The Death Penalty and the Social Contract

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

I hope you or none of your loved ones is wrongfully killed by the state, and I don’t think the “shit happens” would fly with you. Second of all, I’m a deist, and you would have to establish to me that God gives a shit about the actions of anyone or any government. Some people will clam that is not the tread for that, so I will move on.

Really, “for some other sin”? What the fuck does that mean? Does that mean I should be killed by the state for saying “If Jesus Christ of the Bible existed, then he was seriously mentally ill.”? I do actually believe that, but should I be killed by the state for saying and believing in such a thing because you and your Church believe its a “sin”? You act the state killing someone that is later found innocent is something that can be repaired.

My dad was accidently hit my a truck and killed. If he were accidentally put to death I would feel the same.

We all deserve death, you don't any more than I do. I hardly think you have any natural right to blaspheme, but I don't advocate laws to put you to death for it. However if you are convicted and sentenced to death for a crime you did not commit, it's possible God is punishing you for blasphemy, although I can't presume to know God's will beyond what he reveals

Firstly, I want to say sorry for your lost. But the comparison, such as a car accident and the state killing a person later found innocent is does not hold water. The state killing a innocent person is not an accident, it is deliberate.

The second paragraph I assume comes from you and your churches belief in the concept of “original sin”. Again, this is not a theological thread, and I’m a deist, so that is not really vaild argument.

Freedom of speech, which includes the right to say things like I said in the pervious post, is indeed a natural right.

[The East Marches II]

Natural rights are good thing which keeps the mob strong. You don't want Uncle Sam replaced by Uncle Chang do you? Tbh that's why I like Uncle Sam and his mafia a best. The alternatives are not nearly so nice. Even if he does hit me if I don't pay him. It's for my own good.

Natural rights are a lie to keep the mob weak. You don't want Uncle Sam replaced with Papa Ivan, do you?

If that were the case, then Ivan would live in the equivalent of a third world country and have a society so warped that the truth causes psychological pain :^)

I do enjoy seeing Putin open up those grand mosques. Russia is becoming very diverse, a shame it can't match Soviet intellectual development though.

You don't want us to be like them do you?!?!

The real enemy is the Triads and their automated repression system.

[Conserative Morality]

If that were the case, then Ivan would live in the equivalent of a third world country and have a society so warped that the truth causes psychological pain :^)

So you agree I'm right.

I do enjoy seeing Putin open up those grand mosques. Russia is becoming very diverse, a shame it can't match Soviet intellectual development though.

You don't want us to be like them do you?!?!

The real enemy is the Triads and their automated repression system.

China is making the same mistake every 80-year-old politician does - assuming that infinite information can be meaningfully sifted through. Automation is a weak solution that will gain them nothing in this area. I can't wait to see how brutally they fuck their own society and what it costs them. =^)

[The East Marches II]

So you agree I'm right.

No, I don't want to be a 2nd Russia :^)

China is making the same mistake every 80-year-old politician does - assuming that infinite information can be meaningfully sifted through. Automation is a weak solution that will gain them nothing in this area. I can't wait to see how brutally they fuck their own society and what it costs them. =^)

This is a good point, can that much data be processed without a single mistake in the chain causing mass arrests of the wrong people? Do they care though if they fuck their own country or is if it works as arbitrary terror is that fine too? Also do the Chinese people care? It seems to me they quite like a totalitarianism worse than the Soviet Union. These are question tbh that I have to investigate more, they weren't rhetorical, rather I haven't the answer.

[Pope Joan]

Killing people solves nothing, whether in war or in the legal system.\

And we have a proven abyssmal record with our death penalties; we are so often killing innocent people.

It is not an effective deterrent. and we do not do it well.

[Vhindistia]

No matter how you dress it up, pretty it up, play it down - it is still state sponsored murder and makes the people who do it no better than the one they're doing it to. According to https://jetwriters.com/death-penalty-essay/ America is the ONLY country in the developed world, as well as many in the undeveloped world, that still uses the death penalty. Apart from the inhumanity, there are two practical reasons for this: a) It does not work as a deterrent; b) a significant number of convictions are false. What is it about America that it clings to violence as a way of life - an armed civilian population and murder by state, when all its peers have moved on? Is that why a psychopath got to be president? A man who assaults women, who incites aggression and violence at his rallies, who aggressively threatens everyone he doesn't like, supports torture, the death penalty, using nuclear weapons, force over diplomacy - the infantile aggression of a schoolyard bully, is the leader if the USA. The intrinsic, deep seated violence that is America has thrown up the sort of leader that at least some need to express their own inner violence - and that inner violence leads to the murderous revenge that is capital punishment.

