³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981082834³2ip³224.234.246.58³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3Now remember that I started the chapter by distinguishing <i>two</i> senses in which we can understand the question, "What is the justification of the state?"  The first was: "What is the moral justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>at</i> <i>all</i>?"  The second was: "What is the justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>to</i> <i>achieve</i> <i>a</i> <i>particular</i> <i>purpose</i>, <i>P</i>?"  Now, we just got done discussing the first question.  We briefly considered anarchism and the natural law theory, and then looked at social contract theories in a little more depth.  Then, tentatively as usual, I came down in favor of a consequentialist justification for having a state at all.  But then I said that I had <i>not</i> given you a consequentialist argument that we ought to establish, and support, some governments.  And the reason I said that was that, in order to give a consequentialist argument for establishing a government, I’d have start saying what I think a government <i>should</i> <i>do</i>.  Because if I’m going to try to give a moral justification of the existence of government, then I had better begin by making things easy for myself -- starting, in other words, with the task of trying to justify a <i>really</i> <i>good</i> state.  And what is a good state?  A good state is one that does (well) whatever governments should do, and it doesn’t do anything else.  And as I said, that just makes it more pressing that we try to find out what governments should do -- what their proper functions are, and are not.

You might say, "I thought we already figured that out.  The purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve justice."  Well fine: but question is, <i>which</i> rights?  <i>What</i> <i>sort</i> of justice?  There are, after all, many different conceptions of what rights we have, and what justice consists of.

Indeed, it’s on <i>those</i> questions that you’ll find the differences between conservatives, welfare state liberals, libertarians, socialists, and fascists.  There are a handful of anarchists among the libertarians and the socialists (certain kinds of communists are anarchists, believe it or not).  But everyone else agrees that the existence of <i>some</i> kind of government is morally justified.  And then what they disagree about is what government should do.  Nearly everyone is willing to nod their heads when it is said that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and preserve justice.  It’s just that all these different camps have a different conceptions of which rights we do have, and what justice consists of.

One fairly useful way to conceive of the differences between these different views is as <i>how</i> <i>much</i> they want government to do. For a stark and timely contrast, consider two of these views: libertarianism, which wants the state to do only a few things, and socialism, which wants the state to do a lot of things.

Libertarianism, in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least; its function is <i>only</i> to keep people from harming each other.  There are no rights to food or shelter or health care; we only have rights to life and legal justice, and rights to do what we like with whatever we have at our disposal, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.  Therefore, the proper functions of government might include the maintainance of the courts, the police, the military, and perhaps a few other vital functions.  But under no circumstances, according to libertarianism, should government do such things as establish schools, or heavily regulate industry, or run social welfare programs.  Nor should government restrict free speech, sexual practices, gambling, or any other so-called victimless crimes.  For libertarianism, government’s main imperative should be: Hands off!

Socialism, nearly on the other end of a continuum, is the view that the state is responsible for an equitable distribution of wealth and for controlling the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy.  This has been loosely and popularly known as "communism"; but philosophers use the term "communism" to mean <i>one</i> <i>stage</i> in the progression of a socialist society.  Anyway, a socialist believes that we have a right not just to life; we have a right to all the essential means of sustaining life, such as food, clean water, shelter, and so forth.  An important right that many socialists say we <i>do</i> <i>not</i> have is the right to private property.  Justice, moreover, consists not only of everyone having <i>adequate</i> amounts of those basic rights; it consists also of the <i>lack</i> of large <i>discrepancies</i> in wealth and other resources between people.  And so the functions of the government are many and varied, everything from running electric and water utilities, to providing welfare benefits for those who cannot work, to running factories, and so forth.  So socialists want the government to be in virtually every productive area of life.  They maintain that governments are <i>morally</i> <i>justified</i> in being a part of all of those different areas.

