Professors note: In your paper, I want you to adopt a stance on what you believe to be a Just relationship between society and the individual, borrowing from the numerous ideas and political theorists we have covered this semester. Using that vision of society as a starting point, describe how compatible it is with solving the devolution/centralization dilemma I have outlined above.
Prompt:
1. Discuss what you believe to be a Just relationship between society and the individual regarding the location of political power.
2. Analyze the philosophical and practical dimensions of your view regarding dealing with the tensions between devolution of power and centralization of policy-making in these types of cross-state and cross-national problems, such as ones relating to the environment.
Determining a just relationship between the individual and society is the basis of the tension between arguments supporting a devolution of power to local communities and those that support a centralization of policy-making in American politics By definition, a just relationship has a basis in reason. Assuming rational point of view, and borrowing much from Hobbes, one could begin by starting with an intuitive assumption, as all rational theories must; in this case, the assumption that humans are rational and are therefore motivated by their own self-interest. To continue taking from Hobbes, one could also conclude that the only reason that an individual would submit to a society that limits his ability to pursue his interest is that there is a greater embodiment of his interests that he could not achieve on his own. Since, submission to society is in essence voluntary under contract theory; other aspects of society should be rationally justified. It is at this point that some facets of utilitarianism are needed to support some of these contractual points. Because the interests of the individual should be embodied in society, the majority of political power should lie in its institutions; which should be run by the society's most qualified, willing individuals. Society should, however, protect the political and proprietary rights of its constituents while promoting the equalities of access and opportunity in its institutions.
Especially in a contractual society, rights are a way to protect the interests of the individual from being overwhelmed by a majority. They are an assurance that the individual is surrendering only some of his freedoms. Nevertheless, from a rational point of view, rights are not universal or inalienable. It requires faith in a moral code to believe that there are a set of laws which are higher than the laws that are most logically applicable at the time and that they apply to everyone. Therefore it is not possible to rationally come to the conclusion that there are universal rights, considering that faith is inherently irrational. Individual rights, in a rational sense, can best be justified by drawing from John Stuart Mill. In this he also presents an argument for the benefits of freedom. He argues that upholding the right to freedoms of thought, expression, and action are in the best interests of society. He validates the freedoms the freedoms of thought and expression, by presenting a scenario where one person has a contrary opinion to all mankind. By suppressing the opinion, he argues, "Humanity would be deprived of the truth and will not progress" if it were false "its expression would (still) be useful for it forces us to restate the reasons for our beliefs" and finally he adds that the truth is often eclectic. Mill's justification for the freedom of action lies in the idea that it promotes individuality which leads to original ideas and thoughts. These Ideas and thoughts are what progress consists of. These Individuals set an example for others and are what he calls "experiments in living" that are models for thinking/acting not supported by customs. While some fail, over time they are beneficial to society. Mill goes on to explain his harm principle which is the exception to the rule. The only time when it is reasonable to repress these rights is when an individual will cause harm to another by exercising them.
To promote individuality and development it is also important for society to ensure property rights that protect the interests of individuals not only from other individuals but from society itself. The institution of private property can be logically defended by Robert Nozick's argument, that it is reasonable to appropriate land and deny others the free use of it if everyone is better off after the appropriation. Hospitals, Schools and other non security related institutions would be privatized as it is not a reasonable function of the state to provide such services. The privatization of schools would also promote the individuality that Mill discusses frequently. There are no logical reasons for society to interfere with an individual's private property except to ensure equal access in the cases of unjust discrimination or a monopoly that denies an essential resource to others. The latter being a point that even Nozick supports.
While promoting equality may not seem to be compatible with self interest, however, when an individual is a part of society it is in his best interest to promote equality so others have a fair chance to improve the society the individual has so much stake in. While equal access restricts the interests of some, The positive effect on society derived from more possibly qualified people being given the opportunity to flourish, and the additional freedom given to all individuals far outweighs its negative aspects. Equality of opportunity, however, can only be reasonably applied to Societies own institutions and should be applied especially in the case of elections. Equality is the best way to move towards a meritocracy, which is tan embodiment of the most rational form of decision making. A level playing field is essential for electing only the most qualified individual's to office. The effectiveness of these individuals as representatives is further increased by popular redistricting and a multi-party system to promote empathy and accountability respectively. A merit based voting system also increases the quality of those elected by increasing the value of those who are the most politically conscious.
Philosophically, rational values are very applicable to the placement of power in the American government. Many issues with the American voting system could be solved and many of the problems relating to representatives and their constituencies are specifically addressed. Major Policy making would still be centralized in the cases of cross state cross national and environmental problems that affect society as a whole, however, many of the purely merit based systems, the privatization of hospitals and schools along with additional protections of property rights would devolve plenty of power to local communities along with popular redistricting, which would be among the most important reforms. It would alleviate many of the problems representatives deal with attempting to please all of their constituents as more of them would be like minded. Practically, on the other hand, arguments consisting only based solely on reason a non existent contract fall apart when they are applied directly in a practical manner. Factors such as emotions, irrational actions and real, existing political systems also help bring down such a determination.
Simplify:
Determining a just relationship between the individual and society is the basis of the tension between arguments supporting about a devolution of power to local communities. and those that support a centralization of policy-making in American politics By definition, a just relationship has a basis in reason. this part crossed out... does not really make sense.
While promoting equality may not seem to be compatible with self interest, however, when an individual is a part of society it is in his best interest to promote equality so others have a fair chance to improve the society the individual has so much stake in.--- good point, but the sentence is written weirdly. Try this:
While Promoting equality may not seem to be compatible with self interest; however, when an individual is a part of society it is in his best interest to promote equality so others have a fair chance to improve the society in which the individual has so much invested. stake in.
Here is another "however" sentence that you wrote incorrectly. I'll show the correct way here:
Major Policy making would still be centralized in the cases of cross state cross national and environmental problems that affect society as a whole. Many of the purely merit based systems, however, would devolve plenty of power to ...
:-)
