
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
and, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
and finally, "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results."
I know this isn't an answer, but rather a long winded way of saying there isn't a simple one.
All Mushrooms are edible
But some
Only once
Login
Register
Subscribe
Back to News & Politics
