>At 12:41 PM 6/18/2002 -0700, Bill Bartlett wrote:
>
>>To the extent that the population (in a democratic society) acts in bad faith and permits bad decisions to be made by its representatives, which cause suffering, surely the public must be held accountable for their behaviour? There is no difference in principle between the unlawful decisions of a private company, with the consent of shareholders who stand to gain from the decision, and similar behaviour by public agencies.
>
>
>This implies some sort of an objective standard ("natural law") against which "human laws" are judged.
I'm not sure how you come to read that into it. I meant "unlawful" in the usual sense of being contrary to actual law.
>I am more inclined toward the Hobbesian position - the law is what the ultimate authority (the government) says it is and society accepts it. Thus there are no "inalienable rights" "good" or "bad" laws etc.- only the rights, responsibilities and privileges that a society and its governing institutions are willing to extend to its members.
There are rights if the law affords such rights and they are enforced. Having extended these legal rights though, individuals are entitled to expect they will be respected. Society cannot have it both ways surely, approve laws, then elected a government that intends to ignore them?
> For example, if this society and its governing institutions pass the law that sociology is a form of witchcraft and its practicing is punishable by imprisonment, I may think it is a bad law (just as many people think of the 55 mph speed limit) and try to influence the public to change it, but that law per se is the law - neither good nor bad, but binding until society and its institutions decide otherwise.
My point exactly. But how can laws be binding unless those wronged contrary to law have some means of redress? You advocated denying them an avenue of redress, by denying them the option of suing the government when it fails to enforce the law?
> If I do not succeed in changing it, I always have an option of becoming and economist or a gardener, or going to the greener pastures where sociologists are welcome.
I have not heard of such places. ;-)
>You cannot sue the society and its government for promulgating such a law (although you may take actions to change it), because this would imply the existence of some superior legal standards by which current laws can be judged.
You miss my point entirely. For example, if sociology were outlawed but the authorities then failed to enforce the law and willfully permitted the sorcery to continue, my argument would be that I should be entitled to seek compensation for any personal damages suffered as a result of its evil spells. Perhaps even punitive damages, to remind the government that it had an obligation to enforce the law.
If the public, by negligently or otherwise electing a government which fails to enforce the laws which protect individual members of society, must then bear the cost of their bad decision, this seems only just. Think of it as a fine for careless voting.
I made no mention of any "superior standards" that is a red herring.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas