What is Democracy

[Berzerker]

Kolpo -

But the chance for that to be created are extremely slim because there is an extreme contradiction in it:

"Extreme" contradictions don't make the formation of governments slim, consider the extreme contradiction of slavery and the creation of a US government supposedly devoted to freedom.

In order to make such dramatical changes do you need A LOT of power, you then need an extreme powerfull despot or an extreme powerfull democratic elected leader who uses that power to make a libertarian state and then end his own power.

For thousands of years man lived without such autocratic governments. True, once a government obtains such power it's difficult to get it to relinquish that power, as Jefferson said, it is the tendency for government to grow and liberty to give way. But we're talking about moral systems, not the easiest systems to create or impose.

It is actually in that way(not in other ways) similar to communism: you need a TON of power to create that type of state, either a libertarian state or a communistic state can't be created without a ton of power. Just to end the democratic principle do you need more power then any US president ever had.

Aside from slavery and a few other things, the newly formed US government was libertarian, much moreso than any other contemporary aside from the many smaller tribal systems around the world. But that US government did place more power in the hands of a president than had been in existence during the Articles of Confederation and the years prior to the Constitution.

Now even imagine if you actually can create such a state then shall that state still exists no longer then the majority supports it. Secret police, bans on free expression or weapon possesion are all very anti-libertarian so if the majority revolts againsts your libertarian system is there nothing the system itself can do againsts that.

That's true, and that's why democracy is an immoral system like any other autocratic system. You're explaining what is rather than what should be wrt morality.

That type of revolt can only be stopped by very anti-libertarian means.

But if a majority seeks to overthrow a libertarian system, it wouldn't be anti-libertarian to stop the rebellion, it would be self-defense by the minority who are the target of the majority since the minority has done nothing to that majority. That would be like trying to kill people who leave you alone because you hate your freedom.

Give me a realistic way a libertarian state can be create and how it can survive moments where the majority is againsts that type of state without using anti-libertarian means like a big police force, bans on weapon ownership or bans on free organization.

A large group of libertarians move to a place without a government and prior owners and create their own system or to a state where they use the existing system to elect their own. But even once that system is created or elected there are no guarantees it will last since a future majority may vote in a different system. But this thread is about democracy and it's efficacy, not how to create a libertarian system or your perceived contradictions.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I never said there aren't people who don't enjoy seeing their money go the state, but you said the application of your beliefs required unanimity when in fact you don't require this.

And you have trouble understanding, I see.
I never claimed my beliefs should be universally shared. I claimed that for my beliefs to be applied, their application should be deemed legitimate by the people. I disagree with the current policies of France, but the voters have spoken (and made a bad mistake), and as such it is normal we end up with our crap government. I oppose pretty much every policy coming out of my government, but I don't oppose the right they have to make them. That's the difference between agreement with a decision, and considering a decision legitimate.

You didn't answer my question, and I only care about what the majority wants when the majority has the moral authority to decide, i.e., when property is "communal" and preserving our freedom.

"Preserving our freedom" is a pretty vague term. Who gets to decide the definition of it?

Shall I quote you? Here is what you said when I asked where you got your morality:

Well, my bad, I was thinking about the political system. Yes, I way prefer the political system I live in coming from the majority of the people, rather than from Berzerker.

So you're backtracking again, now you base your morality on your own belief system, not the majority. But you criticise me for thinking my views of morality are superior to yours and the majority when you think your own are superior to mine and the majority. Are you going to say your morality comes from what the majority thinks again?

If I ever said so, it was by mistake (don't forget it was about 5 to 6 am when I wrote this). My morality cames from the prjudices that have been ingrained since birth + my own reflexions over them. The political system I live in, I prefer it to come from the majority of the people instead of your decisions alone.

Geez, I said early on that my system is a constitutional republic based on libertarian principles and you think I've been avoiding your question?

"Constitutional Republic" doesn't necessarily imply majority rule. It may very well imply unanimity rule, extended majority rule, or whatever. It was the question of majority rule I found of interest. And if I understand you correctly, you consider majority rule to be the preferable one wherever public action is warranted.

Being jailed for such a crime is not slavery. I already answered who has the authority to decide crime and punishment.

Yes, an obscure "moral authority", on whose working I know nothing about. Are they elected, or somehow chosen among the most moral people? Do they decide by majority rule inside their own 'court', or what? If these people are elected, or if they decide the fate of people (convicts, even), they're basically deciding the fate of someone through majority rule.

Let me know when the check is in the mail, then one day I can start selling you oil. Looks like it still hasn't sunk in, but telling people to love it or leave is hypocritical and ironically it was conservatives who use to tell liberals they can leave if they don't like it.

