PDA

View Full Version : Standards of Society: Community v. Nation


The Pedestrian
02-14-2005, 08:34 PM
Ugh...I've tried to look at this every way possible. I've asked Bearcat; I've checked the works of various philosophers (Locke, Hobbes, Kant, Mill, Aristotle, Plato, etc.); I have yet to find a massive, mind-blowing piece of proof that community standards should be held over national standards...or even 2 smaller pieces of evidence. Please help.

What I have so far in favor of community standards: Standards must fit the people, and I'm trying to work something in about autonomy.

In favor of national standards: Locke's Social Contract says we should have a Supreme Law, Mill goes over limits of State Power, this battle is immoral in Kant's eyes because going in favor of the community is to achieve a specific end (hypothetical imperative), Sparta's war against Athens eventually destroyed Greece, etc.

Please help defend community standards! :grovel:

BTW, I should mention that this is not limited to the United States.

DanT
02-15-2005, 12:07 PM
National standards for barbecue are far below Kansas City's, I'll tell you that. Just because a lot of lunkheads don't know what good barbecue is, that doesn't mean that Kansas Citians have to pretend they don't.

One big argument in favor of community standards has to do with the enforcement and moral legitimacy of the law. Here's a link to a pamphlet from the International Society of Individual Liberty on "Jury Nullification" and its history that may be helpful to you:

http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html

Another interesting source is the classic 1911 Encylopedia Britannica. Here's an excerpt from their article on "Sovereignty" pertaining to the location of the sovereign power(s) in the type of government that the United States and some other federations have (pardon the typos):

http://1911encyclopedia.org/S/SO/SOVEREIGNTY.htm


4. States which have, by treaty or otherwise, parted with some portion of their sovereignty and formed new political units: what Herbert Spencer calls compound political heads, or, to use Austins expression, composite states. The mosi important examples of this class consist of federal or composit states which by treaty or otherwise have surrendered certair of their powers, or which have created a new state (Staatenbund) For many years one of the burning questions in the politics of

(The distinction between the Staatenbund and the Bundesstaat is discussed in the articles CONIEDERATION and,FEDERAL GOVERNMENT)

the United States was the question whether the individual states of the Union remained sovereign. According to the theory of J. C. Calhoun, the states had entered into an agreement from which they might withdraw if its terms were broken, and they were sovereign. According to the theory expounded in the Federalist, the individual states did not, after the formation of the constitution, remain completely sovereign:they were left in possession of certain attributes of sovereignty, while others were lodged in the Federal government; while there existed many states, there was but one sovereign. Even if the origin was a compact or contract, after the United States were formed by a constitutional act there no longer existed a mere contractual relation:

there existed a state to which all were subjec,t, and which all must obey (von Stengel, Staatenbund send Bundesslaat; Jahrbuch fr Gesetzgebung, 1898, p. 754; Cooley, Principles of Constitutional Law, pp. 21, 102). According to Austin: In the case of a composite state or a supreme federal government, the several united governments of the several united societies together with a government common to these several societies, are jointly sovereign in each of these several societies and also in the larger society arising from the federal union, the several governments of the several united societies are jointly sovereign in each and all (5th ed., vol. i. p. 258). In point of fact, there are fields of action in which A is sovereign, others in which B is sovereign, and certain. others in which A and B are jointly or alternately sovereign. To take the American constitution, for example, the states are sovereign as to some matters, the Federal government as to others.

DanT
02-15-2005, 12:19 PM
The fact that there are successful republics that have not felt the need to locate governmental power in a single entity speaks against the argument that there need be a choice between community and national standards in figuring out where to put the "Supreme Law". The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (our supreme law?) seems to take it for granted that sovereign power is divided and dispersed:

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amnorix
02-15-2005, 12:38 PM
The fact that there are successful republics that have not felt the need to locate governmental power in a single entity speaks against the argument that there need be a choice between community and national standards in figuring out where to put the "Supreme Law". The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (our supreme law?) seems to take it for granted that sovereign power is divided and dispersed:

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html

The 10th Amendment "is but a truism"






(ducking from the inevitably backlash... :p)

The Pedestrian
02-15-2005, 03:47 PM
National standards for barbecue are far below Kansas City's, I'll tell you that. Just because a lot of lunkheads don't know what good barbecue is, that doesn't mean that Kansas Citians have to pretend they don't.

One big argument in favor of community standards has to do with the enforcement and moral legitimacy of the law. Here's a link to a pamphlet from the International Society of Individual Liberty on "Jury Nullification" and its history that may be helpful to you:

http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html

Another interesting source is the classic 1911 Encylopedia Britannica. Here's an excerpt from their article on "Sovereignty" pertaining to the location of the sovereign power(s) in the type of government that the United States and some other federations have (pardon the typos):

http://1911encyclopedia.org/S/SO/SOVEREIGNTY.htm

That's brilliant evidence that will come in handy. The only problem I believe I would encounter, however, is that I'm left open to anyone who wants to ask what happens in countries that haven't made these agreements between the federal and local levels.

Calcountry
02-15-2005, 04:54 PM
Ugh...I've tried to look at this every way possible. I've asked Bearcat; I've checked the works of various philosophers (Locke, Hobbes, Kant, Mill, Aristotle, Plato, etc.); I have yet to find a massive, mind-blowing piece of proof that community standards should be held over national standards...or even 2 smaller pieces of evidence. Please help.

What I have so far in favor of community standards: Standards must fit the people, and I'm trying to work something in about autonomy.

In favor of national standards: Locke's Social Contract says we should have a Supreme Law, Mill goes over limits of State Power, this battle is immoral in Kant's eyes because going in favor of the community is to achieve a specific end (hypothetical imperative), Sparta's war against Athens eventually destroyed Greece, etc.

Please help defend community standards! :grovel:

BTW, I should mention that this is not limited to the United States.Hey slayer, in order to increase breast cancer awareness, why don't you photoshop a malignant tumor onto Jessicas breast. :p

The Pedestrian
02-16-2005, 12:18 AM
Hey slayer, in order to increase breast cancer awareness, why don't you photoshop a malignant tumor onto Jessicas breast. :p

Maybe tomorrow.

KCWolfman
02-16-2005, 12:52 AM
While Vactican City is technically its own nation, it is the perfect example of Community standards being more rigid and creating a better and safer society than the nation of Italy in which it resides.

The Pedestrian
02-16-2005, 05:32 AM
While Vactican City is technically its own nation, it is the perfect example of Community standards being more rigid and creating a better and safer society than the nation of Italy in which it resides.

Thanks! :hail: