I, Government
Er, this seems obvious, but I only found two similar references, and nobody actually doing it like this:
However, does the plot-theme of the Will Smith movie not follow from acceptance of all three?
-------------------------
Let's not stop with that, though: confirmation bias is the mind-killer.
What if you replace the faceless "government" with "bureaucrat", an individual? I think applying such rules to agents of the state expects too much of them, including taking orders and going beyond the law at their discretion (becoming a rogue).
What if you replace "government" with "corporation" and "citizens" with "shareholders" or "customers" -- does any of it make sense? Or suppose we replace "government" with "market" and "citizen" with "producer or seller"? Again, I think assertions of moral agency by a corporation or market sound flat. I think this shows that we expect the state to be a moral agent, but that we expect corporations and markets to be amoral.
Like I said, this seems obvious. And pointless. And yet, for those of you who agree with all three rules above, I ask again whether the movie plot does not follow (I'm not providing spoilers, I'm sure you can find the relevant details or write me to ask and I'll explain it). The movie's point was about technology, but I find that many people seem to regard the regulatory state as an engineering problem that simply needs the right tweaks. That's what the whole Scientism/Efficiency Movement/Technocracy thing was about, wasn't it? Ordem e Progresso, my friends, Ordem e Progresso.
I think (1) translates as "Don't be a tyranny and don't let citizens face risks." (2) is "be democratic, but break the violence of faction", which is just Federalist X. (3) is "be a strong government, but not too strong", which is Montesquieu. Anarchists would reject all three. I suggest that most non-anarchists will agree with (2) and (3), but there will be considerable disagreement over (1). The second part of (1) sounds either utopian or fascist/paternalist to my ears.
- A government may not injure a citizen or, through inaction, allow a citizen to come to harm.
- A government must obey orders given to it by citizens except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A government must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
However, does the plot-theme of the Will Smith movie not follow from acceptance of all three?
-------------------------
Let's not stop with that, though: confirmation bias is the mind-killer.
What if you replace the faceless "government" with "bureaucrat", an individual? I think applying such rules to agents of the state expects too much of them, including taking orders and going beyond the law at their discretion (becoming a rogue).
What if you replace "government" with "corporation" and "citizens" with "shareholders" or "customers" -- does any of it make sense? Or suppose we replace "government" with "market" and "citizen" with "producer or seller"? Again, I think assertions of moral agency by a corporation or market sound flat. I think this shows that we expect the state to be a moral agent, but that we expect corporations and markets to be amoral.
That's interesting ... that's very interesting....What if we replace both "government" and "citizen" with "neighbor"? In that case, (2) sounds like slavery. This suggests that we regard government as a servant. Suppose we use "boss" and "employee" - again, this places too much on the shoulders of the employee.
-- Captain Jack Sparrow
Like I said, this seems obvious. And pointless. And yet, for those of you who agree with all three rules above, I ask again whether the movie plot does not follow (I'm not providing spoilers, I'm sure you can find the relevant details or write me to ask and I'll explain it). The movie's point was about technology, but I find that many people seem to regard the regulatory state as an engineering problem that simply needs the right tweaks. That's what the whole Scientism/Efficiency Movement/Technocracy thing was about, wasn't it? Ordem e Progresso, my friends, Ordem e Progresso.
Labels: doggerel, philosophy
<< Home