Again, I thought you considered your system bankrupt beyond repair, and since you saw the principle of "opt-out" in a positive fashion...

And if he did want to be eaten, what business is it of yours?

None. But if your libertarian country has laws preventing cannibalism (which makes sens for about 99.999999999% of the population), it will crack down on the cannibal just like Germany.

No one is forcing a right upon you, if you don't want to exercise a right, then don't. And now you're confusing murder with suicide? They aren't the same... Suicide should be legal because the individual committing suicide has the moral authority to decide their fate, the murderer and the majority lacks that authority. So, what happens when your majority rule outlaws suicide? Kinda pointless if the person is successful, but what if they aren't?

Don't get me wrong, I consider anti-suicide laws to be completely stupid, and I'm a staunch proponent of euthanasia. However, because of the "right to life", it is strictly forbidden to assist someone in the euthanasia (and hence the most crippled see their freedom of being euthanasied impeded upon). And the "right to life" makes sense, in that any killer could claim it was a consentent kill - it's not like the victim can give an opposing account should the killer lie

Any link to all these people who want to be enslaved?

I never claimed there were many, at the opposite. I just claimed there were a very few people wishing enslavement, and this alone stops making the will to freedom universal - just extremely majoritarian. And who are you to decide on impeding on the freedom to be enslaved, to be raped, or to be child-molested?

Don't try to stick libertarians with the atrocities committed under majority rule, that is illogical and hardly a defense of majority rule. You can't defend these atrocities so you ignore them with "all systems commit atrocities"

I don't ignore them, I just feel the debate is absurd as long as we acknowledge the need of a political system, which we do.

but if a system is libertarian, the only "atrocity" is that liberals don't get to throw their weight around while hiding behind the state.

Letting the poor die in the streets in winter, letting the weak be exploited by the strong, if they don't want to starve, letting the ill die, letting the widows and orphans on the gutter, etc. Those are atrocities too. The only difference is that they aren't performed by common action, but by common inaction

Where did you get that nonsense? People had the freedom to ingest alcohol prior to the 1920's but where did that freedom go for ~13 years? People had the freedom to smoke pot for ~150 years but where did that freedom go? And even freedoms specifically mentioned in the Constitution are under attack by the majority, just ask Rastafarians. Yeah, freedoms are unchanging under majority rule.

The constitutions of every modern democracy outline a basic set of freedom, which cannot be countered by majority rule. The Germans are extremely stringent un this regard, since their articles stating the basic freedoms the Germans enjoy cannot be amended at all (and before you say "nazi Germany", know this constitution was adopted right after WW2, precisely with the memory of nazi germany in mind).
Every modern democracy has a set of freedom that is protected. I hardly see a difference with your system, except that you wish the Golden Rule to be added, and to be set in stone.

What is the effective difference between a democracy and despotism? The number of people dictating what others can or cannot do. Freightening, huh? Representative government is just a means for making decisions, it neither implies democracy or libertarianism - the difference between these are that in the former the majority rules and your platitudes about protecting individual freedom ignores that the same people who rule get to decide what if any freedoms the minority shall be granted. The primary problem with the latter is that no writing on a piece of paper can protect freedoms and voters will simply elect people to do away with those politically incorrect freedoms, i.e., it'll become a democracy.

Maybe that's because I'm tired, but I don't quite understand what you are saying here. From what I get, you are saying the main difference between a democracy and a libertarian system is: in a democracy, the majority decides what freedoms are protected. Did I get this right?
And in libertarianism, who is that? Who decides that the Golden Rule is the one that should apply, if not the majority of the population? And if it is the majority that has decided it, what is the difference between democracy and libertarianism?

[Berzerker]

Spiffor -

I never claimed my morality came from what most people think. Actually, I have never talked about "morality" in this thread except when replying to you. The topic of interest here is not morality, it is the political system. I base my political system (where the decisions are taken, by whom, with what rpocesses) on majority rule. My own morality is something I built with the prejudices ingrained since my birth, plus my own reflexions - it has nothing to do with the political system.

I quoted you to the contrary in my last post, but since you arrived at your morality based on your views, and assuming you consider your morality superior to others, how are you any different than me when I've done the same thing (leaving aside the obvious reality that we both change our views when confronted with better morals)? And I never said I was the sole arbiter of all morality, that was your snide and comment.

And so it means the golden rule cannot be applied universally.

Yes it can, no one wants to be murdered. You try to add caveats to that to dismiss the obvious, but the fact situtations can change altering what we want and don't want doesn't change the fact no one wants to be murdered without your caveats.

