Communists, Don't Fear the Reaper....:D

[Flubber]

Kid

while I don't always see the necessity of some of Vel's approaches, he has been far from ridiculous.

you propose a radical departure from the current economic and political system and are questioned on it. You don't answer the question in most cases.

One example from me.

I asked a couple of times whether in your new improved system, my wife could choose not to work if our family unit were willing to forgo the income. Your response was a flip answer that many people HAVE to work.

Fine thats true now but I'm talking in your system where theoretically we are all making the same wage. My wife wants to work less or not at all. Is that permitted?? In previous posts you indicated NO it would not be permitted (but I am giving you a chance to reconsider).

If it is not permitted, why not?

[Kidlicious]

I saw another strawman coming 2 pages back. Ag is trying to make a point. Stick to the argument or give it up.

[Agathon]

The difference is...barring the changing whim of the Tyrant, there's no possibility of undoing an unjustly made law.

Yes there is. Kill him.

Indeed. I thought it was obvious to him that there would be a democratic process, while you'd consider it obvious there would be an autocratic rule (ordinary setup of a misunderstanding)
But his last comment made me understand he does not criticize the "enlightened despot" on principle, meaning that I was wrong in assuming a democratic decision process.

My point is that democracy is just as absolutist with regard to its own principles, as is every political creed.

So one who dictates fairness in a society is....well, the Dictator.

Even if it is a democratically elected government. It makes no difference. Whatever conception of fairness comes up will necessarily be imposed by force on some people who do not like it, so merely claiming that people won't like it or will disagree doesn't really get you very far.

It is patently obvious that fairness is subjective

It is not patently obvious at all. People have different ideas about what counts as fair, yet they engage in arguments about it and are often found to be inconsistent. That isn't the case with the more obvious cases of subjectivity like whether or not one likes the taste of broccoli.

In any case, if you wish to argue that fairness and justice are subjective, then it's open season for might makes right since you can offer no reasons to anyone for any substantial political position.

[Flubber]

Ag

huh?? You argue against subjectivity of fairness but then point out that we all have different ideas on it that are often inconsistent??

[Agathon]

OK - many of us have different ideas about the Special Theory of Relativity, that in no way entails that someone can't be right about it.

People have all sorts of false beliefs about all sorts of things: that doesn't entail subjectivism with regard to those things.

[Velociryx]

Kid....

Ag is trying to make a point. Stick to the argument or give it up.

Perhaps....just *perhaps* you might want to consider returning the favor? Doing for us what you are asking us to do for you?

Flubber

I must confess that some of my methods stem from sheer frustration. After days of beating one's head against the immovable wall, you do what you must to maybe get something to seep through. :: sheepish grin::

Ag -

Ahhhh.....kill him.

That would be the guy in chage of the military-industrial apparatus enforcing his whimsical decrees?

Yes...I'm sure that'd be as simple as making a withdrawl from an ATM.

Violence begetting violence. Is that really the system you're proposing? Sounds delicious!

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Is this really exploitation , where the workers get more than they would otherwise from the state ?

I'm using the word to mean use someones labor and not give them the full benefit of it. You caught me with this hypothetical example because the workers are getting paid more than they were before, but capitalism is an exploitive system. Preventing a capitalist system from being created is justified as long as it is fair to every individual. Those within the system owe those outside of the system nothing, so it's fair not to trade with them.

And if it is exploitation by your definition, then is it necessary to curtail such exploitation if , for the same amount of actual physical labout , the worker is getting more ?

Again , if this is exploitation , then are not the factories owned by the state also exploiting the workers ?

Maybe you want to ask these questions a different way now.

And the last most important question - What is the purpose of the state in your system ?

To me the purpose of the govt is to make sure that each individual is treated fairly. Justice. There are other purposes that may conflict with it, but it's the most important.

[Flubber]

In any event, subjective or objective, I am willing to live under the majority's views of fairness as set out in our laws and as enforced by the checks and balances of our courts and Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Are some of the laws viewed as unfair by some? Surely. Must they obey them in the interim? Again yes or you have anarchy.

But you can fight as longly and loudly as you wish to change the laws without negative consequences. If enough people agree with you, the law will change.


I would not be willing to live in a society where my freedoms are curtailed to the extent proposed by kid. I would rail against it and attempt to change it.

[Agathon]

Violence begetting violence. Is that really the system you're proposing? Sounds delicious!

Why deal with the argument when you can resort to irrelevancies.

You said:

The difference is...barring the changing whim of the Tyrant, there's no possibility of undoing an unjustly made law.

That is false.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
I would not be willing to live in a society where my freedoms are curtailed to the extent proposed by kid. I would rail against it and attempt to change it.

Do you believe in the military draft under any circumstance?

[Velociryx]

So...you admit then, that under the Dictatorial Decree you propose, the only way to effect change is with killing those in charge.

If it's one man...one must die.

If it's a whole group at the top...kill 'em all.

Purgings?

Is any of this beginning to sound familiar, Ag?

Maybe just a wee little bit?



And thank you.

-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

In any event, subjective or objective, I am willing to live under the majority's views of fairness as set out in our laws and as enforced by the checks and balances of our courts and Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So you've reported your preference. That doesn't tell us much except that you like it.

Are some of the laws viewed as unfair by some? Surely. Must they obey them in the interim? Again yes or you have anarchy.

But you can fight as longly and loudly as you wish to change the laws without negative consequences. If enough people agree with you, the law will change.

And the point is?? Let's say you lived in Kidicious' society and most people were content with it. Let's also say that you can rant and rave about how bad the system is, but the state takes no interest because no one is listening to you. If you then commit a crime, is it unreasonable for the state to enforce the law?

I would not be willing to live in a society where my freedoms are curtailed to the extent proposed by kid. I would rail against it and attempt to change it.

OK - but what is your moral justification for doing so? It's one thing to say, I don't like it, therefore I am going to revolt, and another to give moral reasons for revolution.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Can YOU think of another methodology of doing that, besides asking questions about it?

For christ sake, take the answer I give you and debate that. Stop insisting that I'm being dishonest.

[Agathon]

Is any of this beginning to sound familiar, Ag?

Maybe just a wee little bit?

Sure... if someone had blown up Hitler in 1933, the world would have been a better place.

I don't understand your point. Political violence is often justified when the end is significant enough.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon
OK - many of us have different ideas about the Special Theory of Relativity, that in no way entails that someone can't be right about it.

People have all sorts of false beliefs about all sorts of things: that doesn't entail subjectivism with regard to those things.

Undrstood-- and again I agree. But scientific facts are discoverable . Theories abound until additional evidence is available to reveal a truth, or at the very least discredit some theories and support some others. You should be able to PROVE the scientific fact at some point.


How can you EVER do this with fairness? I can make some statements that 99% of people would agree with , for example.

If a competent adult shoots another person dead for no other reason than he was curious to see that person die, it is fair that that person should be punished.


But if I then went on to say.

It is fair that the person be given the death penalty.


Will holy cow, imagine the hubub. Are you telling me there is a "right" answer on that question?

------------------------------------------------------------------

Kid is proposing very different concepts of fairness than the ones I accept. Perhaps he is just wrong? In time he will discover the true meaning of fairness .