Obviously, we do not have the time to weigh the merits of libertarianism and socialism, or any other theories about the function of government.  I just want you to understand that <i>once</i> we have given some justification for the existence of the state at all, we are faced with the question of what governments are morally justified in doing, which is another way of saying what their purposes or functions should be.  As you can see, this turns to be one of the most important questions, not only of philosophy, but of any inquiry.
³3summary³3* Ch. 9, sect. 6³2tscreate³2981082834³2keepts³2981083401³2id³21001³2host³2dhcp058.246.lvcm.com³2revision³21³1username³2JoshuaGrosse³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981083401³2ip³2129.97.112.43³2data³2text³3Now remember that I started the chapter by distinguishing <i>two</i> senses in which we can understand the question, "What is the justification of the state?"  The first was: "What is the moral justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>at</i> <i>all</i>?"  The second was: "What is the justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>to</i> <i>achieve</i> <i>a</i> <i>particular</i> <i>purpose</i>, <i>P</i>?"  Now, we just got done discussing the first question.  We briefly considered anarchism and the natural law theory, and then looked at social contract theories in a little more depth.  Then, tentatively as usual, I came down in favor of a consequentialist justification for having a state at all.  But then I said that I had <i>not</i> given you a consequentialist argument that we ought to establish, and support, some governments.  And the reason I said that was that, in order to give a consequentialist argument for establishing a government, I’d have start saying what I think a government <i>should</i> <i>do</i>.  Because if I’m going to try to give a moral justification of the existence of government, then I had better begin by making things easy for myself -- starting, in other words, with the task of trying to justify a <i>really</i> <i>good</i> state.  And what is a good state?  A good state is one that does (well) whatever governments should do, and it doesn’t do anything else.  And as I said, that just makes it more pressing that we try to find out what governments should do -- what their proper functions are, and are not.

You might say, "I thought we already figured that out.  The purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve justice."  Well fine: but question is, <i>which</i> rights?  <i>What</i> <i>sort</i> of justice?  There are, after all, many different conceptions of what rights we have, and what justice consists of.

Indeed, it’s on <i>those</i> questions that you’ll find the differences between conservatives, welfare state liberals, libertarians, socialists, and fascists.  There are a handful of anarchists among the libertarians and the socialists (certain kinds of communists are anarchists, believe it or not).  But everyone else agrees that the existence of <i>some</i> kind of government is morally justified.  And then what they disagree about is what government should do.  Nearly everyone is willing to nod their heads when it is said that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and preserve justice.  It’s just that all these different camps have a different conceptions of which rights we do have, and what justice consists of.

One fairly useful way to conceive of the differences between these different views is as <i>how</i> <i>much</i> they want government to do. For a stark and timely contrast, consider two of these views: libertarianism, which wants the state to do only a few things, and socialism, which wants the state to do a lot of things.

Libertarianism, in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least; its function is <i>only</i> to keep people from harming each other.  There are no rights to food or shelter or health care; we only have rights to life and legal justice, and rights to do what we like with whatever we have at our disposal, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.  Therefore, the proper functions of government might include the maintainance of the courts, the police, the military, and perhaps a few other vital functions.  But under no circumstances, according to libertarianism, should government do such things as establish schools, or heavily regulate industry, or run social welfare programs.  Nor should government restrict free speech, sexual practices, gambling, or any other so-called victimless crimes.  For libertarianism, government’s main imperative should be: Hands off!

Socialism, nearly on the other end of a continuum, is the view that the state is responsible for an equitable distribution of wealth and for controlling the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy.  This has been loosely and popularly known as "communism"; but philosophers use the term "communism" to mean <i>one</i> <i>stage</i> in the progression of a socialist society.  Anyway, a socialist believes that we have a right not just to life; we have a right to all the essential means of sustaining life, such as food, clean water, shelter, and so forth.  An important right that many socialists say we <i>do</i> <i>not</i> have is the right to private property.  Justice, moreover, consists not only of everyone having <i>adequate</i> amounts of those basic rights; it consists also of the <i>lack</i> of large <i>discrepancies</i> in wealth and other resources between people.  And so the functions of the government are many and varied, everything from running electric and water utilities, to providing welfare benefits for those who cannot work, to running factories, and so forth.  So socialists want the government to be in virtually every productive area of life.  They maintain that governments are <i>morally</i> <i>justified</i> in being a part of all of those different areas.

Obviously, we do not have the time to weigh the merits of libertarianism and socialism, or any other theories about the function of government.  I just want you to understand that <i>once</i> we have given some justification for the existence of the state at all, we are faced with the question of what governments are morally justified in doing, which is another way of saying what their purposes or functions should be.  As you can see, this turns to be one of the most important questions, not only of philosophy, but of any inquiry.