Besides, if I understand the Golden Rule, it is "don't do to others what you wouldn't want others to do to you". This means, if I don't mind something "bad" (as in, considered bad by most people) to happen to me, I should be allowed to do them?

No, the GR is, to quote Ben Kenobi, "pro-active". "Do unto others as"... not "don't do to others"... And inspite of Imran's attempts to find loopholes, Jesus was giving his audience enough credit to view his words with some common sense.

For example, it is documented that a significant portion of molested children turn pedophiles themselves later on, because they grew up to think pedophilia is normal, or even because they enjoyed it. Since they don't mind child molestation when it happens to them, should it be ok for them to molest children?

Oh well, you're intent on following in Imran's footsteps.
Can you identify pedophiles who think it's okay to molest children? Can you find children who enjoyed the experience?

Another example: some people fantisasize on being raped, for the thrill of feeling powerless in the hands of an unknown brute. Does it means it is ok for these people to rape others too?

Only if you want to think Jesus was an imbecile. Frankly, I'm tired of this aspect of the debate, you guys are intent on finding absurd loopholes in what Jesus said and it's just plain juvenile. Do these people who fantasize about being raped really believe their fantasy means they also believe it's okay to rape other people? Nah, that's just convenient speculation.

My point is that desires can change (as you put it yourself), and that people may even wish things the immense majority of us consider immoral. Desires are not purely universal, and as such, a principle based on universal desires is bound to be empty.

Some desires are universal, and these are the ones upon which morality and human rights derive and upon which a system of morality can be built.

Now, if you are talking about near-universal principles, there is a validity to it. Unfortunately, this is majority rule: you deprive the molested child of its freedom of sexual life*; you deprive the rape-fantasizer of its freedom of satisfying his fantasy...

I'm talking about universal desires, and instead of acknowledging that these exist, you have to introduce caveats to show why a desire not to be murdered is not universal. The desire is universal, show me someone who wants to be murdered without introducing incentives to be murdered. You can't...

(*it happened to a friend of a friend. His family hosted a messed up little girl who has been repeatedly raped by her family. Despite being underaged, she lusted for sex, and tried to approach this friend's friend into her bed - because of our anti-pedophilia laws, she was frustrated and couldn't exert her freedom of having sex with adults).

Age of consent factors into freedom, but you're once again introducing a caveat - she was the victim of rape.
Did she want to be raped? Did she believe it was okay to rape because she was raped? What's the point of that story?

Again, who gets to decide who is the moral authority? Who is the person / the people being the moral authority?

Why add the word "again" into that? Have you asked this before? Not that I can recall... It depends on ownership, all morality starts with that question. When property is communal in nature, i.e., owned by more than 2 people (co-owners who have a different contract), then the majority has the moral authority unless prior contract obligations says otherwise. When property is owned by one person, that person has the moral authority. If that person was murdered, their moral authority passes onto those who would have defended them if possible.

(I thought you believe you were the obvious choice - I retract my snide comments if you don't believe you are the God of morality)

You retract here and start making the same snide comments later. Obviously not a man of his word.

How is the selection of this moral authority performed? How are decisions taken by this moral authority, should there be several people in it?
Unanimity rule? Of majority rule?

When I asked you this you said unanimity and then changed it to majority which is where I assume it was to start with. See above...

Nope. I don't expect everyone to agree with my system, far from it. However, should my system be preferred by the majority of voters one day (we can dream), I expect everybody in my democratic country to agree with the fact this policy is performed, even if they oppose the policy itself. That's called "legitimacy": to accept the wielder of the power, despite opposing him.

I didn't ask if you expected everyone to agree, you said your system required unaminity. But why is majority rule "legitimate"? Was it legitimate for the majority to incarcerate Japanese Americans during WWII? Is slavery legitimate if the majority says so? Genocide? As Mel Gibson's character in "The Patriot" asked when meeting with his neighbors to discuss whether or not to join the American Revolution, "why trade 1 tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away?" You obviously believe despotism is the most moral system as long as the despots outnumber the victims, but how that constitutes legitimacy remains in doubt.

No, but I don't believe to be the savior of the world. I don't think Spiffor is the best person that could ever lead the world (although Spifforism is obviously the best system )

See above wrt retractions of snide comments. Why is putting forth what I believe to be moral something to ridicule when you put forth what you believe to be moral? The stench of your hypocrisy would repel a starving vulture.

Let's say it's on the streets, a public property. How does the public property decides on the issue? By majority rule?

