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

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
ok so fainess is subjective as I argued earlier

Fairness is a social standard. It changes from social group to social group. Within any given group, the standard of fairness may be considered to be objective, but from outside that standard is subjective. In other words, you can argue either position and be both right and wrong.

[Last Conformist]

Is it just me, or did Vel totally ignore my questions on page 13?

In addition, he keeps saying that "justice cannot be dictated". This, one would think, must mean that it's not acceptable for anyone to impose his standards of justice on anyone else. Yet he favours democracy. Someone explain to me how he is not rather blatantly contradicting himself.

[Velociryx]

LC - I may have....will go back and have a peek. The whole lunch-with-the-boss thing threw me off-kilter.

As to the apparent contradiction:

Democracy is an inclusive condition, allowing for all viewpoints to be expressed, and providing freedom to change the system if you find it not to your liking. Thus, it is not an imposition, because if you like, you are also free to ignore your civic duties. No biggie.

Totalitarianism, however, would not allow for any of the above...at least not in ANY historic example I have seen.

-=Vel=-

(off to page 13 with me!)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Democracy is an inclusive condition, allowing for all viewpoints to be expressed, and providing freedom to change the system if you find it not to your liking. Thus, it is not an imposition, because if you like, you are also free to ignore your civic duties. No biggie.

Democracy does none of those things. Athenian democracy could be very nasty to those it didn't like, including stoning someone to death for suggesting they put the Persian offering to a vote. If you didn't show up to the Agora (the public meeting hall) you could be fined, etc.

This is why democracy needs to be mitigated with protections for the politically weak.

[Velociryx]

Yep LC – sorry about that….you got temporarily lost in the shuffle when I went to lunch with the boss.

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

The thieves are a part of the society that made the laws against theft. They are free to attempt (tho incredibly unlikely to succeed) in convincing their countrymen to repeal any and all laws relating to thievery being a crime. They are also free to lobby as hard as they wish to, in order to minimize sentences FOR those crimes (again, with the easy admission that the probability for success is quite small). The point is, as citizens of the democratic system, they have a voice. They have a say. It is NOT the same as some guy in a Colonel’s uniform standing on a balcony and decreeing that “all theft will be punishable by death from this day forward!”

Also note that in the democratic system, the review system (courts, trials by a jury of your peers, etc), takes pains to make SURE they are, in fact guilty. Contrast this to being awakened in the middle of the night by the People’s Anti-Theft Division, Squad 3645-DD, and tossed in His Excellency’s jail for God-knows-how long.

However, once a crime has been committed, then it’s true…the hammer falls, but at least the criminals have been a part of the process, and are more likely to get fair treatment meted out by a democratized SYSTEM than by a Dictator, ruling via decree.

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.

If that’s what you wanna call it, then sure. I reject any political system that would curtail my personal freedoms. If there’s an “enlightened despot” out there in the world somewhere who would not do this…I don’t know…never had the experience, personally. Never even HEARD of such an example. Have you? (I mean, do you have one in mind? If so…tell me about him).

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.

The human condition is all about change. Of course change is necessary. Without change, stagnation results. Stagnation = (to borrow a phrase from Flubber), DoublePlusUnGood.

And yes…just because a tyrant passes the occasional just law makes him no less tyrannical. It just means he got one right for a change.

-=Vel=-

PS to Che: Do we live in an Athenian Democracy, or do you suppose that perhaps there's a reason it died out in WampumWayBack BC? But yes, I agree with you in principle....those expressed protections are (sometimes...not always, I would argue, although for no reason in particular other than to leave the door open...I have no example in my mind) required as an extra "layer" of the process.

[Ned]

I don't think a law is necessarily unfair or fair depending upon whether it is tryannically imposed or not. The primary purpose of fair law is to define the rules of private conduct so as to prevent abuses and to protect the validity of contract. When it comes to government benefits, they should be available to all and adjusted according to need. When it comes to government burderns (taxes) they should be born as equally as possible by all, but may be fairly adjusted according to ability to pay.

These are simple rules. If one strays to far from them, one gets into oppression, even in democracies.

[Velociryx]

To LC - And in case you're wondering...YES! I FRIGGINDESPISE the Patriot Acts....

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Posted by Vel

Posted by LC
how can you justify punishing thieves if dictating to them that theft is something you've
got a problem with?

The thieves are a part of the society that made the laws against theft. They are free to attempt (tho incredibly unlikely to succeed) in convincing their countrymen to repeal any and all laws relating to thievery being a crime. They are also free to lobby as hard as they
wish to, in order to minimize sentences FOR those crimes (again, with the easy admission that the probability for success is quite small). The point is, as citizens of the democratic system, they have a voice. They have a say. It is NOT the same as some guy in a
Colonel’s uniform standing on a balcony and decreeing that “all theft will be punishable by death from this day forward!”

It took LC to bring you to your senses. You might try opening your mind to someone who’s point of view is significantly different from yours, not just those who have more similar beliefs. So if we democratically create a law that requires all citizens to share equally in the work load and recieve equal pay for it, do you still think that’s an injustice in your opinion?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Velociryx
how can you justify punishing thieves if dictating to them that theft is something you've got a problem with?

The thieves are a part of the society that made the laws against theft. They are free to attempt (tho incredibly unlikely to succeed) in convincing their countrymen to repeal any and all laws relating to thievery being a crime. They are also free to lobby as hard as they wish to, in order to minimize sentences FOR those crimes (again, with the easy admission that the probability for success is quite small). The point is, as citizens of the democratic system, they have a voice. They have a say. It is NOT the same as some guy in a Colonel’s uniform standing on a balcony and decreeing that “all theft will be punishable by death from this day forward!”

