Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sfmag.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!sfmag!rajeev
From: rajeev@sfmag.UUCP (S.Rajeev)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Government and individual choice
Message-ID: <826@sfmag.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Dec-85 21:13:19 EST
Article-I.D.: sfmag.826
Posted: Fri Dec 20 21:13:19 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Dec-85 06:42:54 EST
References: <3817@ut-sally.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Summit, NJ
Lines: 48
Keywords: individual vs. society


ut-sally!raghu writes:

>  Is it good for the state to have power in matters that represent individual 
> choice? .....

> .... there is a presupposition that the state knows what
> is 'good' and that makes me uncomfortable ....

(The meaning of 'good' is in the eyes of the beholder!)

Although this discussion is about religion-based laws for Muslims, I
think ut-sally!raghu touches on some rather large issues in his
comments quoted above. I think he errs in assuming that the state
is, of necessity, stupid/evil/'bad' (I know these are fashionable
libertarian notions, but that doesn't make them true!) There are
several facts I'd like to point out:

1) There are plenty of instances where the state has to protect
citizens against themselves: e.g., attempted suicide is considered a
criminal act in most societies, but it can be argued that it really
is a matter of "individual choice", can't it? Somewhat more
controversial, perhaps, are the 55-mile speed limit and helmet
laws which both protect the individual and society by reducing the
costs associated with accidents.
2) There have been many very progressive societies guided by an elite
bureaucracy: (e.g. the Chinese under the Manchus: whence "mandarin"
from "mantri"; the well-known example of MITI in Japan).
3) If left to themselves, individuals will usually make selfish
decisions that are not in the long-term interests of the society
they live in. In times of plenty, as in the 80's USA, this is
probably fine because there is enough to go around. But when
sacrifices have to be made (e.g. post-depression USA) there has to
be a disinterested authority that has the common weal in mind.

I think that the state does have a role (despite the Marxist
rhetoric about its withering away) because in its absence,
as for instance in Beirut, the law of the jungle prevails. There is
a large number of rules and restrictions that the state imposes that
nobody would disagree with, because they make life easier for
everyone. What individuals disagree on is the point at which state
intervention becomes an invasion of privacy. As an example, it could
be argued that traffic laws violate a person's rights to drive as
they please, but you know the chaos in streets in India (or in
Boston!)

			Sri Rajeev
			ihnp4!attunix!rajeev