That is a brilliant, timely question, especially given the current political state of play in the United States --where I live and work. In practice, it seems that some congressman (perhaps a little more commonly than senators in the USA ) see themselves as largely or even only representing those who voted for them. There is clearly some reason to think that if a candidate ran on the promise that she or he would advance policy X, then it is both likely and appropriate that, once elected, the congressman would advance policy X. However, there remains a very real and evident sense in which that congressman is the representative of all in her or his district. If, for example, a citizen from her or his district dies in the service of their country (as a soldier, say) or dies as a rescue worker (policeman or fireman, say), it is very natural and expected for that congressman to express and embody the grief and gratitude of the people as well as the government for the person's sacrifice, irrespective of...

Great question(s)! In reply, I suggest backing up a little. You describe your position as hypocritical and ask whether it might be excusable. If smoking is directly on a par (no better or worse) with your examples of abusing coffee and not exercising (or not doing so sufficiently), then I suppose there is an inconsistency that may be worrisome. The same point can be made about allowing alcohol legal use but banning cannabis. IF the two substances are equally dangerous (or good?), then why prohibit the one and allow the other? But there may be some differences in the cases you raise. "Contact smoke" can be a problem, but if so it seems very different from what might be called "Contact coffee fix" or "Contact lacklustre efforts to exercise." Also, smoking seems to direcly impair vital life functions / organs, whereas we seem to be less in danger of life-threatening harm with a "coffee fix" and only periodical exercising. So, I suggest that perhaps there is a principled way of distinguishing these...

Interesting that you single out religion and speech, and not, say, politics and speech or certain types of industry and speech or even treatments of the environment and speech. I believe that there is an assumption in popular culture (perhaps encouraged by Dawkins et al) that religion is more dangerous than, say, secular alternatives. This charge has been effectively challenged by a range of thinkers; I especially recommend Keith Ward's book, Is Religion Dangerous? http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Dangerous-Keith-Ward/dp/0802845088 In any case, there are various reasons why the state may, even in a liberal, pluralistic democracy, regulate speech, religion, political viewpoints, industries, etc, in light of the wrongful infliction of harm or risk of harm and offense. Probably the best work on this is Joel Feinberg's awesome four volume work on The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law (Oxford University Press). The book is full of real and imagined cases that test current and future laws. Even if you...

Interesting! The idea of leaders having to undergo training in different professions (and even being a hobo!) is appealing (though whether it is practical is another matter). The case for democracy historically usually does go hand in hand with a case that human beings are indeed reasonable and are capable of rational debate and decision-making. This was the case in the founding of the democratic republic here in the United States, for example. So, if there are compelling reasons for thinking human beings are incapable of responsible, reasonable reflection and voting, a foundational basis for democracy would be problematic. But note that democracy is relatively recent. In 1900 the majority of political life consisted of Empires and not democratic, and while the majority of political states are (at least on paper) democratic today, it is only recently that voting barriers have been removed that restricted voting on the basis of gender or race or property ownership. Also, education (including civic...

Yes, the social sciences certainly have been involved in the definition and study of power (e.g. Max Weber analyzed power in terms of command and obedience structures and came up with different models of power relations). Philosophers have sometimes taken on power as a topic in itself (e.g. see Power by Bertrand Russell), but the philosophical work on power is more commonly found in the different branches of philosophy. In epistemology we look at cognitive power (what can we know and how do we know it? what are the limits of our cognitive power?), in political philosophy and ethics we look at the ethics and morality of power relations (what form of government is morally acceptable? what acts are unjust or just?), in metaphysics and philosophy of science we might look at power in the natural world (what is causation? laws of nature?), in philosophy of religion power may be considered in the context of the divine (what is omnipotence? are there any limits on omnipotence?), and so on. Going on a bit...

Thank you for these questions. Beginning with the last point, the meaning of "secular" has shifted over the years. Today, it is probably mostly used to indicate that someone or something is non-religious, but it used to mean worldly or being in the world as opposed to being in a monastery. Thus, a person might be a Roman Catholic priest serving a church and, so long as he is not part of a monastic order (e.g. a Benedicting) he would have been called a secular priest. The consitution in the USA forbid the establishment of religion and the freedom to practice one's religion, but when you refer to someone's "premises" and schools I take it you are referring to property and institutions that may be private or public. As for property say a person's home or land presumably the owner can control who is permitted on the property and can set up rules freely, e.g. only allow practicing Muslims access. In the case of schools, matters are more complex. If a school is private (not at least directly...

There have been cases historically when persons had plural votes. I believe that at one point in the 18th century in Britain, it was possible for a person to purchase more than one parliamentary vote as well as to purchase actual votes in elections (one might openly offer bribes for votes), but this was not based on people with the most wisdom getting more votes, but people with the most money and craft being able to do so. There are many areas of society today when you have to have higher educational status to vote at all. I am on a committee with the American Philosophical Association in which we vote to award prizes and lectureships. Having a Ph.D. in philosophy is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for being able to vote. There have been some philosophers who have been quite critical of democracy (famously, Plato) and so, in a sense, some philosophers have developed arguments that there should not be widespread public voting at all but, instead, there should be governance by an elite. ...

This is a huge question about the philosophy of human nature and values. It is difficult to imagine anything like civilization (cities or some kind of coordinated form of life with surplus agriculture enabling there to be markets, safety, public gatherings, religion, and so on) without a system of goverance, whether it takes the form of a nation state, empire / kingdom or tribe. Some political philosophies seem to hold that a state of some kind is necessary (Hobbes), while others seem to allow that anarchy of some kind might not be impossible (Rousseau). A further question to consider is whether a globe of independent states needs an overall system of governance (United Nations? a world court?) to secure safety, fairness and justice between states. An interesting book that defends a minimal state that you might find engaging is Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Modest point: I am not sure that "the whole war in Afghanistan is premised on the necessity of the state," though it does appear...

Wow. I am also 57 and I admire your candor and your question(s), but I am troubled by your situation. Your mention of the social contract brings to mind one of the problems with political and ethical contractarian theories. They are usually based on some form of psychological or ethical egoism or at least self-interest (Hobbes assumes we all wish to avoid premature violent death and the best way to avoid this is to form a community of mutual restraint). But once the culture or community ceases to serve our self-interest or, worse, it actively undermines our welfare, the motivation for conforming to laws, etc, seems to vanish. From the standpoint of Hobbesian contract theory, you are not being a bad person, but acting in accord with rational self-interest. Some forms of natural law might also cut you some slack: unjust contracts are not inforceable. If you are currently being preyed upon by unjust institutions, they may have waived some of their rights --just as if you are held up by a thief and you...

An affirmative answer might put us on a rather slippery slope. What about the gift of money prior to death? Would you prohibit a parent paying for a child's education? And why just money? Would you prohibit all inheritance, from a farm to a sentimental photograph? It seems that in a general sense of the word "inherit" it is difficult for persons not to inherit all kinds of things (good or bad) from parents / family / care-givers (getting one's own start in life, then, is not easy, for others will invariably have had a hand in each person making a start) and so long as you allow for gift-giving among the living it is hard to see why one would prohibit someone willing that, when she dies, some of her belongings go to her children. So, there are some reasons to hesitate in giving an unqualified affirmative answer to your question(s), but there are also some reasons in a democratic republic which prizes fairness for moderating inheritance to prevent or at least discourage vast amounts of dynastic wealth...