According to Aristotle the end of the state is the good life and the state exists as a platform for noble actions. From my point of view the ultimate end of the government nowadays hasn't changed. If a state is pursuing the common interest of its citizens then the creation of its laws would be focused, primarly, on establishing just "rules of engagement" for all the citizens of such state. Hence the citizens, if respectful of the laws, would be also just citizens.
Unfortunately in many governments laws are not created with the intention of achieving the common interest, they are created to comply with the interest of a few. For example the right to buy or sell weapons in the U.S.. Gun manufacturers spend millions of dollars lobbying in favor of the liberty of self-defense. Meanwhile the lack of control in selling such weapons has allowed random shooters in several states of the nation be able to acquire weapons very easily.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." Frederic Bastiat.
ResponderEliminarI think this statement fits well with the idea of your second paragraph. The truth is that throughout history, the State was never beneficial to all the people. Unless a State cares only for the security of the citizens, it will always benefit the interest of one group or another.
I think the start point of those country establishers were good. They hoped that justice could be developed and equality can be realized. However the interests conflicts and ambitions will exist forever, so the justice we get is relative justice. I can only say that we are progressing and we tried to find some mechanics to banlance justice and private interest. At least, we live a better life than people did 200 years ago, right?
ResponderEliminarYour post reminded me of Bhutan, a state whose national policy is fulfillment of Gross National Happiness (GNH). Under the GNH policy, Bhutan is pursing quality of life and social progress rather than someone’s interest.
ResponderEliminarAs you mention, it is very difficult to achieve common interest. There are many laws which conflict with other people’s interest. Your example of gun control is one of them. However, I still think a state can have policies and laws that can benefit everyone. Bhutan is a good example.
I think that this can be noticed in the low system of every country around the world. For instance, why in some countries in US there is death penalty and in other not? I believe that this depends on the government politics of ruling. Every country has its own low system that is different from the others for example I can’t even compare the low system in US and Macedonia. Therefore there always will be parts that are more or less protected from others.
ResponderEliminarCarlos, I completely agree with you that "many government laws... are created to comply with the interest of a few" rather than the interests of many. This seems to be the unfortunate truth of the matter, although I can see why this phenomenon occurs since a country/government's laws are ultimately created by humans, who cannot be completely rational and are instead sometimes swayed by their own personal emotions and intentions. The example you provide of gun control in the United States is an excellent one, especially because it is such a hotly debated topic right now given recent events. (It seems that America is suffering from at least one shooting per month lately...)
ResponderEliminarHowever, I think Yating also makes a great point in her response to your post, for your viewpoint and hers are not exactly mutually exclusive -- they can coexist. While she reminds us that we are indeed progressing as a society, you remind us that we must endeavor to remain constantly vigilant for corruption and critical of our government, so that such progress can continue to occur. Hopefully, two hundred years from now, people will feel that their government is much better than the one we have now, just as we look back two hundred years ago and feel thankful for the progress we have made thus far.