I agree with this final thought of yours; simply said: The best long-term strategy is simply to say as clearly as possible what one believes and rely on no other authority than the fact that one’s view resonates with most good and decent people.
The idea that an individual should submit to the arbitrary authority of elites who are distant from the reality of our daily lives in a local community, is extremely offensive. There is no accountability or responsibility by these elites who are almost always motivated by self-interest. Far better is the mooted idea of local self-government where the interests of residence will be represented.
John, did you see the question by Rusere Shoniwa in the comments to this post? I would also be interested to hear about this, if you'd like to address it..
Hi John. If I’ve read you correctly (the paragraph under the 2nd bullet point) you argue that a local assembly of egalitarians would “have the right to write and enforce laws that all in the local community must obey. This is what makes a government legitimate.”
Do you see any need to introduce a mechanism to guard against a tyranny of the majority? I’m thinking here about legislation supported by a majority of egalitarians “that all in the local community must obey”, forcing people to put something inside their bodies that they don’t want to. That can, and very likely would, happen. Do you (a) see that as problematic, and, if so, do you (b) agree that there would need to be a mechanism to prevent this? Or do you think that an egalitarian majority should always have its way?
This is just one example of a tyranny of the majority that I would strongly object to under rule by an egalitarian assembly, and which doesn’t appear to be addressed in your arguments. I don’t want to be coerced by an egalitarian assembly any more than I want to be coerced by the current gang of criminals. I don’t want to jump from a frying pan into a fire!
Nothing about voluntary federation, however, prevents local assemblies from mutually agreeing to form a militia (or army) to forcibly prevent other people from attacking egalitarian values. Thus if a local assembly or even a region decided (no matter how "democratically"), for example, to enslave all the [fill in the blank] people or engage in, say, child abuse, then other local assemblies of true egalitarians would be entirely within their rights in forcibly preventing people elsewhere from enslaving or abusing people this way. (See "A Misunderstanding about Democracy" for more on this point.) The principle is that voluntary federation is the way for egalitarians to democratically shape society by egalitarian values; it is also the way for egalitarians to democratically (among themselves) prevent (violently if necessary) the enemies of egalitarian values from shaping society by anti-egalitarian values.
Rusere, please note that the solution to this problem is egalitarians--real egalitarians--and not reliance on any words in any document. This does not mean that words in a document have no value. I propose an Egalitarian Bill of Rights at https://www.pdrboston.org/egalitarian-bill-of-rights and perhaps items # 7 and #12 would suffice to protect from forced bodily insertions, not sure.
Thanks John. I'm not sure that the Egalitarian Bill of Rights does the trick in preventing abuse of a minority by a majority. I believe the solution to the problem does in fact rely on words in a document, in the same way that the laws enforced by an egalitarian society would be written in egalitarian legislation. I don't think we can say we'll trust real egalitarians to be egalitarian. Every system, including an egalitarian one, needs to be kept 'honest' by a check or guardrail.
The superceding law that sits on top of the local assembly's legislation has to be Natural Law which is the fundamental principle of non-coercion on fundamental issues like the issue I highlighted. So yes, some kind of Bill of Rights is necessary, but it is somewhat contradictory to say that an egalitarian assembly can pass and enforce laws but the same structure of law cannot prevent the kind of abuses I foresee.
My personal belief is that we have to stop treating Natural Law as a religion and, instead, infuse into the fabric of law. That is what would make egalitarian law truly egalitarian. That is what would make egalitarians truly egalitarian!
No matter what law is written and no matter what kind of document it is written in, there is always the question of who will make sure the law is obeyed, right? If there is a "check or guardrail" who will make sure it is honored? I think the answer is that there is zero guarantee that good laws or checks or guardrails will be honored. The best that we can do is try to make sure that the good people who want to honor the good laws and good checks and good guardrails prevail over the ones who don't. So ultimately, the only thing we have that we can rely on is the good people, however few or many they are, who may or may not prevail. I happen to believe they are sufficient in number and only lack--for the time being--the confidence to do what needs to be done.
I might add that the value of a written document such as a Bill of Rights or a Constitution is that in some circumstances its existence helps the people who agree with it to be more confident that so do lots of other people and this increases their determination to enforce what is written there.
Hard hitting John; this essay will challenge many Constitutionalists who "believe" in freedom to reconsider their fidelity to the constitution. I think it is fair to say you are iconoclastic.
I agree with this final thought of yours; simply said: The best long-term strategy is simply to say as clearly as possible what one believes and rely on no other authority than the fact that one’s view resonates with most good and decent people.