Already answered. Please read my responses before repeating questions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you suggesting if you choose to work for someone you are a slave?

NO! I'm saying you can CHOOSE to be a slave. You can say that I will become your slave if you provide for my family and make sure they have a good life.

I think a vast majority of people would consider you a slave if your life is totally controled by another.

justification depends on morality regardless of who is in charge or who makes the rules

Morality depends on who is in charge / who makes the rules.

First, they don't, they call the disparity in treatment "progressive taxation".

And if they are the Top 1% then they agree to be taxed much more. What's the problem?

A masochist who likes being subjected to pain is not following the GR if they inflict pain on others based on the willingness, even desire, to also be subject to pain. Give Jesus a little credit, he wasn't talking to a bunch of lawyers intent on finding ridiculous loopholes in what he said.

Then Jesus should have been more careful with his words. For being the 'son of God' he was not very careful about things . Do unto others as you would have done unto you DOES justify the masochist. Which proves having the Golden Rule as a justification for rights is utterly silly and foolish.

Besides you are being naive if you think only lawyer find loopholes and exploit them. Obviously you've never been college (where I've find the most proclivity for finding loopholes in rules)

You argued it wasn't stealing because it was legal.

AHH! That's different. Sorry, I was thinking about a pre-government society. Nevermind then. Yes, if the law allows it, then it isn't stealing. It's called eminent domain instead (ie, the government has the right to take it and since you live in that society you've given the government permission... like a social contract thing).

if the law exists to serve justice (do you agree?) then murder existed before government because justice existed before government.

I don't agree. The law exists to serve whatever purpose those in power assert. They sometimes may dress it up as 'justice', but that term is highly subjective and can be molded.

Besides, once again, murder is unlawful killing. That's why warfare isn't murder and has never really been treated as such (even by the aggressor... they are charged with aggression but not external murder).

[Berzerker]

Spiffor - Before getting to your most recent post, you deny there are universal desires, how do you explain this:

(for the record, I have absolutely no problem with sodomy - I am precisely comparing something that we all agree should be outlawed with something we all agree should be allowed)

Those are your words and certainly is a universal desire...

And you have trouble understanding, I see.

Quite possible inspite of your proclamations regarding my alleged divinity.

I never claimed my beliefs should be universally shared. I claimed that for my beliefs to be applied, their application should be deemed legitimate by the people.

How does that mean your beliefs don't require unanimity? Applied, application, doesn't matter, you still said you needed everyone to agree that your system is legitimate.

I disagree with the current policies of France, but the voters have spoken (and made a bad mistake), and as such it is normal we end up with our crap government. I oppose pretty much every policy coming out of my government

Is this where I tell you to leave?

but I don't oppose the right they have to make them. That's the difference between agreement with a decision, and considering a decision legitimate.

What if your government wanted to enslave you and your family? Would that be a legitimate decision?

"Preserving our freedom" is a pretty vague term. Who gets to decide the definition of it?

Not vague at all, I already gave you the short definition of freedom. The problem with any system is that the state will need to infringe upon our freedom in order to preserve the remaining freedom even if taxes were entirely non-coercive. A libertarian system seeks to keep the intrusion minimal while a democracy doesn't.

Well, my bad, I was thinking about the political system. Yes, I way prefer the political system I live in coming from the majority of the people, rather than from Berzerker.

Obviously, but that wasn't what I asked. Do you prefer the majority's morality to your own?

If I ever said so, it was by mistake (don't forget it was about 5 to 6 am when I wrote this).

Understood.

My morality cames from the prjudices that have been ingrained since birth + my own reflexions over them. The political system I live in, I prefer it to come from the majority of the people instead of your decisions alone.

But do you prefer majority rule with all the evil it can do to a system based on your morality? I'm not asking about the feasibility of empowering your system, just which provides the greater morality. If you prefer your own morality, then why criticise me for believing my morality is better than majority rule?

"Constitutional Republic" doesn't necessarily imply majority rule. It may very well imply unanimity rule, extended majority rule, or whatever. It was the question of majority rule I found of interest. And if I understand you correctly, you consider majority rule to be the preferable one wherever public action is warranted.

True, but a constitutional republic does imply representative government so I have answered that question. And yes, when more than 2 people own a piece of property, majority rule is very likely the most morally expedient method for decision making wrt that property.

Yes, an obscure "moral authority", on whose working I know nothing about. Are they elected, or somehow chosen among the most moral people? Do they decide by majority rule inside their own 'court', or what? If these people are elected, or if they decide the fate of people (convicts, even), they're basically deciding the fate of someone through majority rule.

