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

[Velociryx]

Ag - Nope. And you know I'm not. You're a bright boy.

Stop dodging and tell me why I'll like it so much better living under your kinder, gentler tyrant than where I am right now....

I've already outlined my position to you.

If you wish to play semantics games you can play....with yourself?

-=Vel=-

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I've just demonstrated to you that it is unfair, because the most heroic will go and die, while the selfish will live. Free choice or not, you call this fair.

Yes I call it fair. Nobody makes anyone do anything in this scenario. Lets say the war was in say Iraq-- some people believe in the cause and go fight. thers do not believe in it and do not

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Agathon
So you are now saying that any law enacted by a tyrant is necessarily unjust?

Wait, I've heard this before . . . Socrates!

[Agathon]

Ag - Nope. And you know I'm not. You're a bright boy.

Really, then what is wrong with a just law enacted by a tyrant?

[Last Conformist]

@Vel: It seems to me that you oppose non-democratic regimes because they are "simply wrong", not because they are inherently unjust.

Now, it's, according to you, wrong if a single dictator imposes his vision of fairness on a million others, but, if I'm reading you a-right, not wrong if a million imposes their vision on a single individual. Where, between one and a million, is the point where such imposition shifts from wrong to not wrong?

[Velociryx]

He's your tyrant....use some of that brain power to figure it out, based on my (already stated ad nauseum) position.

Failing that, answer the question.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Why are you arguing about dictators?

Why am I meddling in this thread?

[Agathon]

He's your tyrant....use some of that brain power to figure it out, based on my (already stated ad nauseum) position.

I didn't say he was my tyrant. I didn't even say he was a good man, I just said that it was possible for a tyrant to enact just laws.

Answer the question of whether it is possible for a tyrant to enact just laws. Yes or no?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why are you arguing about dictators?

Personally, to try and understand Vel's views on fairness and justice.

Why am I meddling in this thread?

You're hella stupid?

[Velociryx]

LC - I'm not arguing the inherent justice or injustice of either system.

The discussion began with a debate on whether or not "fairness" and "justice" could be dictated to a societal group.

Ag has no problems with it.

I do.

For me...it does not matter how well intentioned the tyrant is...what matters is the degree of control his subjects have over said tyrant's will imposed over them.

If their only recourse is to kill him to effect change, then I would contend that there's a problem with the system.

This problem, however, does not manifest itself in democratic societies, because there are many avenues open to members of the society to effect change.

One need not march into Congress and start shooting, which seems to be pretty okay in Ag's world.

-=Vel=-

[aneeshm]

Agathorn - are you admitting that communism is akin to tyranny , judging by your defence of a tyrant's laws' justness or unjustness ?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
You're hella stupid?

That must be it.

[Agathon]

So you've said:

Yes...it is possible for a Tyrant to make a just law.

It is also possible for a democratic society to make an unjust law.

Since you admit these, you admit that the fact that it is freely chosen does not make a law just or unjust, nor does the fact that it is imposed by a tyrant.

But then you say:

That one is imposed upon them and one was freely chosen makes all the difference in the world.

But, you've just said in the first two quotes that whoever enacts it makes no difference to the justice of the law. So if there is a difference, it can't be a difference in the justice of the law.

You might want to say that a tyrant imposing a just law on a city is unjust. Indeed, you do say this:

The ACT of the imposition itself is immoral. Even if it is for their own "good." You see...we are not children. We are adults. We have free will.

But then it is hard to see why a tyrant imposing a just law is an immoral act. What matters with respect to laws is that they are just, not that they were enacted justly. The method of enaction adds nothing to the justice of the law, and all the beneficial effects flow from the justice of the law, not the intention of the tyrant.

If you want to say that only democratic enactions are just, then do you care more about the enaction or the law itself? If you care more about the enaction, then you must think it is sometimes better to have an unjust law than a just one, because you prefer just enactions to unjust ones. But that is around the wrong way, we value laws for their consequences, not for their origins.

[Agathon]

Agathorn - are you admitting that communism is akin to tyranny , judging by your defence of a tyrant's laws' justness or unjustness

No.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Velociryx
LC - I'm not arguing the inherent justice or injustice of either system.

The discussion began with a debate on whether or not "fairness" and "justice" could be dictated to a societal group.

Ag has no problems with it.

I do.

Really? Had I just jumped into the thread at this point, I'd read the above as saying that a democratically elected government enforcing democratically enacted laws is not OK with you.

Assuming that's not what you mean, it seems the only conclusion is that you are using "dictate" and/or "societal group" in meanings different from what I'd expect.

To concretize; how can you justify punishing thieves if dictating to them that theft is something you've got a problem with?

For me...it does not matter how well intentioned the tyrant is...what matters is the degree of control his subjects have over said tyrant's will imposed over them.

This again reads as opposition to autocracy in principle. I really cannot see any other reason to object to an enlightened despot - if there is, please tell me.

This problem, however, does not manifest itself in democratic societies, because there are many avenues open to members of the society to effect change.

You're assuming that change is necessary. Since you've already conceded that the tyrant can make just laws, you appear to be saying that an otherwise just system needs to be brought down just because it's autocratic. That position makes no sense unless you're opposed to autocracy on principle.