Proposal: A second Constitution

Political Philosophy
1

Why is it that we are held accountable for what we do, especially in relation to the government (Vs. Individual), but not for what we say? Why is there not a moral standard that regulates between individuals or citizens just as well as there is a moral standard that regulates between government and citizen/individual (constitution)?

With that said, wouldn’t it be quite an honorable and proper thing to do that we should devise a second constitution outlining rights applicable between person to person relations?

We have these troubles with free speech. On one hand a person might argue that they can say anything they please, but from a moral standpoint that is not necessarily true is it, much less objective? What was it that Orwell said? "Freedom is the ability to say 2+2=4. Freedom of speech should necessarily imply freedom to speak the truth, NO MATTER WHAT, should it not? Yet we, the American Pullitzers of the “modern Era”, continually insist on yellow journalism and bullshit as newsworthy and proper.

What is it that we’ve come to? How could the great Thomas Jefferson, who was aware of problems when dealing with the subject of the press, not foreseen said eventualities?

Second Constitution? Yea or Nea!?

How can we allow a person to take another to court in a sue lawsuit, be found to be a liar or a crook, and when he loses, think nothing of it and allow said liar to get off “scott free”?!

2

Why is it that we are held accountable for what we do, especially in relation to the government (Vs. Individual), but not for what we say? Why is there not a moral standard that regulates between individuals or citizens just as well as there is a moral standard that regulates between government and citizen/individual (constitution)?

Well, first, we are held accountable for what we say. We regularly take philosophical idiots to task for their idiocy, and we actively condemn the condemnable and praise the praiseworthy. Second, there are in fact moral standards pertaining to what we say (which is a form of “what we do”) which have been elevated to the status of law, regulating the relationship between individuals. Some examples are fraud (against the law); perjury (against the law); defamation (civilly actionable). In Canada but not in the US, it is also against the law to speak “hatefully”. Third, a constitution is a framework within which to frame specific laws, stating how laws may come into existence and what are possible laws. Except insofar as there are constitutional statements guaranteeing freedom of expression, such restrictions would not be properly part of a constitution. And finally, it would be legally and philosophically incoherent to have a second separate constitution for such a purpose; the existing constitution can be amended.

On one hand a person might argue that they can say anything they please, but from a moral standpoint that is not necessarily true is it, much less objective?

The proper limit on an individual’s right to act according to his own judgment is that he may not initiate force against others. Lying is not initiating force (though it may be involved in an action which is initiation of force); thus lying is like using drugs. It is bad, but it is not within the scope of proper government to force people to act according to my judgment.

3

Those are all very good points, and I am aware of them but I will still stand by what I say and ask you to reconsider given the following:

Hubris or hybris (Greek ὕβρις), according to its modern usage, is exaggerated self pride, arrogance or self-confidence (overbearing pride), often resulting in fatal retribution. In Ancient Greece, “hubris” referred to actions taken in order to shame and humiliate the victim, thereby making oneself seem superior.

Hubris was a crime in classical Athens. It was considered the greatest sin of the ancient Greek world. The category of acts constituting hubris for the ancient Greeks apparently broadened from the original specific reference to molestation of a corpse, or a humiliation of a defeated foe, to molestation, or irreverent, “outrageous treatment”, in general. The meaning was further generalized in its modern English usage to apply to any outrageous act or exhibition of pride or disregard for basic moral law. Such an act may be referred to as an “act of hubris”, or the person committing the act may be said to be hubristic. Ate, Greek for ‘ruin, folly, delusion’, is the action performed by the hero, usually because of his/her hubris, or great pride, that leads to his/her death or downfall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Before the United States, there was moral law, as there always have been. But it wasn’t until Jefferson and the Constitution that it became civil law. There is a certain importance that needs to be placed upon the act as it relates to the actual writing of it out don’t you agree? Also, please do not discount my comments in regards to Orwell (freedom of speech=freedom to speak truth) and Yellow Journalism.

4

Before the United States, there was moral law, as there always have been. But it wasn’t until Jefferson and the Constitution that it became civil law. There is a certain importance that needs to be placed upon the act as it relates to the actual writing of it out don’t you agree? Also, please do not discount my comments in regards to Orwell (freedom of speech=freedom to speak truth) and Yellow Journalism.