It's only obscure because you haven't taken the time to consider what ownership means and what it entails wrt moral authority (not meant as an insult). It all starts with ownership and that beginning creates the moral foundation by which a path of logic can be followed on just about every situation that can arise. Courts, i.e., juries usually require unaminity to take away the accused' freedom, some want to make it majority rule, some want super majorities. This is all irrelevant to where the moral authority resides... If I commit murder, then the victim's moral authority of self-defense transforms into someone else's moral authority for retribution. With a functioning and just state, that moral authority transfers to the representative government. But it all begins with the victim's moral authority of self-defense, that's why "victimless crimes" are an abomination to libertarianism and my moral outlook.

Again, I thought you considered your system bankrupt beyond repair, and since you saw the principle of "opt-out" in a positive fashion...

I do, but all decisions of import involve trade-offs. Do I want to leave family and friends behind? No. Where would I go? There are few if any unclaimed lands so I'll just have to deal with another state which may or may not be any better, etc...

None. But if your libertarian country has laws preventing cannibalism (which makes sens for about 99.999999999% of the population), it will crack down on the cannibal just like Germany.

Not if that person really wanted to be eaten after his death, but we have only the word of the cannibal on that. The court should only be concerned with ensuring this person who allegedly wanted to be eaten was fulfilling his wish, no different than someone who committed suicide being buried or cremated. No different than doctor assisted suicide or even consensual euthenasia. If this guy wanted to die, so be it... If he wanted his remains eaten, so what? Where we get into a murky area is with insane people and that's, like I said, murky. Do the insane have the same freedom? We have age of consent laws for a similar reason, some people just don't have the mental capacity to consider the ramifications of their wishes and I don't know how to resolve that problem although I'm inclined to intercede.

I just claimed there were a very few people wishing enslavement, and this alone stops making the will to freedom universal - just extremely majoritarian.

You cannot find one person who wants to be enslaved without introducing caveats to create incentives to be enslaved. In the Bible one of the patriarchs agreed to become the servant of the man whose daughter the patriarch wanted to marry. That doesn't mean he wanted to become a servant, he wanted the man's daughter for marriage and trade several years of his life to get her. When I say a desire is universal, I do so without caveats.

I don't ignore them, I just feel the debate is absurd as long as we acknowledge the need of a political system, which we do.

But we are debating which system is the most moral.

Letting the poor die in the streets in winter, letting the weak be exploited by the strong, if they don't want to starve, letting the ill die, letting the widows and orphans on the gutter, etc. Those are atrocities too. The only difference is that they aren't performed by common action, but by common inaction

And this happened before the income tax? This happened in the 1790's when we had a largely libertarian system? No... this is the Dickensesque picture drawn by the left but ignores that Great Britain was not a libertarian system and hadn't been for eons (if ever).

The constitutions of every modern democracy outline a basic set of freedom, which cannot be countered by majority rule. The Germans are extremely stringent un this regard, since their articles stating the basic freedoms the Germans enjoy cannot be amended at all (and before you say "nazi Germany", know this constitution was adopted right after WW2, precisely with the memory of nazi germany in mind).
Every modern democracy has a set of freedom that is protected. I hardly see a difference with your system, except that you wish the Golden Rule to be added, and to be set in stone.

But modern Germany is a mere ~5 decades old, give them time. The US Constitution had explicit protections but ~100 years later the majority had successfully done away with the religious freedom clause of the 1st Amendment. In the 1870's (I believe) the Supreme Court re-wrote the 1st Amendment turning the "free exercise of religion" into the "free thought of religion". This was done because "Christians" didn't like the Mormons and their religious practice of polygamy and the SCOTUS decision effectively made the US a majority rule system wrt religion.

Maybe that's because I'm tired, but I don't quite understand what you are saying here. From what I get, you are saying the main difference between a democracy and a libertarian system is: in a democracy, the majority decides what freedoms are protected. Did I get this right?

Yes.

And in libertarianism, who is that? Who decides that the Golden Rule is the one that should apply, if not the majority of the population? And if it is the majority that has decided it, what is the difference between democracy and libertarianism?

It wouldn't matter to me how many people were involved with setting up the system, but once it was set up, I'd want the majority's power restricted to making decisions regarding communal matters. The problem is you can't prevent majority rule with a piece of paper...

Gotta run...cya

[Berzerker]

Imran -

NO! I'm saying you can CHOOSE to be a slave. You can say that I will become your slave if you provide for my family and make sure they have a good life.

That isn't slavery, it's a voluntary trade-off to get what you want.

