Politics: What will rule Chiron?

[Jamski]

I hear they want to make children pay to go to Kindergarten

How can any child afford that? They'll be saddled with debt at the age of 6!

-Jam

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by livid imp
Umm, yes police states are evil, sorry. Denying the basic freedoms (speech, religion, etc.) of life is evil.

But you are right about the potential for a democracy to be evil. They just tend not to be so.

Why is it evil? Furthermore what makes those things basic freedoms? As opposed to let us say economic equality? In fact an excellent case can be made that both absolute freedom of speech and religion is harmful and should be prevented on those grounds. In both cases it allows for the people to be mislead by sophistry causing them to believe in the untrue and the harmful. Furthermore you have not made a connection between ‘life’ and these so called freedoms.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Commy
People will fight for freedom. People will fight for Democracy. People aren't going to fight for a police state. People aren't going to fight for suppression. So, what's Yang going to do if his people don't fight for him? Shoot them? That would be a better life than living under command of Yang underground in some gloomy prison. Or maybe he'll put them in the Punishment Sphere a couple of times. Then, when they do fight, they'll just kill themselves. A police state cannot win over a free society, because the entire point of having a government, the people, won't agree.

A hasty generalization if I’ve ever heard one. Some people will fight for democracy and what is called freedom, others will fight for dictatorship and what is called stability. The point of a government is to manage a state. Democracies are not the only systems which can have the consent of the governed.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Jamski
But then Plato goes on to describe how a perfect educational system could be devised in order that his Republic should function

-Jam

Indeed. To quote Plato: “The only true reformer is he who makes his fellow citizens better men.”

[Jamski]

Voltaire - I just remembered why I liked you in the first place

Compare the points we made in this thread.

See?

-Jam

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Jamski
Voltaire - I just remembered why I liked you in the first place

Compare the points we made in this thread.

See?

-Jam

We're in agreement quite often it seems.

[Nubclear]

But as you've said yourslef Voltaire, not all people have the faculty of reason

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
But as you've said yourslef Voltaire, not all people have the faculty of reason

Then I should withdraw that statement if I did say it. To be human is to have reason, but it depends on how well the faculty of reason is developed and what its potential for development is (for not all are equally capable).

[Nubclear]

OK, let's not play semantics again You know that I know what you meant.

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by Jamski


Who defines evil? Westerners? Americans? God? Who defines basic freedoms? Westerners? Americans? God?Evil and Freedom are just "nonsense words" that have no place in a logical debate, because everyone has a different idea of the values contained in the strings "Evil" or "Freedom"

-Jam

Sig material.

[Frankychan]

This thread is laced with ethnocentrism.

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by Voltaire
If we can find the right individual to rule then it is best to give them power to affect change for the better.

This sounds as the people will have to blindly believe in the capabilities of such a man, thus in effect becoming more of a fundamentalist nation. IMO their is no difference between believe in a 'higher being' or a mere person. Both can achieve mythical properties by its followers.

[livid imp]

Originally posted by Jamski
The specific case that [Evil = pathologically disturbed and/or selfish] is proven to exist only from your vision of the atomic facts that constitute the individual perceptions your brain claims to receive. That is is equally possible that in another specific case that [Evil = cold fish and chips] only goes as yet another example that one should not, and cannot attempt to construct absolute cases from specific cases.

Basically you argue that [A=B because C] where A is subjective, B is a complex object, and C is an string of atomic facts. I don't see how you intend to balance this equasion.

-Jam

This would be that transcendentalism BS I mentioned earlier. I fully understand what you are saying, and yes, it is technically correct. But it has no bearing outside of philosophical theory.

Originally posted by Voltaire Why is it evil? Furthermore what makes those things basic freedoms? As opposed to let us say economic equality?

Now you are getting into another level of the discussion. Every two-bit sh!tbag is entitled to his opinion(even me ), but you have earn your money. You are comparing apples to oranges.

In fact an excellent case can be made that both absolute freedom of speech and religion is harmful and should be prevented on those grounds. In both cases it allows for the people to be mislead by sophistry causing them to believe in the untrue and the harmful.

I did originally say 'when the speech is not harmful'. It might have been in the other thread this got started in.

Jam, Volt....
Look guys I can play the amoral philosopher too. I've read the books. I understand your points. But this is the real world with real consequences too our actions. If you really believe that evil is only in the eye of the beholder, then you wont mind if someone rapes your mother or kills your friends. I've read many of your posts and I'm pretty sure you are smarter than that.
I don't want to war with you guys though as I am here primarily to hone my SMAC skills not debate philosophy.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by GeoModder This sounds as the people will have to blindly believe in the capabilities of such a man, thus in effect becoming more of a fundamentalist nation. IMO their is no difference between believe in a 'higher being' or a mere person. Both can achieve mythical properties by its followers.

I should not think so, such a person would actually have to have the capacity to govern in order for the system to function.

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by livid imp
Now you are getting into another level of the discussion. Every two-bit sh!tbag is entitled to his opinion(even me ), but you have earn your money. You are comparing apples to oranges.

And you're avoiding my questions.

Originally posted by livid imp
I did originally say 'when the speech is not harmful'. It might have been in the other thread this got started in.

Fair enough. But where is it necessarily stated that a despotism will prevent such things when not harmful? Liberty and despotism are not incompatible. Liberty and democracy do not mean the same thing.

Originally posted by livid imp
Jam, Volt....
Look guys I can play the amoral philosopher too. I've read the books. I understand your points. But this is the real world with real consequences too our actions. If you really believe that evil is only in the eye of the beholder, then you wont mind if someone rapes your mother or kills your friends. I've read many of your posts and I'm pretty sure you are smarter than that.
I don't want to war with you guys though as I am here primarily to hone my SMAC skills not debate philosophy.

I merely ask that you defend your 'real world' presuppositions. You cannot simply appeal to so called common sense and expect it to be accepted, for the so called common sense itself may be wrong. These matters need to be examined in their fullest. Every person is entitled to an opinion if and only if that opinion is justified, and not otherwise.

You also presuppose that merely because we raise questions as to the premises you brought up that we reject morality altogether. It just seems as though my account of objective morality differs from yous.