'''Quibble:''' Socialism doesn't refer to a level of government control, merely to a level of economic equality.  It would be difficult to say all fascist governments are socialist.  And on the other hand, anarchism is sometimes libertarian socialism.
³3minor³30³3newauthor³31³3summary³3Sorry, but a definition quibble³2tscreate³2981082834³2keepts³2981083971³2id³21076³2host³2cnts1p43.uwaterloo.ca³2revision³22³1username³2JoshuaGrosse³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981083971³2ip³2129.97.112.43³2data³2newauthor³30³3minor³31³3text³3Now remember that I started the chapter by distinguishing <i>two</i> senses in which we can understand the question, "What is the justification of the state?"  The first was: "What is the moral justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>at</i> <i>all</i>?"  The second was: "What is the justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>to</i> <i>achieve</i> <i>a</i> <i>particular</i> <i>purpose</i>, <i>P</i>?"  Now, we just got done discussing the first question.  We briefly considered anarchism and the natural law theory, and then looked at social contract theories in a little more depth.  Then, tentatively as usual, I came down in favor of a consequentialist justification for having a state at all.  But then I said that I had <i>not</i> given you a consequentialist argument that we ought to establish, and support, some governments.  And the reason I said that was that, in order to give a consequentialist argument for establishing a government, I’d have start saying what I think a government <i>should</i> <i>do</i>.  Because if I’m going to try to give a moral justification of the existence of government, then I had better begin by making things easy for myself -- starting, in other words, with the task of trying to justify a <i>really</i> <i>good</i> state.  And what is a good state?  A good state is one that does (well) whatever governments should do, and it doesn’t do anything else.  And as I said, that just makes it more pressing that we try to find out what governments should do -- what their proper functions are, and are not.

You might say, "I thought we already figured that out.  The purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve justice."  Well fine: but question is, <i>which</i> rights?  <i>What</i> <i>sort</i> of justice?  There are, after all, many different conceptions of what rights we have, and what justice consists of.

Indeed, it’s on <i>those</i> questions that you’ll find the differences between conservatives, welfare state liberals, libertarians, socialists, and fascists.  There are a handful of anarchists among the libertarians and the socialists (certain kinds of communists are anarchists, believe it or not).  But everyone else agrees that the existence of <i>some</i> kind of government is morally justified.  And then what they disagree about is what government should do.  Nearly everyone is willing to nod their heads when it is said that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and preserve justice.  It’s just that all these different camps have a different conceptions of which rights we do have, and what justice consists of.

One fairly useful way to conceive of the differences between these different views is as <i>how</i> <i>much</i> they want government to do. For a stark and timely contrast, consider two of these views: libertarianism, which wants the state to do only a few things, and socialism, which wants the state to do a lot of things.

Libertarianism, in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least; its function is <i>only</i> to keep people from harming each other.  There are no rights to food or shelter or health care; we only have rights to life and legal justice, and rights to do what we like with whatever we have at our disposal, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.  Therefore, the proper functions of government might include the maintainance of the courts, the police, the military, and perhaps a few other vital functions.  But under no circumstances, according to libertarianism, should government do such things as establish schools, or heavily regulate industry, or run social welfare programs.  Nor should government restrict free speech, sexual practices, gambling, or any other so-called victimless crimes.  For libertarianism, government’s main imperative should be: Hands off!

Socialism, nearly on the other end of a continuum, is the view that the state is responsible for an equitable distribution of wealth and for controlling the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy.  This has been loosely and popularly known as "communism"; but philosophers use the term "communism" to mean <i>one</i> <i>stage</i> in the progression of a socialist society.  Anyway, a socialist believes that we have a right not just to life; we have a right to all the essential means of sustaining life, such as food, clean water, shelter, and so forth.  An important right that many socialists say we <i>do</i> <i>not</i> have is the right to private property.  Justice, moreover, consists not only of everyone having <i>adequate</i> amounts of those basic rights; it consists also of the <i>lack</i> of large <i>discrepancies</i> in wealth and other resources between people.  And so the functions of the government are many and varied, everything from running electric and water utilities, to providing welfare benefits for those who cannot work, to running factories, and so forth.  So socialists want the government to be in virtually every productive area of life.  They maintain that governments are <i>morally</i> <i>justified</i> in being a part of all of those different areas.

Obviously, we do not have the time to weigh the merits of libertarianism and socialism, or any other theories about the function of government.  I just want you to understand that <i>once</i> we have given some justification for the existence of the state at all, we are faced with the question of what governments are morally justified in doing, which is another way of saying what their purposes or functions should be.  As you can see, this turns to be one of the most important questions, not only of philosophy, but of any inquiry.

'''Quibble:''' Socialism doesn't refer to a level of government control, merely to a level of economic equality.  It would be difficult to say all fascist governments are socialist.  And on the other hand, anarchism is sometimes libertarian socialism.  I would fix this but I don't know the actual term...maybe despotism suffices, but it has a lot of connotations associated therewith.
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981082834³2keepts³2981142187³2id³21076³2host³2cnts1p43.uwaterloo.ca³2revision³23³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981142187³2ip³224.234.246.58³2data³2text³3<The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 