[Dumb Ideologies]

It seems to me that the death penalty must be public and torturous in its nature if it is to operate as an effective deterent.

The current methods fall between the two stools of example-setting punishment and of seeking to lift ourselves morally above those who commit such acts by offering them humane treatment - or, through abolition - the faint possibility for rehabilitation, regardless of the low chances of success when it comes to the psychological profile of people who perform the kind of acts that attract calls for the death penalty.

If it does not work and we cannot stomach making it work by taking it to extremes, the philosophical justifications based on social contract theory are redundant and it should - on a purely pragmatic basis - be abolished.

[The Parkus Empire]

My dad was accidently hit my a truck and killed. If he were accidentally put to death I would feel the same.

We all deserve death, you don't any more than I do. I hardly think you have any natural right to blaspheme, but I don't advocate laws to put you to death for it. However if you are convicted and sentenced to death for a crime you did not commit, it's possible God is punishing you for blasphemy, although I can't presume to know God's will beyond what he reveals

Firstly, I want to say sorry for your lost. But the comparison, such as a car accident and the state killing a person later found innocent is does not hold water. The state killing a innocent person is not an accident, it is deliberate.

The second paragraph I assume comes from you and your churches belief in the concept of “original sin”. Again, this is not a theological thread, and I’m a deist, so that is not really vaild argument.

Freedom of speech, which includes the right to say things like I said in the pervious post, is indeed a natural right.

Thanks for your condolences. He was a good man.

It was a deliberate killing, but the judge, jury and executioner here were no more culpable than the truck driver. It was accidental insofar as putting an someone who did not commit the crime to death was accidental: the intent had been to put the perpetrator to death. If anyone is responsible here, it is the criminal who committed the crime. Or, in the case of a faulty complaint, the one who lied.

Natural rights are those endowed by the creator. Obviously the creator does not endow any "right" to sin. This doesn't mean I think sin should be prosecuted generally speaking, but it is fallacious to call it a right. You say this is not a theological thread, but "natural rights" are an explicitly theological concept. William Blackstone divides the law into three sorts: man-made law (which in itself is subdivided), natural law (law from God, but not hidden), and revealed law (law from God, but only known to humans through divine revelation). Natural rights in William Blackstone's work, are a function of natural law.

[The Parkus Empire]

It seems to me that the death penalty must be public and torturous in its nature if it is to operate as an effective deterent.

The current methods fall between the two stools of example-setting punishment and of seeking to lift ourselves morally above those who commit such acts by offering them humane treatment - or, through abolition - the faint possibility for rehabilitation, regardless of the low chances of success when it comes to the psychological profile of people who perform the kind of acts that attract calls for the death penalty.

If it does not work and we cannot stomach making it work by taking it to extremes, the philosophical justifications based on social contract theory are redundant and it should - on a purely pragmatic basis - be abolished.

I am not much a fan of the death penalty, but I don't see its purpose primarily as a deterrent (at least not more than life incarceration). It's simply a matter of dispensing justice, punishment for its own sake. Suppose someone can get away with murder--other than yourself, of course :^)--and will never do it again, and no one will know if they aren't punished for it. And deterrence isn't a concern here because the murder is made to look like natural causes, not like someone got away with it. Should they still be punished, if that is possible, or should one let sleeping dogs lie?

[The Parkus Empire]

No matter how you dress it up, pretty it up, play it down - it is still state sponsored murder

No more than taxes are state-sponsored theft.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Firstly, I want to say sorry for your lost. But the comparison, such as a car accident and the state killing a person later found innocent is does not hold water. The state killing a innocent person is not an accident, it is deliberate.

The second paragraph I assume comes from you and your churches belief in the concept of “original sin”. Again, this is not a theological thread, and I’m a deist, so that is not really vaild argument.

Freedom of speech, which includes the right to say things like I said in the pervious post, is indeed a natural right.

Thanks for your condolences. He was a good man.

It was a deliberate killing, but the judge, jury and executioner here were no more culpable than the truck driver. It was accidental insofar as putting an someone who did not commit the crime to death was accidental: the intent had been to put the perpetrator to death. If anyone is responsible here, it is the criminal who committed the crime. Or, in the case of a faulty complaint, the one who lied.

