Rechtssaat

universal and peaceful life is valuable. a group must live with legal guarentees, such guarentees are a priori supreme for the servicing of those guarentees in the most just and fair way. Such groups must be based in justice and integrity. Power cannot be used arbitrarily, transparency as to the action and reason given is important. Review of decisions by independant organs, and an appeal for such actions. Heirarchy of laws, and reliability of action. Prohibition of retroactivity, equality before the law.

“Free” is taken to mean “with little or no restriction” (libre). political freedom is freedom from oppression or coercion, the absence of disabiling conditions, and the fulfillment of enabling conditions. It also includes freedom from inauthentic behavior.

  • statute of limitation does not run against those who cannot act
  • the law is harsh, but is is the law (seek to change it if you don’t like it)
  • ignorance of the law is no excuse
  • when a rule is clearly intelligible, there is no need of interpretation.
  • synallagmatic contract - one has no need to respect his obligation if the counter-party has not respected his own.
  • a law governing a specific subject matter overrides a law which only governs general matters.
  • one cannot confer what is not within one’s own authority to do so
  • there isn’t crime or punishment without first having law
  • ccontracts extablish obligations
  • what isn’t presented as evidence cannot be used as evidence
  • two people can’t apply an agreement between them to a third
  • respect your obligation first, then you can ask for reimbursement
  • don’t draw interpretations from a lack of detail

Freedom, Liberty, Discipline

Freedom of thought is currently hard to suppress because of the difficulty of knowing what someone is thinking. Freedom of expression, however, is currently limited by censorship, discouraging unwanted thought.

To have real freedom, according to Van Parjis, an individual must: 1. not be prevented from acting on their will (i.e. they must have traditional negative freedom) 2. possess the resources or capacities actually to carry out their will. Generally, liberty is distinctly differentiated from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. As such, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others.[4] Liberty entails the responsible use of freedom under the rule of law without depriving anyone else of their freedom. Freedom is more broad in that it represents a total lack of restraint or the unrestrained ability to fulfill one’s desires. For example, a person can have the freedom to murder, but not have the liberty to murder, as the latter example deprives others of their liberty to not be harmed. Liberty can be reduced as a form of punishment for a crime. In many countries, prisons can deprive criminals of their rights to certain actions enjoyed by non-criminals as a form of punishment. Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121–180 AD) wrote: “a polity in which there is the same law for all, a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed. John Locke (1632–1704) rejected that definition of liberty. While not specifically mentioning Hobbes, he attacks Sir Robert Filmer who had the same definition. According to Locke: “In the state of nature, liberty consists of being free from any superior power on Earth. People are not under the will or lawmaking authority of others but have only the law of nature for their rule. In political society, liberty consists of being under no other lawmaking power except that established by consent in the commonwealth. People are free from the dominion of any will or legal restraint apart from that enacted by their own constituted lawmaking power according to the trust put in it. Thus, freedom is not as Sir Robert Filmer defines it: ‘A liberty for everyone to do what he likes, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws.’ Freedom is constrained by laws in both the state of nature and political society. Freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of nature. Freedom of people under government is to be under no restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to everyone in the society and made by the lawmaking power established in it. Persons have a right or liberty to (1) follow their own will in all things that the law has not prohibited and (2) not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others. Socialists view freedom as a concrete situation as opposed to a purely abstract ideal. Freedom is a state of being where individuals have agency to pursue their creative interests unhindered by coercive social relationships, specifically those they are forced to engage in as a requisite for survival under a given social system. Freedom thus requires both the material economic conditions that make freedom possible alongside social relationships and institutions conducive to freedom.[39] Some authors have suggested that a virtuous culture must exist as a prerequisite for liberty. Benjamin Franklin stated that “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”[44] Madison likewise declared: “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.”[45] John Adams acknowledged: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[46]

Privacy

In certain circumstances, people expect privacy. Actions that threaten privacy they’ve come to expect need to be overridden by some principal, otherwise they’re unreasonable intrusions into privacy.

Self Control

avidson sees the problem as one of reconciling the following apparently inconsistent triad: If an agent believes A to be better than B, then they want to do A more than B. If an agent wants to do A more than B, then they will do A rather than B if they only do one. Sometimes an agent acts against their better judgment.

desire is an affective motivation toward something (pleasure or relief from displeasure). Temptations are desires that impacts and conflicts an individuals values or self-regulatory goals. decrease in desire following adequately reaching that something is satiation. often self-control is in general better than impulsiveness. manipulating the environment may help our self-control (limit temptation, doing something else, etc). Ego depletion evidence is contradictory.

Kelly McGonigal defines willpower as “the ability to do what you really want to do when part of you really doesn’t want to do it.” It consists of three competing elements: 1) I will – the ability to do what you need to do; 2) I won’t – the other side of self-control; the ability to resist temptation; and 3) I want – your true want, the ability to remember the big picture of your life. Willpower is a resource that gets depleted, particularly when you are rundown or hungry. However, you may increase your capacity for willpower by engaging in activities such as mindfulness, meditation and exercise and/or by ensuring good nutrition and adequate sleep.

inhibitory control and emotional self-regulation are built during childhood, by competent supervision, support, or punishment as needed.

Action, Control, Perception

Actions are things done by an agent. They may be automatic, reflexive, or intentional, and purposeful. Usually, we consider only the actions that are done by a person, not to a person.

perception is not simply observation, but participation. Actions can happen in the way we intend, or in other ways.

Science used control to minimize effects of spurious variables, increasing reliability. Statistics, similarly, reduces the effect of confounding variables in an observation.