Now remember that I started the chapter by distinguishing <i>two</i> senses in which we can understand the question, "What is the justification of the state?"  The first was: "What is the moral justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>at</i> <i>all</i>?"  The second was: "What is the justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>to</i> <i>achieve</i> <i>a</i> <i>particular</i> <i>purpose</i>, <i>P</i>?"  Now, we just got done discussing the first question.  We briefly considered anarchism and the natural law theory, and then looked at social contract theories in a little more depth.  Then, tentatively as usual, I came down in favor of a consequentialist justification for having a state at all.  But then I said that I had <i>not</i> given you a consequentialist argument that we ought to establish, and support, some governments.  And the reason I said that was that, in order to give a consequentialist argument for establishing a government, I’d have start saying what I think a government <i>should</i> <i>do</i>.  Because if I’m going to try to give a moral justification of the existence of government, then I had better begin by making things easy for myself -- starting, in other words, with the task of trying to justify a <i>really</i> <i>good</i> state.  And what is a good state?  A good state is one that does (well) whatever governments should do, and it doesn’t do anything else.  And as I said, that just makes it more pressing that we try to find out what governments should do -- what their proper functions are, and are not.

You might say, "I thought we already figured that out.  The purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve justice."  Well fine: but question is, <i>which</i> rights?  <i>What</i> <i>sort</i> of justice?  There are, after all, many different conceptions of what rights we have, and what justice consists of.

Indeed, it’s on <i>those</i> questions that you’ll find the differences between conservatives, welfare state liberals, libertarians, socialists, and fascists.  There are a handful of anarchists among the libertarians and the socialists (certain kinds of communists are anarchists, believe it or not).  But everyone else agrees that the existence of <i>some</i> kind of government is morally justified.  And then what they disagree about is what government should do.  Nearly everyone is willing to nod their heads when it is said that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and preserve justice.  It’s just that all these different camps have a different conceptions of which rights we do have, and what justice consists of.

One fairly useful way to conceive of the differences between these different views is as <i>how</i> <i>much</i> they want government to do. For a stark and timely contrast, consider two of these views: libertarianism, which wants the state to do only a few things, and socialism, which wants the state to do a lot of things.

Libertarianism, in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least; its function is <i>only</i> to keep people from harming each other.  There are no rights to food or shelter or health care; we only have rights to life and legal justice, and rights to do what we like with whatever we have at our disposal, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.  Therefore, the proper functions of government might include the maintainance of the courts, the police, the military, and perhaps a few other vital functions.  But under no circumstances, according to libertarianism, should government do such things as establish schools, or heavily regulate industry, or run social welfare programs.  Nor should government restrict free speech, sexual practices, gambling, or any other so-called victimless crimes.  For libertarianism, government’s main imperative should be: Hands off!

Socialism, nearly on the other end of a continuum, is the view that the state is responsible for an equitable distribution of wealth and for controlling the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy.  This has been loosely and popularly known as "communism"; but philosophers use the term "communism" to mean <i>one</i> <i>stage</i> in the progression of a socialist society.  Anyway, a socialist believes that we have a right not just to life; we have a right to all the essential means of sustaining life, such as food, clean water, shelter, and so forth.  An important right that many socialists say we <i>do</i> <i>not</i> have is the right to private property.  Justice, moreover, consists not only of everyone having <i>adequate</i> amounts of those basic rights; it consists also of the <i>lack</i> of large <i>discrepancies</i> in wealth and other resources between people.  And so the functions of the government are many and varied, everything from running electric and water utilities, to providing welfare benefits for those who cannot work, to running factories, and so forth.  So socialists want the government to be in virtually every productive area of life.  They maintain that governments are <i>morally</i> <i>justified</i> in being a part of all of those different areas.

Obviously, we do not have the time to weigh the merits of libertarianism and socialism, or any other theories about the function of government.  I just want you to understand that <i>once</i> we have given some justification for the existence of the state at all, we are faced with the question of what governments are morally justified in doing, which is another way of saying what their purposes or functions should be.  As you can see, this turns to be one of the most important questions, not only of philosophy, but of any inquiry.

'''Quibble:''' Socialism doesn't refer to a level of government control, merely to a level of economic equality.  It would be difficult to say all fascist governments are socialist.  And on the other hand, anarchism is sometimes libertarian socialism.  I would fix this but I don't know the actual term...maybe despotism suffices, but it has a lot of connotations associated therewith.
³3minor³31³3newauthor³31³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981082834³2keepts³2982179803³2id³21001³2host³2dhcp058.246.lvcm.com³2revision³24³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982179803³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³30³3minor³30³3text³3<The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 