Natural rights are those endowed by the creator. Obviously the creator does not endow any "right" to sin. This doesn't mean I think sin should be prosecuted generally speaking, but it is fallacious to call it a right. You say this is not a theological thread, but "natural rights" are an explicitly theological concept. William Blackstone divides the law into three sorts: man-made law (which in itself is subdivided), natural law (law from God, but not hidden), and revealed law (law from God, but only known to humans through divine revelation). Natural rights in William Blackstone's work, are a function of natural law.

I do believe natural rights are endowed by the creator but I don’t believe or accept the concept of “sin”, or I diffidently not accept the concept of “divine revelation” because while the existence of God is shown thorough nature and humans ability to reason, different people claim different divine revelations. I see no evidence through nature or through reason that your church, the RCC, Muslims, Jews and etc for their claims of revealed law.

And in your second paragraph, you claimed that “revealed law” and “natural law” were too sets of different things. According to what you believe and hold as “revealed law”, it is a “sin” for me to claim and hold the belief that if that if the Jesus of the Bible existed, he was mentally ill. Now, through natural law, it is not a “sin”. What I do believe that forcing my belief on you or criminalize the practice of your religion would be indeed a violation law.


And the theory of natural law did not begin with Bill Blackstone...

[The Parkus Empire]

Thanks for your condolences. He was a good man.

It was a deliberate killing, but the judge, jury and executioner here were no more culpable than the truck driver. It was accidental insofar as putting an someone who did not commit the crime to death was accidental: the intent had been to put the perpetrator to death. If anyone is responsible here, it is the criminal who committed the crime. Or, in the case of a faulty complaint, the one who lied.

Natural rights are those endowed by the creator. Obviously the creator does not endow any "right" to sin. This doesn't mean I think sin should be prosecuted generally speaking, but it is fallacious to call it a right. You say this is not a theological thread, but "natural rights" are an explicitly theological concept. William Blackstone divides the law into three sorts: man-made law (which in itself is subdivided), natural law (law from God, but not hidden), and revealed law (law from God, but only known to humans through divine revelation). Natural rights in William Blackstone's work, are a function of natural law.

I do believe natural rights are endowed by the creator but I don’t believe or accept the concept of “sin”, or I diffidently not accept the concept of “divine revelation” because while the existence of God is shown thorough nature and humans ability to reason, different people claim different divine revelations. I see no evidence through nature or through reason that your church, the RCC, Muslims, Jews and etc for their claims of revealed law.

And in your second paragraph, you claimed that “revealed law” and “natural law” were too sets of different things. According to what you believe and hold as “revealed law”, it is a “sin” for me to claim and hold the belief that if that if the Jesus of the Bible existed, he was mentally ill. Now, through natural law, it is not a “sin”. When I do believe that me forcing my belief on you or criminalize the practice of your religion would be indeed a violation law.


And the theory of natural law did not begin with Bill Blackstone...

If you don't believe sin exists, then obviously natural rights have no merit. The creator says, "I order this," and you say, "Nah," you are saying that is not sin. So if the creator endows people with certain rights, violating those rights is of no meaning. There is no sin, no transgression against the creator, to go against the rights he ordained.

Whether or not it is sin in natural law is beside the point, your assertion is that it was a right in natural law.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

I do believe natural rights are endowed by the creator but I don’t believe or accept the concept of “sin”, or I diffidently not accept the concept of “divine revelation” because while the existence of God is shown thorough nature and humans ability to reason, different people claim different divine revelations. I see no evidence through nature or through reason that your church, the RCC, Muslims, Jews and etc for their claims of revealed law.

And in your second paragraph, you claimed that “revealed law” and “natural law” were too sets of different things. According to what you believe and hold as “revealed law”, it is a “sin” for me to claim and hold the belief that if that if the Jesus of the Bible existed, he was mentally ill. Now, through natural law, it is not a “sin”. When I do believe that me forcing my belief on you or criminalize the practice of your religion would be indeed a violation law.


And the theory of natural law did not begin with Bill Blackstone...

If you don't believe sin exists, then obviously natural rights have no merit. The creator says, "I order this," and you say, "Nah," you are saying that is not sin. So if the creator endows people with certain rights, violating those rights is of no meaning. There is no sin, no transgression against the creator, to go against the rights he ordained.

