This morning I came across this short essay I wrote back in 2017 while studying for my first MA. If you ever get the time to watch Harvard's 'Justice' series, please do. If not, you might have time to read my books instead...
https://www.amazon.com/Gubacsi-Dulu-Book1-Humanity-English-ebook/dp/B08FTJTYCD
In my honest opinion, due to
corruption and greed from those we have allowed to govern us for centuries,
politics and justice have driven our society to a breaking point of absurdity, though
after watching Harvard’s “Justice” series I can see that rather than continue with
this fiasco, there are many ideas and theories we should perhaps follow and endorse.
Government has taken over many
parts of our society, bringing in laws which make us safer, tell us how to live,
and tax anything and everything which it can, with or without reason. In my
opinion, there is too much legislation which has flowed over into territories
where it has no place to be. I do not completely believe in the Libertarianism role
of government, with no paternal legislation to keep us safe from ourselves, as
there are many who need these laws – though perhaps it may wean out those with
less intelligent DNA - but there is too much moral legislation, for example, telling
us who can and cannot marry or whether abortion is legal, which is in fact none
of its business, and there is also way too much redistribution of our income
(taxation) going back to government with little or no power for us as citizens
to have a say as to where it is used, other than to vote for another
representative who will also not listen to us and would do as they saw fit.
I do agree with Locke’s ‘limited
government’ in the point that each citizen must pay their dues to leaving the
state of nature and entering society which is a safer place to live, only having
a minimal state taxation for Defence, Police, and the Judiciary - as Immanuel
Kant and John Rawls mention, we are individuals who are not tied to history or
tradition though we may have an obligation - but the consent of the majority
does not bring into account the consent of any minorities, as this fails to
respect each and every one of us, this being a Libertarian view of life.
In truth, I believe Kant is
correct that we are all “slaves to our desires” and as such we have no real
freedom, and in point, any freedom of choice, but that does not mean we should
sign our rights away to a self-inflated government that thinks it knows what’s
best for us. I believe Kant’s Veil of Ignorance is possibly the only way to
create a fair framework of rights and duties for a limited government to rule
over us - taking into consideration of course Robert Nozick’s three principles
of Entitlement Theory to help form its basis, a justice of acquisition,
transfer and fair rectification of any unjust transfer - a framework made by a
group of people gathered together with no prejudices of race, creed, colour,
gender, handicap, stature, status or religion to lay down legislation for all,
but I am afraid that the ‘human condition’ would never allow such a
hypothetical approach to exist practically. Man will always act on opportunity,
and whomsoever has the position of power to create legislation over us will use
the opportunity to better themselves and their immediate circles.