I think a vast majority of people would consider you a slave if your life is totally controled by another.

Not if you volunteered for that control.

Morality depends on who is in charge / who makes the rules.

Then genocide is moral if those in power say so? How about if I use that for my sig - "Morality depends on who is in charge" - Imran's defense of genocide

And if they are the Top 1% then they agree to be taxed much more. What's the problem?

They are deciding for others, that's the problem. What if they aren't in the top %1?

Then Jesus should have been more careful with his words. For being the 'son of God' he was not very careful about things . Do unto others as you would have done unto you DOES justify the masochist. Which proves having the Golden Rule as a justification for rights is utterly silly and foolish.

No, it's utterly silly and foolish to spin what he said, but you're studying to be a lyer so what else is new. Does the masochist really believe people who don't share their fetish want to be subjected to pain? Nah... They understand their fetish is a personal matter, not a universal one.

AHH! That's different. Sorry, I was thinking about a pre-government society. Nevermind then. Yes, if the law allows it, then it isn't stealing. It's called eminent domain instead (ie, the government has the right to take it and since you live in that society you've given the government permission... like a social contract thing).

Uh uh Imran, eminent domain allows the US to take someone's land ONLY if the owner is justly compensated, i.e., a forced sale of the property. So you believe government invented stealing, that stealing never occured until some politician invented it? No Imran, laws (just laws) were written to recognise already existing concepts.

I don't agree. The law exists to serve whatever purpose those in power assert. They sometimes may dress it up as 'justice', but that term is highly subjective and can be molded.

And that would be an unjust system. Can laws be invented to embrace justice? Obviously they can be invented for the purpose you cite, but that isn't the only reason for laws.

Besides, once again, murder is unlawful killing. That's why warfare isn't murder and has never really been treated as such (even by the aggressor... they are charged with aggression but not external murder).

If that's the way it has always been, did government invent war too? Killing in wartime may or may not be murder, it depends of who is getting killed and who started the war. If we launched a sneak attack on China nuking a billion people, I'd call that murder. Again, "murder" has become a legal term to describe a certain act, but government didn't invent the act. The act is as old as man...

[Imran Siddiqui]

That isn't slavery, it's a voluntary trade-off to get what you want.

It's still slavery. Read the definition I've provided from the dictionary.

Then genocide is moral if those in power say so?

Yep.

They are deciding for others, that's the problem.

Well that's ok if others are allowed to 'do unto them' right?

Does the masochist really believe people who don't share their fetish want to be subjected to pain? Nah... They understand their fetish is a personal matter, not a universal one.

What does it matter?! He is doing unto them as he wishes to be done!

Uh uh Imran, eminent domain allows the US to take someone's land ONLY if the owner is justly compensated, i.e., a forced sale of the property.

And is that the rule in every country in the world? Besides, the US is allowed to take land without compensation for public use purposes.

And that would be an unjust system.

To you perhaps... to others, maybe not so much.

did government invent war too

Well yes. In order to have war there must be some form of government (tribal or whatever) in order to have some form of organized battle. Otherwise it is just a brawl and not a war at all.

If we launched a sneak attack on China nuking a billion people, I'd call that murder.

It's be called aggression under international law, not murder. Because it is recognized that governments can't murder. Under international law (if you accept that law), governments can commit genocide, aggression, etc, but not murder.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

It's still slavery. Read the definition I've provided from the dictionary.

I did read that definition and nowhere did I see the words "choose to be a slave". I did see the word "bound" a few times including in your characterisation of slavery.

Yep.

I'm not much into sigs but that will do nicely for a while.

Well that's ok if others are allowed to 'do unto them' right?

Only if you think the GR means you can legally steal from others as long as you don't mind others doing the same to you, but most people reading the GR understand that wasn't what Jesus was talking about. He wasn't suggesting it's okay to murder people if you don't mind being murdered (you'd know that given the context of his message). But they aren't allowed, ostensibly in a democracy it's the majority who gets to decide who pays what and that means alot of people aren't allowed to set the tax rates of those who get their politicians elected.

What does it matter?! He is doing unto them as he wishes to be done!

Does the masochist want pain inflicted on him without limits? Nope... He could get killed or maimed... So these other people the masochist would inflict pain upon get to place limits too, even if their limit is no pain. Tada!!!

And is that the rule in every country in the world? Besides, the US is allowed to take land without compensation for public use purposes.

You want to debate every country's eminent domain laws when neither of us know those laws? The US Constitution - the law of the land for what that is worth - says land owners must be provided just compensation. The common practice to get around that law is to merely regulate land use without physically taking it.

