Sovereignty
As an addendum to my discussions of morality and law, I wanted to say a little something about sovereignty, because I have come to conclude that individuals cannot be truly moral without it, and no society or state can be just without presuming it.
I define sovereignty as authority with culpability. For government officials, that sovereignty is limited properly to those areas necessary to protect all individuals equally. For individuals, sovereignty must be limited only by the sovereignty of others. Both aspects are necessary: authorty without culpability makes men into children, culpability without authority makes them into scapegoats.
Sovereignty means that individuals need not be questioned or second-guessed on any action: if it harms another, the action must be punished, but if not, it is the business of the actor. Sovereignty also means that individuals cannot duck or dodge their liability for the consequences of their actions. There's a certain obscurantism here, I admit: every individual is and must remain a black box, a source of action inescapably wedded to it. Insanity, trauma, PMS, or demonic possession (okay, you're right: those last two don't really exist), while interesting, do not modify the effect of an act, and therefore have no impact on the culpability of the actor. Knowledge and intent might, but we have to hold individuals to a minimum knowledge appropriate to the context: for example, if you drive a car, you must be expected to know that driving too fast, following too closely, and eating or doing anything other than driving while driving risks the lives of other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. And, of course, even an action that causes no harm can still have consequences in the reactions of others: a jerk has to expect that other sovereign individuals might refuse to hang out with him.
Sovereignty means that you can't expect somebody else -- or everybody else, through the government -- to bail you out when you make a bad choice. Or even, I'm sorry to say, if fate or Mother Nature shafts you. You can attempt to persuade others to assist, but you don't have the right to take or have somebody else take on your behalf property from any other sovereign individual. For example, no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, or any other program that relies on forcing individuals to give money for the benefit of others.
And while we're at it, while we have the right to live, we have the right only to that life that we can sustain with our own justly acquired resources or those that other individuals have freely agreed to provide us. So, for example, the unborn baby, the fetus, has no right to take from its mother resources for its survival to term -- and no other agency has the right to compel a mother, through force or threat thereof, to continue a pregnancy for even one minute.
But y'all get the idea. Sovereignty is the central principle of personal morality and just governance -- so it'll show up again and again in my rantings.
I define sovereignty as authority with culpability. For government officials, that sovereignty is limited properly to those areas necessary to protect all individuals equally. For individuals, sovereignty must be limited only by the sovereignty of others. Both aspects are necessary: authorty without culpability makes men into children, culpability without authority makes them into scapegoats.
Sovereignty means that individuals need not be questioned or second-guessed on any action: if it harms another, the action must be punished, but if not, it is the business of the actor. Sovereignty also means that individuals cannot duck or dodge their liability for the consequences of their actions. There's a certain obscurantism here, I admit: every individual is and must remain a black box, a source of action inescapably wedded to it. Insanity, trauma, PMS, or demonic possession (okay, you're right: those last two don't really exist), while interesting, do not modify the effect of an act, and therefore have no impact on the culpability of the actor. Knowledge and intent might, but we have to hold individuals to a minimum knowledge appropriate to the context: for example, if you drive a car, you must be expected to know that driving too fast, following too closely, and eating or doing anything other than driving while driving risks the lives of other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. And, of course, even an action that causes no harm can still have consequences in the reactions of others: a jerk has to expect that other sovereign individuals might refuse to hang out with him.
Sovereignty means that you can't expect somebody else -- or everybody else, through the government -- to bail you out when you make a bad choice. Or even, I'm sorry to say, if fate or Mother Nature shafts you. You can attempt to persuade others to assist, but you don't have the right to take or have somebody else take on your behalf property from any other sovereign individual. For example, no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, or any other program that relies on forcing individuals to give money for the benefit of others.
And while we're at it, while we have the right to live, we have the right only to that life that we can sustain with our own justly acquired resources or those that other individuals have freely agreed to provide us. So, for example, the unborn baby, the fetus, has no right to take from its mother resources for its survival to term -- and no other agency has the right to compel a mother, through force or threat thereof, to continue a pregnancy for even one minute.
But y'all get the idea. Sovereignty is the central principle of personal morality and just governance -- so it'll show up again and again in my rantings.
posted by heavynettle at 23:39
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home