For one, law is not evenly applied to everyone, even in our society. In theory, law is used most extensively in a socially downward direction, meaning that those of higher social status (rich people, politicians, holy people), are subjected to less law then social pariahs, like homeless people or people who engage in activities that the majority doesn't like. An example of this was given by Donald Black, who studied the activities of modern police in the field. He found that the homeless found on skid row are frequently subjected to a level of brutality that would never be seen in a middle or upper class neighborhood. I think the most disturbing thing was that the homeless were frequently arrested for infractions that were covers for "we dont like you, and we dont want you to be here", like vagrancy and public drunkenness (some arrested were drunk, but not all). Clearly if the law is being applied like this, it's not the just and angelic tool that I had thought it to be.
On a broader theoretical level, law is essentially the way for a group to keep it's members in line. Law is the legitimization of violence against those who act in a way that the majority doesnt like. Sometimes this is good thing like when its used against rapists or murderers, but it's also not, like when its used to restrict the freedoms of racial groups, homosexuals, and vagrants who don't conform to what the ruling majority (typically white males in our society) wants their society to be like.
If a society is ever to be truly free, can it's members ever be compelled to do something? Even things that are perceived goods like compulsory education, are still compulsory via economic sanctions, jail time, etc. Being compelled into an action (or deterred from it) is a violation of our personal freedoms.
I'm left wondering if the use of violence should ever be socially sanctioned by a society against it's members. I'm not sure if anarchy would have morally better outcomes, but like the Joker said, the thing about chaos is that it's fair.
"Being compelled into an action (or deterred from it) is a violation of our personal freedoms."
ReplyDeleteIs it though? It really depends on what perspective you are coming from. If you haven't already, you should read Locke, Hobbe's Leviathan, and Rosseau's Social Contract. I think it's a bit simplistic to ask if society can "ever truly be free." What is freedom? That I think is the first question you have to ask yourself before you can go further. After you know this, ask what the purpose of freedom is. In an extremely basic sense, freedom is not being restricted (ie the freedom to do/act as you wish). But aren't we always restricted? Even in a so-called "state of nature," we're restricted by our own abilities or inabilities (mental, physical, emotional), the laws of nature (gravity, physics), geography/topography, and the abilities or inabilites of those around us, man or beast (you might really want that ham sandwich, but you're not gonna be able to steal it from that 300 pound ripped dude eating it).
So maybe you can't really be "free" in a totally literal sense. Perhaps a better question is what level of freedom is just, and in return for what? When you join or form a society, part of that agreement is agreeing to be restricted in your actions and abilities in order to promote the greater welfare of the group and ensure a functioning whole. So anyone who is "in" society (read hobbes if you haven't to understand the in/out issue) has in some ways agreed to be restricted (obvious problem is how could you be outside in today's society - where would you go?). The question is, how much can you restrict them in return for what? Meaning: In return for security, we give up our rights to privacy (USAPATRIOT Act, for exmaple). Is that too far in return for too little? Everyone seems to be find with going through an xray at the airport and not carry weapons on a plane - so people have clearly made the calculation that they're not being made to give up too much in return for too little security. Body scanners? Whole other story. This question can also be asked in economic, environmental, etc terms... is restricting your ability to dump your waste in the river (punishable by fines/jail time if you do it) worth the cleaner drinking water that results? What about restricting your ability to choose your own transportation by mandating everyone take public transport in order to reduce cancer-causing air pollution. To use your education example, forcing everyone to attend school boosts everything from the economy to national defense. Are those payoffs worth giving up your right not to go to school?
Perhaps its less about morality than it is about a simple calculation everyone makes. I think morality can get involved, however, when talking about the minority - what about the few people who make the calculation and think hell no am i going through an xray machine/allowing you to wiretaps my phones/stop dumping waste wherever i want to. is it fair to force them to hew to the decision of the majority?
Thanks for commenting. When i said "free", i was referring to the opposite of restrictions placed on indivdual by society. The main point of this article was to remark on the individualistic-freedom-loving culture america is infatuated with, and yet at the core of our society we have restrictions placed on the individual by law. Law itself is the legitimization of force on individuals, and i was wondering if legitimized violence can exist in a "just" society. Just based on personal morals. I deliberately left this a little vague/open for interpretation since im not sure of my own thoughts on this.
ReplyDeleteForming a society may require sacrificing personal freedoms, and again i was wondering if then creating a society was tantamount to consenting to a form of bondage, and if that can be considered morally acceptable.