Silgrad Tower from the Ashes

Former secretary of state James Madison once said before the supreme court "We rest all of our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government" and because I agree with Mr. Madison, I affirm the resolution that -

"The obligations of the individual to society ought to outweight the obligations of society to the individual"

And I am doing so under the value of Liberty and the value criterion of Self-Restraint.

First, a few definitions:

Society: A society is a collection of individuals who have chosen to freely associate in the pursuit of some common interest. It is important to note that all societies posess a constitution, explicitly stated or not. This constitution is nothing more than a collection of rules that all members of the society are expected to comply with.

State: An institution of the society that posesses a monopoly on force. Alternatively the construct of men unwillingly associating to advance the personal interests of individuals in a forceful institution.

My first contention is as follows:

All willful human action is rule governed, all members of societies have willfuly associated with one another, thusly we can determine that societies must be rule governed. All individuals within a society have the willingly accepted obligation to act according to these rules of the society. As these individuals have freely associated, these rules have been agreed upon by the members. However, it is often in the short term interest of an individual to undermine the rules of the society in search of profit. It is for this reasons that the society creates an instition of power, and it is this institution alone that has the use of force, this institution is the state. The state has only one obligation,

to enforce physicaly punitve action to those who infringe on a members rights, or who utilize force or fraud, any further taxation, demonstration of force, or breaking of the social constitution, is an inapropraite use of this power. The state is a manifestation of the only obligation a society has: to provide a structure in which individuals can associate without fear for their life, liberty, or property, and without use of force or fraud.
My second contention is this:

It is the nature of cooperation that certain choices are restricted for the sake of mutual interests. These restrictions are the rules of the society, and it is up to the individual to utilize self-restraint in regard to these rules. The society however, is well within it's rights to define social, non physical reprecussions, in response to the failure to comply to these rules. It can be ascertained that the sole obligation of a member of a society is to excercize self-restraint and comply with the rules of that society, and should the rules become disagreeable to the member, that they, adapt, leave or create a new society.


In conclusion:
Societies are not a product of the state, rather, the state is a product of society, and the society is the product of the individuals. Only where order has already developed through the free association of individuals can a state develop. A society can only continue to exist so long as membership is voluntary. Where cooperation exists, the state will follow. Thus it can be said that so long as individual meets his obligation, the obligations of society will come to be met, and continue to be met, the same cannot be said of the inverse, and so, I affirm the resolution and I urge you to vote aff.

Yes.

In any properly functional society the individual serves his own interests by serving the interests of that society. But the more influence/responsibility that individual has, the bigger the danger is IF that individual disregards his obligations to society and decides to serve his own interests in a more direct way.
In other words if you have enough power you can serve your own interests without sacrificing anything on account of society and its well being. Also the more power you have, the more likely it is you will get away with it.

While I agree with everything in your post I can't really see anything new in it, it's all pretty much common sense and any high school student who studies law and sociology would know this (the same goes for what I posted above).

I hate to do it psycho but.... you reveal some ignorance in that post.

The basic point is that society's interest and the individual's interest are indistinguishable, as the society exists to serve the interests of the individual, and only so long as it is beneficial to them will they continue to cooperate.

like Psychotic said... i don't see what to debate... I see what to sorta agree with...

Quote:Originally posted by DarkAsmodeous
I hate to do it psycho but.... you reveal some ignorance in that post.

The basic point is that society's interest and the individual's interest are indistinguishable, as the society exists to serve the interests of the individual, and only so long as it is beneficial to them will they continue to cooperate.

By that statement you assume that every individual is reasonable and can see the big picture, which is unfortunately rarely the case. Society exists to serve the interests of humanity... and less directly the individual.

Many people can serve their own interests more directly by disregarding the rules and limitations society places on them, but if enough people act in such a manner the society of which they are part of will destabilize. So why do they do it? The do it because they can probably live out their lives without feeling the damage their actions have caused on society.

So like I said, the more power one has the more likely it is he will get away with behavior that is completely self-serving, behavior which is punishable by the state AND society if it goes against the established rules and laws.

An example:
A rich businessman (an individual with power) commits tax fraud so he can get even richer. His actions are punishable by law, but because of his position in society he has a good chance of getting away with his crime by "smoothing things over" with the people who are responsible for revealing and punishing his crime. His actions damage the economy and the state itself... and in the long term they damage society as well.
But the businessman will be long dead before the damage he has caused can reach him so he doesn't care much about it.

I agree with Psychotic here...

Interesting debate. I'm inclined to say that the individual, unless they are a very wealthy or powerful individual (i.e. Bill Gates or the President, ect) cannot impact/serve/harm the state so directly as DA seems to be saying, however the state is capable of having a far greater impact on an individual than vice versa. Only when in a group of like minded individuals can one truly have a significant impact on the state (unless of course you have power).

Even Psychotic's analogy about the fraudulent businessman doesn't strike me as entirely accurate. Sure he can evade taxes, but unless it becomes somekind of high profile case that goes to the supreme court/sets some kind of tax evation precedent, its really just gonna be one stone less in the bucket, I mean, goverments have budgets of Trillions of dollars, one guy not paying isn't going to impact things that much.

On the other hand though based off-whether the goverment chooses to raise or lower taxes that could prove the difference for average blue collar joe father of three kids whether or not he is driven into debt of able to purchase his own home.

One last thing @ DA that I was just curious about:

Quote:The state has only one obligation,
to enforce physicaly punitve action to those who infringe on a members rights, or who utilize force or fraud, any further taxation, demonstration of force, or breaking of the social constitution, is an inapropraite use of this power.

Maybe I'm taking this the wrong way, but it strikes me as almost liberatarian (economic) for you from my past discussions we've had.

The examples you provide psycho violate the rules of the game, meaning, they infringe on rights or use force or fraud, this is specificaly the ONLY time a state may use force and remain legitimate.

Also, the thing is, the statement "a society exists to benefit humanity as a whole" is empty because there is no single individual that has the knowledge required to create and order that will benefit the individuals, however when individuals pursue their own ends, without violating other's rights and without using force or fraud, then they will in the end benefit society more than any deliberate plan could.

Spontaneous generation over deliberate order.

so like market economy versus a command economy?
so like John Locke's 'invisible hand' in which all participants pursue their own interests without hurting each other and in each striving for their own good, the economy's good will come, and vary as demand varies...

unlike a controlling party having the authority to regulae the entire economy...

so in a sense... anarchy?

as in, left to their own devices, as long as no negative actions are made, people and society will all prosper?

Absolutely, but not so much anarchy because the basis of the social contract is that individuals should, and naturaly, surrender freedoms in exchange for libertys.