Whether or not it is sin in natural law is beside the point, your assertion is that it was a right in natural law.

Yes, according to what you believe what is DIVINE REVELATION, you believe it’s a sin. I don’t believe the creator has directly spoken to or divinely revealed anything to anyone. The only revelation that a another human could possibly have is through their reason and through nature.

[The Parkus Empire]

If you don't believe sin exists, then obviously natural rights have no merit. The creator says, "I order this," and you say, "Nah," you are saying that is not sin. So if the creator endows people with certain rights, violating those rights is of no meaning. There is no sin, no transgression against the creator, to go against the rights he ordained.

Whether or not it is sin in natural law is beside the point, your assertion is that it was a right in natural law.

Yes, according to what you believe what is DIVINE REVELATION, you believe it’s a sin. I don’t believe the creator has directly spoken to or divinely revealed anything to anyone. The only revelation that a another human could possibly have is through their reason and through nature.

Okay, so, what's your point? I'm not saying you should be prosecuted for your position.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Yes, according to what you believe what is DIVINE REVELATION, you believe it’s a sin. I don’t believe the creator has directly spoken to or divinely revealed anything to anyone. The only revelation that a another human could possibly have is through their reason and through nature.

Okay, so, what's your point? I'm not saying you should be prosecuted for your position.

I know your not saying I should be prosecuted. One, my blasphemy is constitutionally protected. Secondly, we are on a debate forum discussing natural law, and I’m making the point that the theory of natural law is not beholden to Christianity or any form of religion that claims divine revelation.

[The Parkus Empire]

Okay, so, what's your point? I'm not saying you should be prosecuted for your position.

I know your not saying I should be prosecuted. One, my blasphemy is constitutionally protected. Secondly, we are on a debate forum discussing natural law, and I’m making the point that the theory of natural law is not beholden to Christianity or any form of religion that claims divine revelation.

It is in Anglo jurisprudence.

[Pope Joan]

Stanford Social Innovation Review

In the most recent issue of this fine journal there are a series of articles discussing the nature and meaning of "civil society", which is often thought of as the organized working of citizens outside the realm of government. Clearly these thoughts should impinge upon our discussion of the social contract.

Here then is an excerpt from an especially cogent article from that issue:

y Yuval Levin Jun. 14, 2018

Civil Society for the 21st Century

This article series, presented in partnership with Independent Sector, explores important issues of civil society in the 21st century: its origins and evolution, its boundaries and blind spots, its values and variety, its obstacles and opportunities.
Civil society is a distinctly American preoccupation. That is not, of course, because voluntarism, mediating social institutions, or a robust charitable sector are somehow unique to our country. All of those exist in different forms throughout the world. But in no society are they as intricately tied up with national identity as they are for us.

The reasons for that are more complicated than they seem. We like to believe that we care so much about civil society because it is our great strength. Communitarians of various stripes are fond of quoting Alexis de Tocqueville to each other and reveling in the amazing multiplicity of ways in which Americans work together from the bottom up. I do this myself all the time. And there is good cause to do it: de Tocqueville was deeply perceptive about us, and the scope of our independent sector is astounding.

But that is only one side of the coin. Americans are also distinctly obsessed with civil society because although the civil sector has always had a central place in our national life, its place has also always been contested in ways that cut to the core of our politics, and because the very idea of civil society points to deep tensions in our understanding of what our society is and how it works.

For one thing, it points to the great distance between theory and practice in American life. The dominant social and political theories we have had about ourselves have always been stark, liberal stories: highly individualistic, rooted in rights, inclined to extreme abstraction, and focused on government. The actual practice of American life has not resembled these theories all that much. It has tended, instead, to be very communitarian, rooted in commitments and mutual obligations, pragmatic and practical, and focused on culture. This has often meant that our theories do not explain either our virtues or our vices very well, and that we lack a conceptual vocabulary adequate to how we live.

This chasm between theory and practice does a particularly great disservice to our understanding of the role of civil society, because there is really no way to describe our civic sector in the terms our various political ideologies usually demand. This often leads, in particular, to assorted misimpressions about the relationship between civil society and government in America, with distinctly different valences on different sides of our politics.