Now remember that I started the chapter by distinguishing <i>two</i> senses in which we can understand the question, "What is the justification of the state?"  The first was: "What is the moral justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>at</i> <i>all</i>?"  The second was: "What is the justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>to</i> <i>achieve</i> <i>a</i> <i>particular</i> <i>purpose</i>, <i>P</i>?"  Now, we just got done discussing the first question.  We briefly considered anarchism and the natural law theory, and then looked at social contract theories in a little more depth.  Then, tentatively as usual, I came down in favor of a consequentialist justification for having a state at all.  But then I said that I had <i>not</i> given you a consequentialist argument that we ought to establish, and support, some governments.  And the reason I said that was that, in order to give a consequentialist argument for establishing a government, I’d have start saying what I think a government <i>should</i> <i>do</i>.  Because if I’m going to try to give a moral justification of the existence of government, then I had better begin by making things easy for myself -- starting, in other words, with the task of trying to justify a <i>really</i> <i>good</i> state.  And what is a good state?  A good state is one that does (well) whatever governments should do, and it doesn’t do anything else.  And as I said, that just makes it more pressing that we try to find out what governments should do -- what their proper functions are, and are not.

You might say, "I thought we already figured that out.  The purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve justice."  Well fine: but question is, <i>which</i> rights?  <i>What</i> <i>sort</i> of justice?  There are, after all, many different conceptions of what rights we have, and what justice consists of.

Indeed, it’s on <i>those</i> questions that you’ll find the differences between conservatives, welfare state liberals, libertarians, socialists, and fascists.  There are a handful of anarchists among the libertarians and the socialists (certain kinds of communists are anarchists, believe it or not).  But everyone else agrees that the existence of <i>some</i> kind of government is morally justified.  And then what they disagree about is what government should do.  Nearly everyone is willing to nod their heads when it is said that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and preserve justice.  It’s just that all these different camps have a different conceptions of which rights we do have, and what justice consists of.

One fairly useful way to conceive of the differences between these different views is as <i>how</i> <i>much</i> they want government to do. For a stark and timely contrast, consider two of these views: libertarianism, which wants the state to do only a few things, and socialism, which wants the state to do a lot of things.

Libertarianism, in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least; its function is <i>only</i> to keep people from harming each other.  There are no rights to food or shelter or health care; we only have rights to life and legal justice, and rights to do what we like with whatever we have at our disposal, so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.  Therefore, the proper functions of government might include the maintainance of the courts, the police, the military, and perhaps a few other vital functions.  But under no circumstances, according to libertarianism, should government do such things as establish schools, or heavily regulate industry, or run social welfare programs.  Nor should government restrict free speech, sexual practices, gambling, or any other so-called victimless crimes.  For libertarianism, government’s main imperative should be: Hands off!

Socialism, nearly on the other end of a continuum, is the view that the state is responsible for an equitable distribution of wealth and for controlling the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy.  This has been loosely and popularly known as "communism"; but philosophers use the term "communism" to mean <i>one</i> <i>stage</i> in the progression of a socialist society.  Anyway, a socialist believes that we have a right not just to life; we have a right to all the essential means of sustaining life, such as food, clean water, shelter, and so forth.  An important right that many socialists say we <i>do</i> <i>not</i> have is the right to private property.  Justice, moreover, consists not only of everyone having <i>adequate</i> amounts of those basic rights; it consists also of the <i>lack</i> of large <i>discrepancies</i> in wealth and other resources between people.  And so the functions of the government are many and varied, everything from running electric and water utilities, to providing welfare benefits for those who cannot work, to running factories, and so forth.  So socialists want the government to be in virtually every productive area of life.  They maintain that governments are <i>morally</i> <i>justified</i> in being a part of all of those different areas.

Obviously, we do not have the time to weigh the merits of libertarianism and socialism, or any other theories about the function of government.  I just want you to understand that <i>once</i> we have given some justification for the existence of the state at all, we are faced with the question of what governments are morally justified in doing, which is another way of saying what their purposes or functions should be.  As you can see, this turns to be one of the most important questions, not only of philosophy, but of any inquiry.
----
/Talk
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981082834³2keepts³2982180291³2id³21001³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³25³1username³2JimboWales³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982180291³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3<The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 

Now remember that I started the chapter by distinguishing <i>two</i> senses in which we can understand the question, "What is the justification of the state?"  The first was: "What is the moral justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>at</i> <i>all</i>?"  The second was: "What is the justification, if any, of government agents using force <i>to</i> <i>achieve</i> <i>a</i> <i>particular</i> <i>purpose</i>, <i>P</i>?"  Now, we just got done discussing the first question.  We briefly considered AnarchisM and the NaturalLaw theory, and then looked at social contract theories in a little more depth.  Then, tentatively as usual, I came down in favor of a consequentialist justification for having a state at all.  But then I said that I had <i>not</i> given you a consequentialist argument that we ought to establish, and support, some governments.  And the reason I said that was that, in order to give a consequentialist argument for establishing a government, I?d have start saying what I think a government <i>should</i> <i>do</i>.  Because if I?m going to try to give a moral justification of the existence of government, then I had better begin by making things easy for myself -- starting, in other words, with the task of trying to justify a <i>really</i> <i>good</i> state.  And what is a good state?  A good state is one that does (well) whatever governments should do, and it doesn?t do anything else.  And as I said, that just makes it more pressing that we try to find out what governments should do -- what their proper functions are, and are not.