Presumably you understand the proper function of government; in which case, you should be able to see that it is irrelevant that Ancient Greece had improper laws restricting speech and that there is no criminal or civil penalty for speaking an untruth. Your proposal contradicts the purpose of government, which is why it must be rejected.

5

The only proper limit that is set between two individuals, as David said, is the initiation of force. The only proper function of government in a free, laissez-faire country is to retaliate against those that initiate force.

Yellow journalism is not a form of force, therefore the government does not have the right to forbid it. If people want to read the trash, you have to let them read it. It is their choice, not yours. You have the right to try to persuade them otherwise, you can try to change the culture, to move away from the lies and the smears… but you cannot tell them they can’t read it.

We do have laws that forbid libel (defamation by written or printed words) and slander (defamation by spoken words). When someone writes, or says something that deliberately targets an individual and tries to harm them and their reputation through lies, our government holds them accountable.

However, in reference to Orwell, freedom is being able to say 2+2=4 and 2+2=5. To say that one only has the freedom to say the truth is absurd. What if we lived in a theocracy ran by the Catholic church? We wouldn’t be able to talk about atheism, or our philosophy, or any other issue that directly contradicts faith. What if we lived in a government ran by nuts saying that Africans are a different species? Of course this is a subjective interpretation of the truth.

What if we had laws that limited people to objectively demonstrable truth? Even then, to say that one only has the freedom to say the truth is absurd. By what right does the government, or you, have the right to tell other people what to say and what not to say—what to do and what not to do. You, as an individual have the right to do whatever is in you think is in your best interest as long as you do not initiate force against other people—that includes saying 2+2=5…

6

Presumably you understand the proper function of government; in which case, you should be able to see that it is irrelevant that Ancient Greece had improper laws restricting speech and that there is no criminal or civil penalty for speaking an untruth. Your proposal contradicts the purpose of government, which is why it must be rejected.

If by proper function of government you mean to say that the individual governs himself first and foremost then yes I understand quite well, however, not all people of a country are so able or interested in such as as it may be it is up to those that do to make it known what is proper and improper, through the/a controlled medium of government system by way of written statuary law and the persons who enforce it such as judge and jury or, if need be, the individual himself as in the case of Howard Roark.

As far as hubris is concerned, I think you should reread what it said as I don’t think you fully understand. That or I am not fully understanding you as I cannot see how anyone in their right mind could state so confidently that a law against hubris or acts of hubris can be wrong and restrictive of free speech. Just as it is morally wrong for a person to physically attack you for no reason whatsoever other than their own desire to, so to it is wrong for a person to insult you for no reason whatsoever other than their own subjective desires.

I could very well cite the deterioration of society through various facts and statistics, but I won’t because it is irrelevant information being that anyone who is aware enough would automatically realize and know what I am talking about. If you however, are not familiar with it, I would suggest you make it a top priority to find out as it is, as you say, hardly irrelevant and a pressing concern for any free thinking objectivist that knows absolute moral premise(s).

Contradictions cannot exist in reality. Therefore if you see one, or should I say, think you see one, it is perceptual and opinionated.

The only proper limit that is set between two individuals, as David said, is the initiation of force. The only proper function of government in a free, laissez-faire country is to retaliate against those that initiate force.

Yellow journalism is not a form of force, therefore the government does not have the right to forbid it. If people want to read the trash, you have to let them read it. It is their choice, not yours. You have the right to try to persuade them otherwise, you can try to change the culture, to move away from the lies and the smears… but you cannot tell them they can’t read it.

We do have laws that forbid libel (defamation by written or printed words) and slander (defamation by spoken words). When someone writes, or says something that deliberately targets an individual and tries to harm them and their reputation through lies, our government holds them accountable.

However, in reference to Orwell, freedom is being able to say 2+2=4 and 2+2=5. To say that one only has the freedom to say the truth is absurd. What if we lived in a theocracy ran by the Catholic church? We wouldn’t be able to talk about atheism, or our philosophy, or any other issue that directly contradicts faith. What if we lived in a government ran by nuts saying that Africans are a different species? Of course this is a subjective interpretation of the truth.