In the conservative and libertarian imagination, civil society is often forced into theories of classical-liberal individualism that view the voluntary sector as fundamentally a counterforce to government, and therefore as a means of enabling individual independence and holding off encroachments of federal power. It is in the civic sector that liberal theories of legitimacy—as arising from direct consent, and leaving fully intact the rights and freedoms of the individual—are said to be best put into practice, so that it is in civil society that legitimate social organization is said to really happen. The implicit goals of this approach to civil society involve a transfer of responsibility from government to civil society, especially in welfare, education, and social insurance.

In the progressive imagination, meanwhile, civil society is often understood in the context of intense suspicion of non-democratic power centers, which are implicitly taken to enable prejudice and backwardness that oppress minority groups and undermine the larger society’s commitment to equality. This has led to an inclination to submit the work of civil society to the legitimating mechanisms of democratic politics—and especially national politics. In practice, this means allowing the federal government to set the ends of social action and then seeing civil-society organizations as among the available means to those ends, valued for their practical effectiveness and local flavor, but restrained from oppressing the individual citizen or effectively governing him without his consent. The implicit goals of this approach to civil society involve a transfer of decision-making responsibility from civil society to the government, which can then use the organs of civil society as mere administrators of public programs—especially in welfare, health care, and education.

Both of these visions of civil society express a view of American social life that consists, in essence, of individuals and a national state. The dispute between left and right in this regard is about whether individuals need to be liberated from the grasp of the national state or need be liberated by that state from would-be oppressors among their fellow citizens. Civil society is seen as a tool for doing one or the other. Such visions, in other words, tend to ignore the vast social space between the individual and the national state—which is after all the space in which civil society actually exists.

This is, of course, a highly distorted way to think and fight about the political life of our country, since most of the governing in America is done by states and localities. And it is also a distorted way to think about our social lives, which are mostly lived in the institutions that fill the space between individuals and the federal government.

A politics shaped by such multilayered distortions easily devolves into crude, abstract debates between radical individualism and intense centralization. And these, in turn, devolve into accusations of socialism and social Darwinism, libertinism and puritanism.

But centralization and atomism are not actually opposite ends of the political spectrum. They are closely related tendencies, and they often coexist and reinforce one another—each making the other possible. The centralization and nationalization of social services crowds out mediating institutions; the resulting breakdown of communal wholes into atomized individuals leaves people less capable of helping themselves and one another, which leaves them looking to the national government for help; and the cycle then repeats. It is when we pursue both of these extremes together, as we frequently do in contemporary America, that we most exacerbate the dark sides of our fracturing and dissolution.

There is an alternative to this perilous mix of over-centralization and hyper-individualism. It can be found in the intricate structure of our complex social topography, and in the institutions and relationships that stand between the isolated individual and the national state. By seeing civil society as the core of America’s social life, we can see our way toward a politics that might overcome some of the dysfunctions of our day—a politics that can lower the temperature, focus us on practical problems, remind us of the sources of our freedoms, and replenish social capital. In the context of this American moment, such a politics could hardly be more valuable.

It is a good thing, therefore, that we Americans are distinctly preoccupied with civil society. Although we disagree about its place and function, the fact that we take it to be essential to who we are suggests we know that our theories are inadequate, and that understanding ourselves through the character and work of our civil society could help us better know our country and better live out its ideals.

In this respect, American life offers a rich and constructive context for thinking about civil society, and civil society offers a rich and constructive context for thinking about American life.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

I know your not saying I should be prosecuted. One, my blasphemy is constitutionally protected. Secondly, we are on a debate forum discussing natural law, and I’m making the point that the theory of natural law is not beholden to Christianity or any form of religion that claims divine revelation.

It is in Anglo jurisprudence.

What? I stated that natural law is not beholden to Christianity, or any divine revelation. Islamists also claim what you’re claiming, just want to let you know that.

If you’re claiming that religion of Christianity had a major role in development of the West, you would be right, but that does not mean the claims of divine revelation in it are true. The reason the man in the street does not go out and murder someone in cold blood may be because he personally fears hell, but again, there is no evidence of that through nature or human reason. The reason why the average person does not murder someone in cold blood is because the Apprehension to murder is founded in nature and through human reason.

The fear of being punished from murdering someone or committing a crime against natural law, not divine revelation comes through the fact that human beings have come together and created man made laws to consequence those who break natural law. How did humans beings have ability to do this? Because the creator gave us reason and nature to observe, but it did not give us some book, or church. The creator would not want to get involved in such pedantic issues. And doing so would give it negative human attributes such as anger and jealousy.