You might say, "I thought we already figured that out.  The purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve justice."  Well fine: but question is, <i>which</i> rights?  <i>What</i> <i>sort</i> of justice?  There are, after all, many different conceptions of what rights we have, and what justice consists of.

Indeed, it?s on <i>those</i> questions that you?ll find the differences between conservatives, welfare state liberals, libertarians, socialists, and fascists.  There are a handful of anarchists among the LibertariaN''''s and the SocialisT''''s (certain kinds of communists are anarchists, believe it or not).  But everyone else agrees that the existence of <i>some</i> kind of government is morally justified.  And then what they disagree about is what government should do.  Nearly everyone is willing to nod their heads when it is said that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and preserve justice.  It?s just that all these different camps have a different conceptions of which rights we do have, and what justice consists of.

One fairly useful way to conceive of the differences between these different views is as <i>how</i> <i>much</i> they want government to do. For a stark and timely contrast, consider two of these views: libertarianism, which wants the state to do only a few things, and socialism, which wants the state to do a lot of things.

LibertarianisM, in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least; its function is <i>only</i> to keep people from harming each other.  There are no rights to food or shelter or health care; we only have rights to life and legal justice, and rights to do what we like with whatever we have at our disposal, so long as it doesn?t hurt anyone else.  Therefore, the proper functions of government might include the maintainance of the courts, the police, the military, and perhaps a few other vital functions.  But under no circumstances, according to libertarianism, should government do such things as establish schools, or heavily regulate industry, or run social welfare programs.  Nor should government restrict free speech, sexual practices, gambling, or any other so-called victimless crimes.  For libertarianism, government's main imperative should be: Hands off!

Socialism, nearly on the other end of a continuum, is the view that the state is responsible for an equitable distribution of wealth and for controlling the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy.  This has been loosely and popularly known as "CommunisM"; but philosophers use the term "communism" to mean <i>one</i> <i>stage</i> in the progression of a socialist society.  Anyway, a socialist believes that we have a right not just to life; we have a right to all the essential means of sustaining life, such as food, clean water, shelter, and so forth.  An important right that many socialists say we <i>do</i> <i>not</i> have is the right to private property.  Justice, moreover, consists not only of everyone having <i>adequate</i> amounts of those basic rights; it consists also of the <i>lack</i> of large <i>discrepancies</i> in wealth and other resources between people.  And so the functions of the government are many and varied, everything from running electric and water utilities, to providing welfare benefits for those who cannot work, to running factories, and so forth.  So socialists want the government to be in virtually every productive area of life.  They maintain that governments are <i>morally</i> <i>justified</i> in being a part of all of those different areas.

Obviously, we do not have the time to weigh the merits of libertarianism and socialism, or any other theories about the function of government.  I just want you to understand that <i>once</i> we have given some justification for the existence of the state at all, we are faced with the question of what governments are morally justified in doing, which is another way of saying what their purposes or functions should be.  As you can see, this turns to be one of the most important questions, not only of philosophy, but of any inquiry.
----
/Talk
³3minor³31³3newauthor³31³3summary³3Just a little bit of wiki-wording, surely needs more!³2tscreate³2981082834³2keepts³2982269907³2id³21025³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³26³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982269907³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³31³3text³3<The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 

What is a good StatE?  A good state is one that does (well) whatever governments should do, and it does nothing else.  This platitude makes it more pressing that we try to find out what governments should do--what their proper functions are, and are not.

We might be tempted to say, as nearly everyone can agree, that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve justice.  But this raises more questions than it answers.  <i>Which</i> and ''whose'' rights?  <i>What</i> <i>sort</i> of justice?  There are, after all, many different conceptions of what rights we have, and what justice consists of.

It is on <i>those</i> questions that one can find the differences between ConservatisM, WelfareStateLiberalism, LibertarianisM, SocialisM, and FascisM.  There are a handful of anarchists (see AnarchisM) among the Socialists (see TraditionalAnarchism) and the Libertarians (see AnarchoCapitalism).  But everyone else agrees that the existence of <i>some</i> kind of government is morally justified.  What they disagree about is what government should do.

One fairly useful way to conceive of the differences between these different views is as <i>how</i> <i>much</i> they want government to do. For a stark and timely contrast, consider two of these views: LibertarianisM, which wants the state to do only a few things, and socialism, which wants the state to do a lot of things.

