We had the most amazing discussion in AP European History today. We were talking about Nietzsche and how eventually religion would become obsolete and irrelevant and in a truly communistic or socialistic society because the government would define morality. I argued that in issues of morality a socialistic or communistic government would be virtually the same as a capitalistic government. There would no longer be religion, but short of a theocracy, law is not based upon religion past the universally accepted Judeo-Christian code of ethics. A socialistic government would be more concerned with crimes against the state, of which murder and what-not would surely be included, because such activity promotes anarchy. Religion is not needed for the morality of the citizens of the state. A government can punish, but it cannot force one's moral compass to point due North, for free will exists. Nothing is needed to possess an individual morality and all the government should care about are crimes against the state.
There are exceptions, of course. For example, if a state's constitution happens to be based upon the theories of John Locke. The theories which state that citizens have the right to revolt. Treason and other crimes against the state therefore become protected by the very basis of the state's constitution. Treason becomes a right. Potentially, all crime could become a right because in an utopian society there would be no crime. Thus crime becomes a protest of society. Aside from the criminally insane, why do people steal, murder, etc.? For the resources to exist at a comfortable standard of living. Even the crimes of the criminally insane are a protest- they are a result of inadequate health care for the mentally handicapped. Or, perhaps crime results from the digression of society into an insensitive and sociopathic nature.
Perhaps this is too controversial. The fact still remains, however, that as far as morality concerns the state, socialism, communism, and capitalism are veritably the same, as they should be.
We also discussed socialization of health care. I wanted to know why everyone had such a problem with it (beyond the fear of the sord "socialism," I mean) because most of our public sevices are socialized already, including the police department, the fire department, and education. My teacher told me it was because there was very little profit in socialized institutions, which explains why a lot of things that would be better socialized have not been, to which I bitterly replied, "Because our government caters to the rich." Mr. B just looked at me and snorted derisively and retorted, "Well, someone has something in common with Marx." I just laughed pretty hard and left it at that...
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
"There would no longer be religion, but short of a theocracy, law is not based upon religion past the universally accepted Judeo-Christian code of ethics."
I beg to differ. It depends on the type of law you're talking of. Political law (or Postive and Man-made law) is based off of the majority rules. Common Law is based of the ethical theory of Natural Law, a theory which I prescribe to. The Natural Law posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and therefore has validity everywhere (Mind you it is nature, not God that they speak of). Common Law has been shown to be the most effective and efficient type of law. However society today is based on political law, which is highly flawed because the powerful make the laws. Natural Law is the basis of Hammurabi's Law which predates Judeo-Christian's code of ethics.
"I wanted to know why everyone had such a problem with it (beyond the fear of the sord "socialism," I mean) because most of our public sevices are socialized already, including the police department, the fire department, and education."
But why should they be socialized? My problem with socialize medicine is that it has to set a limit to how much they give out to each person for their medical problems. After that is used up then they can and will drop the patient until the next year rolls around. The only way it can work is if you print off more money, which weakens the money supply. Something that already has happened due to governmental failings. I give less than a damn about he word socialized, besides I believe that there is no need for government. Privately owned hospitals work better than socialized hospitals because they can set the rates to compete with other privately owned hospitals. The problem is most hospitals are not privately owned, but are socialized in a sense.
I see where you're coming from. I'm not as knowledgable on theories of law, and perhaps the ethics to which I referred are based upon Common or Natural law. I'm not completely sure and will have to look into it more in depth. I assume that Common Law has to do with the universally accepted truths that one should not murder or steal. Is this correct? By calling it a different name, it does not change that these questions of morality, which one would think that state had little to do with it, still affect the state enough that these laws should remain in place. I think that this was a difference in history of these more ethical laws, which does change the nature of my argument, in that these laws are not based on religion. Please let me know if I'm on the right track here.
With your second argument, I have a simple difference in opinion. If medicine were to be completely privatized, the public would easily be taken advantage of. I believe that capitalism should not be allowed to corrupt some things, including health care. Insurance companies could simply skyrocket their prices in an effort to make more, until eventually very few can afford health care. One could argue that insurance companies would keep their prices low so that they'd have more people buying in. The problem with that stems from the system of capitalism itself. Some people can afford outrageous prices and will, making it difficult for others with less income to buy health care. I know there are problems with socialized medicine; there is no simple way to fix a broken system, but I think that it would be a fairer enterprise if there was a little more control and stability over it.
No need for government? But one would always eventually arise, either from the weak desiring protection, or from the strong wishing to exploit the weak. Anarchy is difficult to achieve without utter chaos, and there will always be those who wish to control that chaos.
Right. The laws are not based on religion whatsoever because religious ethics are based off these laws. The laws are this, 1) do all you have agreed to do, and 2) do not encroach on other people or their properties. There are only two laws compared to the 10 commandments that the Bible puts forth. Curioulsy, you can condense the commandments down to two laws, the ones I have stated. I might be confused on your blog about laws, could you expand a little for me.
I have to get a sick guinea pig to the vet, so I'll finish replying to this when I get back.
I hope your guinea pig is okay. Really, what I was trying to impart with the laws I mentioned was that, even though they really dealt with questions with morality, they were still necessary for the sound construction of the state and government. In my mind, laws are divided into two categories: those dealing with basic human nature and keeping the state safe for the individual, and those designed to protect the government. While there are distinctions, I think that they're intrinsicly enmeshed. So, I suppose they're not really based on religion at all, but in the discussion I had in my history class, we were working off the presumption that a law attempting to keep the human race "good" stemmed from religion, which wouldn't exist in a socialist state, so what would happen, etc. Sorry if I wasn't very coherent before; I tend to get caught up in theoretical ideas and run with them.