Back to the my disagreement with you on the dearth penalty, it’s quite simple. If someone’s wrongly convicted for another person’s murder, and they are sent to life in prison rather than be put to death, and it’s found out that they are innocent, they can be released. Can’t bring someone back from the dead.

I must say, you and Islamists have the same idea on how the role of the government should be. You both believe that they’re supposed to impose your idea of “divine justice“.

[The Parkus Empire]

It is in Anglo jurisprudence.

What? I stated that natural law is not beholden to Christianity, or any divine revelation. Islamists also claim what you’re claiming, just want to let you know that.

If you’re claiming that religion of Christianity had a major role in development of the West, you would be right, but that does not mean the claims of divine revelation in it are true. The reason the man in the street does not go out and murder someone in cold blood may be because he personally fears hell, but again, there is no evidence of that through nature or human reason. The reason why the average person does not murder someone in cold blood is because the Apprehension to murder is founded in nature and through human reason.

The fear of being punished from murdering someone or committing a crime against natural law, not divine revelation comes through the fact that human beings have come together and created man made laws to consequence those who break natural law. How did humans beings have ability to do this? Because the creator gave us reason and nature to observe, but it did not give us some book, or church. The creator would not want to get involved in such pedantic issues. And doing so would give it negative human attributes such as anger and jealousy.

Back to the my disagreement with you on the dearth penalty, it’s quite simple. If someone’s wrongly convicted for another person’s murder, and they are sent to life in prison rather than be put to death, and it’s found out that they are innocent, they can be released. Can’t bring someone back from the dead.

I must say, you and Islamists have the same idea on how the role of the government should be. You both believe that they’re supposed to impose your idea of “divine justice“.

A government that doesn't consider itself an arbiter of justice, that doesn't believe it is fit to say something is wrong and to PUNISH it, is no government at all

[United Muscovite Nations]

Consent is irrelevant to the social contract, because you don't give your consent freely, and there is no way to withdraw your consent.

[The Parkus Empire]

Stanford Social Innovation Review

In the most recent issue of this fine journal there are a series of articles discussing the nature and meaning of "civil society", which is often thought of as the organized working of citizens outside the realm of government. Clearly these thoughts should impinge upon our discussion of the social contract.

Here then is an excerpt from an especially cogent article from that issue:

y Yuval Levin Jun. 14, 2018

Civil Society for the 21st Century

This article series, presented in partnership with Independent Sector, explores important issues of civil society in the 21st century: its origins and evolution, its boundaries and blind spots, its values and variety, its obstacles and opportunities.
Civil society is a distinctly American preoccupation. That is not, of course, because voluntarism, mediating social institutions, or a robust charitable sector are somehow unique to our country. All of those exist in different forms throughout the world. But in no society are they as intricately tied up with national identity as they are for us.

The reasons for that are more complicated than they seem. We like to believe that we care so much about civil society because it is our great strength. Communitarians of various stripes are fond of quoting Alexis de Tocqueville to each other and reveling in the amazing multiplicity of ways in which Americans work together from the bottom up. I do this myself all the time. And there is good cause to do it: de Tocqueville was deeply perceptive about us, and the scope of our independent sector is astounding.

But that is only one side of the coin. Americans are also distinctly obsessed with civil society because although the civil sector has always had a central place in our national life, its place has also always been contested in ways that cut to the core of our politics, and because the very idea of civil society points to deep tensions in our understanding of what our society is and how it works.

For one thing, it points to the great distance between theory and practice in American life. The dominant social and political theories we have had about ourselves have always been stark, liberal stories: highly individualistic, rooted in rights, inclined to extreme abstraction, and focused on government. The actual practice of American life has not resembled these theories all that much. It has tended, instead, to be very communitarian, rooted in commitments and mutual obligations, pragmatic and practical, and focused on culture. This has often meant that our theories do not explain either our virtues or our vices very well, and that we lack a conceptual vocabulary adequate to how we live.

This chasm between theory and practice does a particularly great disservice to our understanding of the role of civil society, because there is really no way to describe our civic sector in the terms our various political ideologies usually demand. This often leads, in particular, to assorted misimpressions about the relationship between civil society and government in America, with distinctly different valences on different sides of our politics.