What if we had laws that limited people to objectively demonstrable truth? Even then, to say that one only has the freedom to say the truth is absurd. By what right does the government, or you, have the right to tell other people what to say and what not to say—what to do and what not to do. You, as an individual have the right to do whatever is in you think is in your best interest as long as you do not initiate force against other people—that includes saying 2+2=5…

Push and pull buddy, push and pull

7

If by proper function of government you mean to say that the individual governs himself first and foremost then yes I understand quite well,

What I mean by the proper function of government is, as Rand expressed in ch. 1 of CUI, that

The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e.., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

and also in Ch. 3:

The only proper function of the government of a free country is to act as an agency which protects the individual’s rights, i.e., which protects the individual from physical violence.

This is because of man’s nature: he exists via reason and not force, and force is contrary to man’s nature. Force is possible – there exists thieves and murderers – and the proper function of government is to use force to retaliate against those who initiate force.

however, not all people of a country are so able or interested in such as as it may be it is up to those that do to make it known what is proper and improper, through the/a controlled medium of government system by way of written statuary law and the persons who enforce it such as judge and jury or, if need be, the individual himself as in the case of Howard Roark.

And what constitutes “proper” conduct from the perspective of government is to prohibit the use of force. That is, to quote from VOS ch. 14:

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement.

As far as hubris is concerned, I think you should reread what it said as I don’t think you fully understand.

I’m pretty sure I do fully understand.

That or I am not fully understanding you as I cannot see how anyone in their right mind could state so confidently that a law against hubris or acts of hubris can be wrong and restrictive of free speech.

As a reminder, it’s not a good idea to imply that I am insane. You have not given any argument to support a law against hubris; I’ve pointed out that given the proper function of government, no such law can be proper. It is right and proper to persuade people to act in the way you wish they would; it is wrong and improper to use force to achieve your ends.

Note that in an Objectivist society, there would be laws against murder, and no laws against suicide, yet suicide is morally wrong. Cheating on a loved one is immoral, but is not properly punishable by law. That is because the function of government is to address only a specific set of immoral actions – those where one person initiates force against another.

My estimation is that you don’t understand or accept the Objectivist view of the proper role of government. Can you support your viewpoint using the philosophy of Ayn Rand? While we no doubt agree on the immorality of certain actions, we clearly disagree on when it is proper for the government to use force – I side with Rand on this matter.

8

My estimation is that you don’t understand or accept the Objectivist view of the proper role of government. Can you support your viewpoint using the philosophy of Ayn Rand? While we no doubt agree on the immorality of certain actions, we clearly disagree on when it is proper for the government to use force – I side with Rand on this matter.

I am an objectivist, but I do not see why I must necessarily use the philosophy of Rand to Illustrate my points. Rand, as well as other objectivists, advocated reason and logic above all else did they not? What then, is so wrong of me to present alternative philosophies so long as they are in fact based in reason or logic? I am philosopher, and I admire Rand immensely but on the same token I won’t follow her, or anyone for that matter, “to the gates of hell and back” without sufficient reason for doing so. My life is mine alone is it not? With that said I will then proceed to debate the comments made that are wholly understood and accepted by your own objective volition rather than your subjective volition as it may concern to accepting ALL of what Rand illustrated for the sake of your admiration of her rather than the sake of your apparent lack of reason in understanding and applying said concepts by way of a rational choice.

Note that in an Objectivist society, there would be laws against murder, and no laws against suicide, yet suicide is morally wrong. Cheating on a loved one is immoral, but is not properly punishable by law. That is because the function of government is to address only a specific set of immoral actions – those where one person initiates force against another.

There was a man who lived about two thousand four hundred years ago by the name of Socrates. He was the first in a long line of men, some of whom were philosophers while others may be scientists and revolutionaries. He was like the beginning spark in a chain of events that has gone on to shape humanity, and thus the world, until present time. To illustrate, it was once said, “Plato Was a student of Socrates, Aristotle was a student of Plato, and Alexander was a student of Aristotle. Alexander conquered the world.”