LibertarianisM, in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least; its function is <i>only</i> to keep people from harming each other.  There are no rights to food or shelter or health care; we only have rights to life and legal justice, and rights to do what we like with whatever we have at our disposal, so long as it doesn?t hurt anyone else.  Therefore, the proper functions of government might include the maintainance of the courts, the police, the military, and perhaps a few other vital functions.  But under no circumstances, according to libertarianism, should government do such things as establish schools, or heavily regulate industry, or run social welfare programs.  Nor should government restrict free speech, sexual practices, gambling, or any other so-called victimless crimes.  For libertarianism, government's main imperative should be: Hands off!

Socialism, nearly on the other end of a continuum, is the view that the state is responsible for an equitable distribution of wealth and for controlling the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy.  This has been loosely and popularly known as "CommunisM"; but philosophers use the term "communism" to mean <i>one</i> <i>stage</i> in the progression of a socialist society.  Anyway, a socialist believes that we have a right not just to life; we have a right to all the essential means of sustaining life, such as food, clean water, shelter, and so forth.  An important right that many socialists say we <i>do</i> <i>not</i> have is the right to private property.  Justice, moreover, consists not only of everyone having <i>adequate</i> amounts of those basic rights; it consists also of the <i>lack</i> of large <i>discrepancies</i> in wealth and other resources between people.  And so the functions of the government are many and varied, everything from running electric and water utilities, to providing welfare benefits for those who cannot work, to running factories, and so forth.  So socialists want the government to be in virtually every productive area of life.  They maintain that governments are <i>morally</i> <i>justified</i> in being a part of all of those different areas.

Obviously, we do not have the time to weigh the merits of libertarianism and socialism, or any other theories about the function of government.  I just want you to understand that <i>once</i> we have given some justification for the existence of the state at all, we are faced with the question of what governments are morally justified in doing, which is another way of saying what their purposes or functions should be.  As you can see, this turns to be one of the most important questions, not only of philosophy, but of any inquiry.
----
/Talk
³3summary³3* Starting wikification³2tscreate³2981082834³2keepts³2982270343³2id³21280³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³27³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982270343³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3<The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 

What is a good StatE?  A good state is one that does (well) whatever governments should do, and it does nothing else.  This platitude makes it more pressing that we try to find out what governments should do--what their proper functions are, and are not.

We might be tempted to say, as nearly everyone can agree, that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve justice.  But this raises more questions than it answers.  <i>Which</i> and ''whose'' rights?  <i>What</i> <i>sort</i> of justice?  There are, after all, many different conceptions of what rights we have, and what justice consists of.

It is on <i>those</i> questions that one can find the differences between ConservatisM, WelfareStateLiberalism, LibertarianisM, SocialisM, and FascisM.  There are a handful of anarchists (see AnarchisM) among the Socialists (see TraditionalAnarchism) and the Libertarians (see AnarchoCapitalism).  But everyone else agrees that the existence of <i>some</i> kind of government is morally justified.  What they disagree about is what government should do.

One fairly useful way to conceive of the differences between these different views is as <i>how</i> <i>much</i> they want government to do. For a stark and timely contrast, consider two of these views: LibertarianisM, which wants the state to do only a few things, and socialism, which wants the state to do a lot of things.

LibertarianisM, in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least.

Socialism, nearly on the other end of a continuum, is the view that the state is responsible for an equitable distribution of wealth and for controlling the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy.  This has been loosely and popularly known as "CommunisM"; but philosophers use the term "communism" to mean <i>one</i> <i>stage</i> in the progression of a socialist society.  Anyway, a socialist believes that we have a right not just to life; we have a right to all the essential means of sustaining life, such as food, clean water, shelter, and so forth.  An important right that many socialists say we <i>do</i> <i>not</i> have is the right to private property.  Justice, moreover, consists not only of everyone having <i>adequate</i> amounts of those basic rights; it consists also of the <i>lack</i> of large <i>discrepancies</i> in wealth and other resources between people.  And so the functions of the government are many and varied, everything from running electric and water utilities, to providing welfare benefits for those who cannot work, to running factories, and so forth.  So socialists want the government to be in virtually every productive area of life.  They maintain that governments are <i>morally</i> <i>justified</i> in being a part of all of those different areas.

Obviously, we do not have the time to weigh the merits of libertarianism and socialism, or any other theories about the function of government.  I just want you to understand that <i>once</i> we have given some justification for the existence of the state at all, we are faced with the question of what governments are morally justified in doing, which is another way of saying what their purposes or functions should be.  As you can see, this turns to be one of the most important questions, not only of philosophy, but of any inquiry.
----
/Talk
³3minor³31³3newauthor³30³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981082834³2keepts³2982270379³2id³21280³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³28³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982270379³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³30³3minor³31³3text³3<The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 

What is a good StatE?  A good state is one that does (well) whatever governments should do, and it does nothing else.  This platitude makes it more pressing that we try to find out what governments should do--what their proper functions are, and are not.