The idea that an individual should submit to the arbitrary authority of elites who are distant from the reality of our daily lives in a local community, is extremely offensive. There is no accountability or responsibility by these elites who are almost always motivated by self-interest. Far better is the mooted idea of local self-government where the interests of residence will be represented.
John, did you see the question by Rusere Shoniwa in the comments to this post? I would also be interested to hear about this, if you'd like to address it..
Thank you for calling this to my attention. Please see the reply to Rusere I just made.
None of those documents advocate egalitarianism so obviously none of them should be cited in support of egalitarianism.
Excellent point!
Hi John. If I’ve read you correctly (the paragraph under the 2nd bullet point) you argue that a local assembly of egalitarians would “have the right to write and enforce laws that all in the local community must obey. This is what makes a government legitimate.”
Do you see any need to introduce a mechanism to guard against a tyranny of the majority? I’m thinking here about legislation supported by a majority of egalitarians “that all in the local community must obey”, forcing people to put something inside their bodies that they don’t want to. That can, and very likely would, happen. Do you (a) see that as problematic, and, if so, do you (b) agree that there would need to be a mechanism to prevent this? Or do you think that an egalitarian majority should always have its way?
This is just one example of a tyranny of the majority that I would strongly object to under rule by an egalitarian assembly, and which doesn’t appear to be addressed in your arguments. I don’t want to be coerced by an egalitarian assembly any more than I want to be coerced by the current gang of criminals. I don’t want to jump from a frying pan into a fire!
Good question. I address this issue in my article, "What Is Egalitarianism," at https://www.pdrboston.org/egalitarianism , with these words:
Nothing about voluntary federation, however, prevents local assemblies from mutually agreeing to form a militia (or army) to forcibly prevent other people from attacking egalitarian values. Thus if a local assembly or even a region decided (no matter how "democratically"), for example, to enslave all the [fill in the blank] people or engage in, say, child abuse, then other local assemblies of true egalitarians would be entirely within their rights in forcibly preventing people elsewhere from enslaving or abusing people this way. (See "A Misunderstanding about Democracy" for more on this point.) The principle is that voluntary federation is the way for egalitarians to democratically shape society by egalitarian values; it is also the way for egalitarians to democratically (among themselves) prevent (violently if necessary) the enemies of egalitarian values from shaping society by anti-egalitarian values.
Rusere, please note that the solution to this problem is egalitarians--real egalitarians--and not reliance on any words in any document. This does not mean that words in a document have no value. I propose an Egalitarian Bill of Rights at https://www.pdrboston.org/egalitarian-bill-of-rights and perhaps items # 7 and #12 would suffice to protect from forced bodily insertions, not sure.
Thanks John. I'm not sure that the Egalitarian Bill of Rights does the trick in preventing abuse of a minority by a majority. I believe the solution to the problem does in fact rely on words in a document, in the same way that the laws enforced by an egalitarian society would be written in egalitarian legislation. I don't think we can say we'll trust real egalitarians to be egalitarian. Every system, including an egalitarian one, needs to be kept 'honest' by a check or guardrail.
The superceding law that sits on top of the local assembly's legislation has to be Natural Law which is the fundamental principle of non-coercion on fundamental issues like the issue I highlighted. So yes, some kind of Bill of Rights is necessary, but it is somewhat contradictory to say that an egalitarian assembly can pass and enforce laws but the same structure of law cannot prevent the kind of abuses I foresee.
My personal belief is that we have to stop treating Natural Law as a religion and, instead, infuse into the fabric of law. That is what would make egalitarian law truly egalitarian. That is what would make egalitarians truly egalitarian!
No matter what law is written and no matter what kind of document it is written in, there is always the question of who will make sure the law is obeyed, right? If there is a "check or guardrail" who will make sure it is honored? I think the answer is that there is zero guarantee that good laws or checks or guardrails will be honored. The best that we can do is try to make sure that the good people who want to honor the good laws and good checks and good guardrails prevail over the ones who don't. So ultimately, the only thing we have that we can rely on is the good people, however few or many they are, who may or may not prevail. I happen to believe they are sufficient in number and only lack--for the time being--the confidence to do what needs to be done.
I might just have to agree with that.
I might add that the value of a written document such as a Bill of Rights or a Constitution is that in some circumstances its existence helps the people who agree with it to be more confident that so do lots of other people and this increases their determination to enforce what is written there.
Hard hitting John; this essay will challenge many Constitutionalists who "believe" in freedom to reconsider their fidelity to the constitution. I think it is fair to say you are iconoclastic.