On 28 July I noted that:
"James [Gilmour] worries about infringing on rights or anyhow desires of some citizens not to be bothered with full participation in decision-making, even for a few days every few years. I don't want to get into arguments over whether government has a 'right' to draft every citizen into a bare minimum of equal-burden-sharing service." In response, James wrote (29 July): "Joe I think you are still looking at this world upside-down, which a little surprising, given the view you are promoting. The government has no rights. It has (should have ?) only the rights and powers that we, the people, give it." This response makes little literal sense: if the government truly has no rights (speaking de facto, or possibly de jure, or both), then (de facto or de jure or both) there�s no point trying to describe exactly what rights it has or should have. However - James please correct me! - likely what is meant is that �the government� starts out in principle by having no rights, but then gets - or ought to be allowed - �only the rights ... that we, the people, give it.� I have two responses to this. (1) In terms of my specific proposals, I'm looking at the world not 'upside down' but rightside up, straight from where we are, and I stand simply by what I said. My proposals represent improvements no matter WHAT - if anything at all - one takes to be the �rights� and �powers� of �the government.� Namely, in any event we would do better by having decisions, on law and public policy, be made by ad-hoc citizen decision juries rather than, as now, by an officer elite; and we would do better by having any desired elections be at collegiate scale, or be replaced by jury deliberations. (2) Quite separately, we may anyway discuss just what are the 'rights' or 'powers' of the 'government'. We could pose the question either concretely or normatively. Concretely: for a given existing or historical government, such as the central government of the UK or of the USA, which specific rights and powers does (or did) that government successfully claim and maintain? Normatively: in principle, what rights and powers are inherent in a true �government�? James� response above seems to start to answer the normative question, and I agree with his apparently intended answer, as far as it goes: �the government� should get �only the rights... that we, the people, give it�. However, specifics here need clarification. For instance, exactly what counts as �the government�? How may �the people� �give� rights to the government; and how, if at all, may �the people� later take these rights away from the government? Note too that the very concept implies that a genuine 'government' be granted to have some special �rights� or �powers� that enable it to act. James� post makes some remarks on the concrete question, for current and past UK and USA governments, and then returns to its 'main point', on the normative question, as follows: 'I wasn't so much concerned with what "the government" has the right to demand of us, but rather what we, as members of our communities, at all the various levels of community, from street to nation, might reasonably be allowed to demand of one another. I may think it would be "better" if everyone in the relevant community did indeed participate, and participate very fully, but do I have the right to expect or demand that of the other members of my community? Do they have the right to opt out, with the proviso that they accept the consequences?' I like James� rephrasing - away from intimidating terms such as �government� and its �rights� - to friendlier lingo: �what we ... might reasonably be allowed to demand of one another�. Here�s one thought about this issue. In any �community� whose members generally desire the community�s sustainability, those members will attempt to evolve stable, equitable and workable expectations of each other�s behaviors. In essence, traditional lingo uses (community) �rights� (or member �responsibilities�) for these mutual expectations of behavior. An �opt-out� right clearly is not absolute or unlimited, so long as people deem themselves to be living in a common and to-be-sustained community. On the other hand - as my 28 July post noted - for any desired service, a reasonable community is obliged to encourage and use citizens who volunteer, before turning to others who are more reluctant to serve. In the USA, ordinary people can readily 'opt out' without causing obstructing public decisions, because there are far more than enough people wishing to 'opt in' to the decision-making elite. However, like it or not, the great majority of us are involuntary opt-outs, as we have no practical chance to be either elected officers or high appointees. [Aside: What pop-journalism portrays as ordinary citizens� individual �participation� in politics - namely voting, rather than office-holding - is in general meaningless in practical impact. By �opting out� I therefore DON�T mean �not voting�. But anyhow, our present system requires few if any voters: all it needs is enough candidates to fill offices.] Here and now in the USA, many of us ordinary involuntary opt-outs would be happy to get a small piece of the real political action - direct decision-making - as members of citizen decision juries. For one thing, we could finally and meaningfully apply all the theory and practice of civics which we learn in the public schools and through experience in volunteer organizations - and on trial juries! Joe Weinstein Long Beach CA USA _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