To you perhaps... to others, maybe not so much.

So who is right? I guess this is where you say, those with the most power.

Well yes. In order to have war there must be some form of government (tribal or whatever) in order to have some form of organized battle. Otherwise it is just a brawl and not a war at all.

The general definition of war doesn't require a state or organisation.

It's be called aggression under international law, not murder. Because it is recognized that governments can't murder. Under international law (if you accept that law), governments can commit genocide, aggression, etc, but not murder.

What if the US never signed onto these international laws? Yeah, the slaughter of a billion people is not murder, it's "aggression". . Does the phrase "crimes against humanity" ring a bell? Murder is a crime, so how can a state commit crimes?


"Morality depends on who is in charge" - Imran's justification for genocide

Yeah, that'll do for my sig


[quote]

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

A simple set of questions as I could care less to get engulfed in the fray.

If I understand correctly the basis of democracy is an initial unaninimity that allows subsequent rule of the majority. Correct?

If this is so, and that it requires every member of the democracy to agree to the inital unanimity then what about subsequent generations who were not given the choice to agree to the unanimous terms and are held to those same terms?

My question I suppose is if it is a requirment that initial unanimous consent is required. Why is it that a single generation (a very small minority) represents the will of a much larger member set/majority/constituency?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I'm talking about legitimacy here. Of course anyone can go up to me and force me to do anything if he's stronger. The question: when and why is it that we will obey even when we disagree?

There is no need to discuss the prudence behind respecting those who are powerful. It's self-evident.

A Tyranny (for exmaple in the form of an absolute monarchy) can be legitimate. The notion that legitimacy stems from "the will of the people" is a modern invention, and even then, the "will of the people" was never meant to be unanimous.

Legitimacy is created over time. Merely by existing a regime begins to build legitimacy, which is certainly built at first on fear, fear os social exclusion, fear of reprisal.

Again, you can't discount the fact Government does NOT come into existance out of this air-government builds up form a pre-government existance in which man still lives in social bands. So the grounds of legitimacy are built there, in the social mores of pre-government. Once the concept of government comes into being, then people can argue about the concept that grants legitimacy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
A simple set of questions as I could care less to get engulfed in the fray.

If I understand correctly the basis of democracy is an initial unaninimity that allows subsequent rule of the majority. Correct?

If this is so, and that it requires every member of the democracy to agree to the inital unanimity then what about subsequent generations who were not given the choice to agree to the unanimous terms and are held to those same terms?

My question I suppose is if it is a requirment that initial unanimous consent is required. Why is it that a single generation (a very small minority) represents the will of a much larger member set/majority/constituency?

You pose a good question that only underlines the reality that "unanimity" is non-sense. NO, a democracy does not need unanimity to get started nor even to become legitimate. To think so is individualism run amok. And individual has rightsd, but mankind is a social species and at some point, individual rights run up against this, and lose.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The (mis)use of "unanimous" consent to establish legitamacy was my point. It only holds as a contract for those making the initial deal.

Do we actually agree on something other than Yuengling?

[GePap]

I think we do. In fact, I would veture to guess we agree on more things, unless you love liver, hate the simpsons with a passion, dislike Seinfeld, and think short, fat, balding women as attractive as hell.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
If I understand correctly the basis of democracy is an initial unaninimity that allows subsequent rule of the majority. Correct?

I don't think so. I don't know if those who adopted the American constitution were representative of the people. And most modern-day constiutions have been voted on by a majority of the people.

My question I suppose is if it is a requirment that initial unanimous consent is required. Why is it that a single generation (a very small minority) represents the will of a much larger member set/majority/constituency?

This is my problem as well, and this is why I consider unchangeable constitutions (such as the 20 first articles of the German one) a heresy.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Spiffor - Before getting to your most recent post, you deny there are universal desires, how do you explain this:
Those are your words and certainly is a universal desire...

Huh? We all desire to be sodomized? Must tell that to Ben Kenobi and Park Avenue More seriously, this sentence was not aimed at being bulletproof, but at showing a point: all of us (implied: intelligent polytubbies that are not completely bigoted) agree that sodomy should be legal. I never meant the absolute unanimity of the world felt so. Quite the contrary actually, if you look at the backward countries.

How does that mean your beliefs don't require unanimity? Applied, application, doesn't matter, you still said you needed everyone to agree that your system is legitimate.

Which is different with everyone agreeing it's the right thing to do.

Not vague at all, I already gave you the short definition of freedom. The problem with any system is that the state will need to infringe upon our freedom in order to preserve the remaining freedom even if taxes were entirely non-coercive. A libertarian system seeks to keep the intrusion minimal while a democracy doesn't.