Control may be percieved control, selection of one’s thoughts and actions in cognitive control, ability to inhibit thoughts or actions in favor of others through inhibitory control, Motivation is the other side to inhibition.

Locus of Control

the locus of control is the degree to which people believe they have control over events in their lives, instead of externalities beyond their control.

The location of the locus can be external, or internal, but should be logical, not arbitrary, and well considered.

Discipline

Discipline is action or inaction that is regulated to be in accordance (or to achieve accord) with a system of governance. Discipline is commonly applied to regulating human and animal behavior, and furthermore, it is applied to each activity-branch in all branches of organized activity, knowledge, and other fields of study and observation. Discipline can be a set of expectations that are required by any governing entity including the self, groups, classes, fields, industries, or societies. Common Techniques Time management is a form of discipline that utilizes time as the regulator and the observer of time as the governor. The requirement is for time to be used efficiently. This activity maximizes the result of a set of activities by marking each activity within a boundary of time. Time management can utilize skills, tools, or techniques to create specific time allotments according to a range of organization methods. A major theme arising from time management is that of modifying behavior to ensure compliance with time-related deadlines. This theme is interrelated with discipline and methods of discipline that can be used without punitive consequences. Responsibility-based discipline co-opts the participants to understand remedies for problems in an organization.[1] Physical punishment is a widely debated technique of discipline that can focus on spanking, slapping, and hitting with an object using mild to extreme degrees of force. The general aim is to instil an understanding of consequence in the subject. Punishment can be used to instil immediate compliance as it acts as a reminder to the offender that there are consequences to their actions, especially when it comes to breaking the law.

Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or “inconvenient” as determined by government authorities or by community consensus.[1] Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. Censorship could be direct or indirect, in which case it is referred to as soft censorship.[citation needed] It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel. Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, location, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what could and could not be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship.

Academic Freedom

Academic freedom is the conviction that the freedom of inquiry by faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy as well as the principles of academia, and that scholars should have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts (including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities) without being targeted for repression, job loss, or imprisonment. Academic freedom is a contested issue and, therefore, has limitations in practice. In the United States, for example, according to the widely recognized “1940 Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure” of the American Association of University Professors, teachers should be careful to avoid controversial matter that is unrelated to the subject. When they speak or write in public, they are free to express their opinions without fear from institutional censorship or discipline, but they should show restraint and clearly indicate that they are not speaking for their institution.[1] Academic tenure protects academic freedom by ensuring that teachers can be fired only for causes such as gross professional incompetence or behavior that evokes condemnation from the academic community itself.[2] Proponents of academic freedom believe that the freedom of inquiry by students and faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy. They argue that academic communities are repeatedly targeted for repression due to their ability to shape and control the flow of information. When scholars attempt to teach or communicate ideas or facts that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities, they may find themselves targeted for public vilification, job loss, imprisonment, or even death. For example, in North Africa, a professor of public health discovered that his country’s infant mortality rate was higher than government figures indicated. He lost his job and was imprisoned.[8][9] The fate of biology in the Soviet Union is also cited[citation needed] as a reason why society has an interest in protecting academic freedom. A Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko rejected Western science – then focused primarily on making advances in theoretical genetics, based on research with the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) – and proposed a more socially relevant approach to farming that was based on the collectivist principles of dialectical materialism. (Lysenko called this “Michurinism”, but it is more popularly known today as Lysenkoism.) Lysenko’s ideas proved appealing to the Soviet leadership, in part because of their value as propaganda, and he was ultimately made director of the Soviet Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Subsequently, Lysenko directed a purge of scientists who professed “harmful ideas”, resulting in the expulsion, imprisonment, or death of hundreds of Soviet scientists. Lysenko’s ideas were then implemented on collectivised farms in the Soviet Union and China. Famines that resulted partly from Lysenko’s influence are believed to have killed 30 million people in China alone.[10] AFAF (Academics For Academic Freedom) of the United Kingdom[11] is a campaign for lecturers, academic staff and researchers who want to make a public statement in favour of free enquiry and free expression. Their statement of Academic Freedom has two main principles: that academics, both inside and outside the classroom, have unrestricted liberty to question and test received wisdom and to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions, whether or not these are deemed offensive, and that academic institutions have no right to curb the exercise of this freedom by members of their staff, or to use it as grounds for disciplinary action or dismissal. AFAF and those who agree with its principles believe that it is important for academics to be able not only to express their opinions, but also to put them to scrutiny and to open further debate. They are against the idea of telling the public Platonic “noble lies” and believe that people need not be protected from radical views.

Inhibition, Deindividuation

Inhibition, or restraint, is important. It allows measured and proper conduct and communication with others.

self-awarness is important for personal responsibility. it also is a facet of individuality that is removed through forced uniformity in a team or group. reducing self-awarness increases cohesion, for better or worse. concern trolls operate under false flags, to stoke fires within and outside of, a group. Another is in “Do-Nothings”, people who profess commitment and then abstain and discourage all effective action for change “i agree with your ends but not your means”.

Ethics of Care

moral action should center on care or benevolance. Persons have varying degrees of dependance and interdependence on one another; individuals impacted by the consequences of one’s choices deserve consideration in proportion to their vulnerability. Details determine how to safeguard and promote the interests of those involved.

Attentiveness, the recognition of another’s needs, as being inattentive is distinct from ignorant.

Responsiblity is ambiguous, but obligation implies something is due. Ambiguity allows for ebb and flow between roles, for good or bad.

Competence is required for adequate care to be met.

Responsiveness is the duty of the receiver, not to reciprocity, but to voicing oneself to allow for attentiveness.