We might be tempted to say, as nearly everyone can agree, that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve justice.  But this raises more questions than it answers.  <i>Which</i> and ''whose'' rights?  <i>What</i> <i>sort</i> of justice?  There are, after all, many different conceptions of what rights we have, and what justice consists of.

It is on <i>those</i> questions that one can find the differences between ConservatisM, WelfareStateLiberalism, LibertarianisM, SocialisM, and FascisM.  There are a handful of anarchists (see AnarchisM) among the Socialists (see TraditionalAnarchism) and the Libertarians (see AnarchoCapitalism).  But everyone else agrees that the existence of <i>some</i> kind of government is morally justified.  What they disagree about is what government should do.

One fairly useful way to conceive of the differences between these different views is as <i>how</i> <i>much</i> they want government to do. For a stark and timely contrast, consider two of these views: LibertarianisM, which wants the state to do only a few things, and ''SocialisM,'' which wants the state to do a lot of things.

''LibertarianisM,'' in political theory, is the view that that state governs best that governs least.

''SocialisM,'' nearly on the other end of a continuum, is the view that the state is responsible for an equitable distribution of wealth and for controlling the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy.  This has been loosely and popularly known as "CommunisM"; but philosophers use the term "communism" to mean <i>one</i> <i>stage</i> in the progression of a socialist society.  Anyway, a socialist believes that we have a right not just to life; we have a right to all the essential means of sustaining life, such as food, clean water, shelter, and so forth.  An important right that many socialists say we <i>do</i> <i>not</i> have is the right to private property.  Justice, moreover, consists not only of everyone having <i>adequate</i> amounts of those basic rights; it consists also of the <i>lack</i> of large <i>discrepancies</i> in wealth and other resources between people.  And so the functions of the government are many and varied, everything from running electric and water utilities, to providing welfare benefits for those who cannot work, to running factories, and so forth.  So socialists want the government to be in virtually every productive area of life.  They maintain that governments are <i>morally</i> <i>justified</i> in being a part of all of those different areas.

Obviously, we do not have the time to weigh the merits of libertarianism and socialism, or any other theories about the function of government.  I just want you to understand that <i>once</i> we have given some justification for the existence of the state at all, we are faced with the question of what governments are morally justified in doing, which is another way of saying what their purposes or functions should be.  As you can see, this turns to be one of the most important questions, not only of philosophy, but of any inquiry.
----
/Talk
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981082834³2keepts³2982270727³2id³21280³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³29³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982270727³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3<The following is a portion of LarrysText, wikification is invited> 

What is a good StatE?  A good state is one that does (well) whatever governments should do, and it does nothing else.  This platitude makes it more pressing that we try to find out what governments should do--what their proper functions are, and are not.

We might be tempted to say, as nearly everyone can agree, that the purpose of the state is to protect rights and to preserve justice.  But this raises more questions than it answers.  <i>Which</i> and ''whose'' rights?  <i>What</i> <i>sort</i> of justice?  There are, after all, many different conceptions of what rights we have, and what justice consists of.

It is on <i>those</i> questions that one can find the differences between ConservatisM, WelfareStateLiberalism, LibertarianisM, SocialisM, and FascisM.  There are a handful of anarchists (see AnarchisM) among the Socialists (see TraditionalAnarchism) and the Libertarians (see AnarchoCapitalism).  But everyone else agrees that the existence of <i>some</i> kind of government is morally justified.  What they disagree about is what government should do.

One fairly useful way to conceive of the differences between these different views is as <i>how</i> <i>much</i> they want government to do. For a stark and timely contrast, consider two of these views: Libertarianism, which wants the state to do only a few things, and Socialism, which wants the state to do a lot of things.  ''LibertarianisM,'' in political theory, is the view that the function of the state is <i>only</i> to keep people from harming each other.  In other words, an individual should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do what they want.  The government's role is to protect those rights.  ''SocialisM,'' nearly on the other end of a continuum, is the view that the state is responsible for an equitable distribution of wealth and for controlling the means of production and distribution of resources in an economy.

As you can see, <i>once</i> we have given some justification for the existence of the state at all, we are faced with the question of what governments are morally justified in doing, which is another way of saying what their purposes or functions should be.  This turns to be one of the most important questions that can be asked.
----
/Talk
³3minor³30³3newauthor³30³3summary³3* Finished for now³2tscreate³2981082834³2keepts³2982270800³2id³21280³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³210