So, the only difference between a democracy and a libertarian system is the extent to which the State intrudes in personal freedoms. So basically, the libertarians would enjoy living in a democratic system, if they were ensured a satisfying set of freedoms would be left untouched for eternity.

Obviously, but that wasn't what I asked. Do you prefer the majority's morality to your own?

Of course I prefer my own to that of the majority's. And I prefer my own to yours, miles away

But do you prefer majority rule with all the evil it can do to a system based on your morality?

If my system was made without the consent of the people (the majority of them agreeing with the system, the quasi-unanimity agreeing the decision is legitimate), then I would consider it immoral. I dislike forcing people to my beliefs. Hence, for my system to be more moral than majority rule, it'd have to be approved by the majority

It's only obscure because you haven't taken the time to consider what ownership means and what it entails wrt moral authority (not meant as an insult). It all starts with ownership and that beginning creates the moral foundation by which a path of logic can be followed on just about every situation that can arise. Courts, i.e., juries usually require unaminity to take away the accused' freedom, some want to make it majority rule, some want super majorities. This is all irrelevant to where the moral authority resides... If I commit murder, then the victim's moral authority of self-defense transforms into someone else's moral authority for retribution.

Does it mean the victim of any other offense, that doesn't leave them dead, has the moral authority of retribution? Say, if I am a victim of theft, should I be the one who decides the punishment for the thief? What prevents me from deciding to quarter the little punk who stole my watch?

But we are debating which system is the most moral.

Well, that wasn't my intention when entering this thread, but if you really wish...
I don't hold freedom for being an absolute good, something where we should be maximalist. Freedom is good, until the strong exploits the weak. In this regard I live by the word of Lacordaire: "Between the strong and the weak, it is freedom which oppresses and law which liberates".
Your own system is full of limitations of the freedom to be a criminal, your own system acknwoledges there is no freedom to kill, to rape, to cannibalize etc. Which is good.
However, your system strongly lacks such protection in economic matters, and this is by far my main beef with it. A libertarian boss can exploit his workforce however he wants, because "they signed the contract" - the Libs seem to refuse to acknowledge that in their system, many workers have no choice but work for exploitative bosses or die of starvation... That's like saying a victim of rape has a choice between being raped or killed by the knife of the rapist.
Besides, the absolute lack of welfare, and (in the floydist version of libertarianism, I don't know if you share this aspect with him) of public education, just forces the poor to accept whatever crap they find for their mere survival, without a chance to ensure a future for them or their children.

I happen to agree with Libertarians on most issues regarding personal freedoms, because personal freedoms very rarely imply a relation between the strong and the weak.

But I disagree with Libertarians on all economic matters I can think of. The basic flaw of libertarianism is the belief that people have agreed to be exploited.
You speak about caveats, and this is a big one: people only agree to cope up with bad working conditions (and now doubt the working conditions would be worse in libertarianism than what we have today, since there would be no regulation), because they are pressed by their survival to do so. That's a caveat if I ever saw one - and it isn't a mental disorder, it is the norm for everybody that is expandable.

Yes, libertarianism will starve and exploit the poor in a fashion similar to 19th century Europe, or modern-day very backward countries. That's because the bosses will be free to do whatever they want with their expandable employees, who'll have no choice but to cope with that, or to die of starvation. And Libertarians will say "See? The employees agree! They are free to leave the company!"

This is horribly immoral in my book. And this is why, should the Libs ever pose a threat to take power, I'd consider libertarians my political enemies (on par with fascists) rather than my political opponents: because their system would destroy the very fabric of our society, because their system would disband everything that separates our civilization from the Jungle's law.

But modern Germany is a mere ~5 decades old, give them time. The US Constitution had explicit protections but ~100 years later the majority had successfully done away with the religious freedom clause of the 1st Amendment. In the 1870's (I believe) the Supreme Court re-wrote the 1st Amendment turning the "free exercise of religion" into the "free thought of religion". This was done because "Christians" didn't like the Mormons and their religious practice of polygamy and the SCOTUS decision effectively made the US a majority rule system wrt religion.

Wouldn't "free practice of religion" give an allowance to do whatever you want if you disguise under religious belief? Say my religion requires me to kill libertarians, would it be ok to practice my religion freely?
I happen to disagree on the ban on polygamy (or at least on the reasons leading to it). But since there should be no absolute freedom af action (no freedom of murder, rape etc.), there should be no absolute freedom of religious action or political action or whatever, for the same reason there should be no absolute freedom of "generic" action.