That is not the point I am trying to make however, merely evidence for what I am about to say in relation to the greatness of this man as well as the greatness he bestowed upon humanity as a whole, for, Socrates was a philosopher and he did not teach the civil law. The law Socrates taught, was the moral one; the absolute; the god in man; reason; Logistikon; et al.

So then, which is greater, the statuary or the moral? Which is right? Which is Proper? Which is Logical? Which is Rational? Which is Perfect?

The function of government is to govern. If it was not, don’t you suppose we would not call it government? The questions to ask are:

What limits must a (external) government have?

What shall the government govern?

Who shall be the governed?

etc…

Why did I make this thread? I knew this would happen. You can say, “well this is a forum if you don’t want to debate then don’t post” but you know, I would simply tell you that you are not specifically addressing, much less considering, what I originally proposed or my reasons for it… etc… we could go on all day like this, but what the hell is the point? Give and take right? Push and pull

9

I am an objectivist, but I do not see why I must necessarily use the philosophy of Rand to Illustrate my points.

What I want you to say is what you think the proper function of government is. That’s all I want right now. You don’t have to accept Objectivism, you just have to give an actual answer to the question. This seems to be your answer:

The function of government is to govern.

North Korea has a government. Is it fulfilling its proper function?

Why did I make this thread? I knew this would happen. You can say, “well this is a forum if you don’t want to debate then don’t post” but you know, I would simply tell you that you are not specifically addressing, much less considering, what I originally proposed or my reasons for it.

I thought it was clear that I considered and rejected your position. Let me be clearer, then. I have considered and rejected your claim as being false, as contradicting the proper function of government, and as denying man’s nature. If you want someone to accept your position, you have to give arguments for it, rather than just assert it as self-evident.

10

Push and pull buddy, push and pull

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, in reference to Brandon’s points. Could you clarify?

11

So then, which is greater, the statuary or the moral? Which is right? Which is Proper? Which is Logical? Which is Rational? Which is Perfect?

The human.

12

Before the United States, there was moral law, as there always have been. But it wasn’t until Jefferson and the Constitution that it became civil law. There is a certain importance that needs to be placed upon the act as it relates to the actual writing of it out don’t you agree? Also, please do not discount my comments in regards to Orwell (freedom of speech=freedom to speak truth) and Yellow Journalism.

Of course I don’t agree with him on all issues, but a particulary relevant quote:

“You can’t legislate morality.” - Barry Goldwater

13

If by proper function of government you mean to say that the individual governs himself first and foremost then yes I understand quite well, however, not all people of a country are so able or interested in such as as it may be it is up to those that do to make it known what is proper and improper, through the/a controlled medium of government system by way of written statuary law and the persons who enforce it such as judge and jury or, if need be, the individual himself as in the case of Howard Roark.

So the idea is to make untruths illegal? Who decides what is true when both sides of an argument may be? For example Global Warming, would I be charged under your hubris thought crime for holding to the fact that CO2 does not lead to increases in global temperature? How about belief in God. Surely all those deluded deists must be punished for not only lying, but for preaching and spreading their lies. Ooh, what a tasty little tyranny we have going here.

As far as hubris is concerned, I think you should reread what it said as I don’t think you fully understand. That or I am not fully understanding you as I cannot see how anyone in their right mind could state so confidently that a law against hubris or acts of hubris can be wrong and restrictive of free speech.

I’m new to philosophy and to Objectivism but isn’t that a wonderful example of the Argument from Intimidation or is it more of an example of what you referred to as

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

?

Just as it is morally wrong for a person to physically attack you for no reason whatsoever other than their own desire to, so to it is wrong for a person to insult you for no reason whatsoever other than their own subjective desires.

I could very well cite the deterioration of society through various facts and statistics, but I won’t because it is irrelevant information being that anyone who is aware enough would automatically realize and know what I am talking about. If you however, are not familiar with it, I would suggest you make it a top priority to find out as it is, as you say, hardly irrelevant and a pressing concern for any free thinking objectivist that knows absolute moral premise(s).

Contradictions cannot exist in reality. Therefore if you see one, or should I say, think you see one, it is perceptual and opinionated.

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral , is not sufficient warrant.”

John Stuart Mill