In the conservative and libertarian imagination, civil society is often forced into theories of classical-liberal individualism that view the voluntary sector as fundamentally a counterforce to government, and therefore as a means of enabling individual independence and holding off encroachments of federal power. It is in the civic sector that liberal theories of legitimacy—as arising from direct consent, and leaving fully intact the rights and freedoms of the individual—are said to be best put into practice, so that it is in civil society that legitimate social organization is said to really happen. The implicit goals of this approach to civil society involve a transfer of responsibility from government to civil society, especially in welfare, education, and social insurance.

In the progressive imagination, meanwhile, civil society is often understood in the context of intense suspicion of non-democratic power centers, which are implicitly taken to enable prejudice and backwardness that oppress minority groups and undermine the larger society’s commitment to equality. This has led to an inclination to submit the work of civil society to the legitimating mechanisms of democratic politics—and especially national politics. In practice, this means allowing the federal government to set the ends of social action and then seeing civil-society organizations as among the available means to those ends, valued for their practical effectiveness and local flavor, but restrained from oppressing the individual citizen or effectively governing him without his consent. The implicit goals of this approach to civil society involve a transfer of decision-making responsibility from civil society to the government, which can then use the organs of civil society as mere administrators of public programs—especially in welfare, health care, and education.

Both of these visions of civil society express a view of American social life that consists, in essence, of individuals and a national state. The dispute between left and right in this regard is about whether individuals need to be liberated from the grasp of the national state or need be liberated by that state from would-be oppressors among their fellow citizens. Civil society is seen as a tool for doing one or the other. Such visions, in other words, tend to ignore the vast social space between the individual and the national state—which is after all the space in which civil society actually exists.

This is, of course, a highly distorted way to think and fight about the political life of our country, since most of the governing in America is done by states and localities. And it is also a distorted way to think about our social lives, which are mostly lived in the institutions that fill the space between individuals and the federal government.

A politics shaped by such multilayered distortions easily devolves into crude, abstract debates between radical individualism and intense centralization. And these, in turn, devolve into accusations of socialism and social Darwinism, libertinism and puritanism.

But centralization and atomism are not actually opposite ends of the political spectrum. They are closely related tendencies, and they often coexist and reinforce one another—each making the other possible. The centralization and nationalization of social services crowds out mediating institutions; the resulting breakdown of communal wholes into atomized individuals leaves people less capable of helping themselves and one another, which leaves them looking to the national government for help; and the cycle then repeats. It is when we pursue both of these extremes together, as we frequently do in contemporary America, that we most exacerbate the dark sides of our fracturing and dissolution.

There is an alternative to this perilous mix of over-centralization and hyper-individualism. It can be found in the intricate structure of our complex social topography, and in the institutions and relationships that stand between the isolated individual and the national state. By seeing civil society as the core of America’s social life, we can see our way toward a politics that might overcome some of the dysfunctions of our day—a politics that can lower the temperature, focus us on practical problems, remind us of the sources of our freedoms, and replenish social capital. In the context of this American moment, such a politics could hardly be more valuable.

It is a good thing, therefore, that we Americans are distinctly preoccupied with civil society. Although we disagree about its place and function, the fact that we take it to be essential to who we are suggests we know that our theories are inadequate, and that understanding ourselves through the character and work of our civil society could help us better know our country and better live out its ideals.

In this respect, American life offers a rich and constructive context for thinking about civil society, and civil society offers a rich and constructive context for thinking about American life

.

Blah blah blah, the intermediary relationships you talk about only have lasting strength if they are backed up with coercion, or the government doesn't promise a safety net that can replace them. Communitarian is feckless stance unless you are saying communities should have more power to coerce, or that government organizations bigger than community should be very limited in what social services they can offer.

[Conserative Morality]

Consent is irrelevant to the social contract, because you don't give your consent freely, and there is no way to withdraw your consent.

You can leave.

[The Parkus Empire]

Consent is irrelevant to the social contract, because you don't give your consent freely, and there is no way to withdraw your consent.

You can leave.

This is presuming you have authority over my property and unless I consent I must relinquish my land to you.

[Conserative Morality]

This is presuming you have authority over my property and unless I consent I must relinquish my land to you.

Now you're getting it. You see, you can't benefit from society and then expect to walk away with the spoils. That is what we call "Being a leech".

[The Parkus Empire]

This is presuming you have authority over my property and unless I consent I must relinquish my land to you.

Now you're getting it. You see, you can't benefit from society and then expect to walk away with the spoils. That is what we call "Being a leech".

But you see, sometimes we don't want so many benefits.