Also note that in the democratic system, the review system (courts, trials by a jury of your peers, etc), takes pains to make SURE they are, in fact guilty. Contrast this to being awakened in the middle of the night by the People’s Anti-Theft Division, Squad 3645-DD, and tossed in His Excellency’s jail for God-knows-how long.

However, once a crime has been committed, then it’s true…the hammer falls, but at least the criminals have been a part of the process, and are more likely to get fair treatment meted out by a democratized SYSTEM than by a Dictator, ruling via decree.

I'm starting to agree with with Spiff's comment on emotional language.

Moreover, your above argument certainly seems to stand in open contradiction to your statement that justice cannot be dictated; you're fine with the democracy dictating to the thieves that theft is wrong.

About the only way out I can see is the utilitarian one; violating the thieves' right not to have justice dictated to them is a lesser evil than have theft rampaging unchecked. Is this what you have in mind? If so, why doesn't it apply equally to the dictator? (If I'm allowed some emotional rhetorics myself, I for one would rather live under a dictator who punishes theft than under one who doesn't.)

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.

If that’s what you wanna call it, then sure. I reject any political system that would curtail my personal freedoms. If there’s an “enlightened despot” out there in the world somewhere who would not do this…I don’t know…never had the experience, personally. Never even HEARD of such an example. Have you? (I mean, do you have one in mind? If so…tell me about him).

Again, I'm arguing principles here. The fact there's never been any enlightened despots (or enlightened democrats, in any absolute sense, for that matter) doesn't mean debating them is without interest.

As for a political system that does not curtail your personal freedoms, that sounds like a contradiction in terms. Restricting what people are allowed to do is what political systems do. That's why we have them.

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.

The human condition is all about change. Of course change is necessary. Without change, stagnation results. Stagnation = (to borrow a phrase from Flubber), DoublePlusUnGood.

And yes…just because a tyrant passes the occasional just law makes him no less tyrannical. It just means he got one right for a change.

Are you entirely unaware of the practice of discussing hypotheticals to more clearly see the core of an argument?

You can oppose autocracy because it's in practice prone to be unjust. You can oppose autocracy because you consider it inherently evil. But you cannot reasonably oppose autocracy because it necessarily is unjust, because that does not follow from the definition of autocracy. Nonetheless, the last is the position you appear to be taking.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Velociryx
To LC - And in case you're wondering...YES! I FRIGGINDESPISE the Patriot Acts....

-=Vel=-

Excuse me, but what does that have to do with anything? Why would I be wondering?

[Velociryx]

Kid, I've not spent even one moment out of my senses, but to answer your question direct, you are correct.

If the democratic society that I live in passed such a law, I would still strongly disagree with it (for many reasons), but because I have a say IN the society, I would accept it, and work from within to change it back.

Of course, that's not at all what you've been advocating.

-=Vel=-
(Dreaming of Counter-Revolution)

[Velociryx]

LC

Where did I get all emotional in my reply to you?

your above argument certainly seems to stand in open contradiction to your statement that justice cannot be dictated; you're fine with the democracy dictating to the thieves that theft is wrong.

If you have a voice in the government that establishes the rules you live under, then you cannot rightly say that you are being dictated to.....at least....not in any way that I can see from here. Again, do you have something in mind?

As for a political system that does not curtail your personal freedoms, that sounds like a contradiction in terms. Restricting what people are allowed to do is what political systems do. That's why we have them.

Yes....again, Ben Franklin: My freedom to flail my arms about stops at the tip of your nose. Fine and good. I can do as I will, so long as it does not impact you. If my democratic society passes laws that constrain this further, you can bet I'll fight against it via the established system (and thus have my say). If it passes anyway, I will abide (having HAD my say), and will continue to lobby for the return of my freedom, using the various legal means at my disposal. I am well aware that certain restrictions on personal freedom are necessary for society to function at all, yes. And I don't have a beef with not being able to run around naked with a raw fish in my mouth, cutting small dogs who get in my path, and kicking children (to provide a suitably rediculous example).

As to opposition of autocracy....I oppose it because rule by fiat does not...DOES NOT constitute a just society. A society in which the citizens OF that society do not have any say or recourse (short of killing the autocratic ruler) does not a fair and just system of governance make.

Excuse me, but what the hell does that have to do with anything?

It has a whole lot to do with having to give up increasing amounts of freedom for precious little gain.

-=Vel=-

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious



You plainly contradict yourself here. Taxes are unfair but fair?

No contradiction at all. I accept that the existence of a society and good government have partially led to my income so I do not dispute that it is appropriate that they should take some portion. That they take more proportionally from me than the proportion of services is ok with me as it is part of creating a social safety net that involves minimum levels of income and care for us all. The appropriate portion to go to the government is the subject of most elections as parties propose taxes that go up or down and the programs they can fund.

Its called democracy .. . its imperfect but I like it

Originally posted by Kidicious


Eating bananas on a deserted island isn't going to make anything fair.

No if you have made everything "fair" according to your definitions and your perfect world and all the populace but me agrees with you, PLEASE PLEASE let me leave. I wouldn'r be productive to you anyway so let me trade in my prior assets and run away fro the horror you see as a perfect society. ( Note that even though I would abhor your society I wouldn't attempt to overthrow it if people were freely choosing it-- )

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Democracy does none of those things. Athenian democracy could be very nasty to those it didn't like, including stoning someone to death for suggesting they put the Persian offering to a vote. If you didn't show up to the Agora (the public meeting hall) you could be fined, etc.

This is why democracy needs to be mitigated with protections for the politically weak.

Agreed-- Thats why I also like a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and an independent judiciary

[Velociryx]

Flubber....if it's a global implementation, as desired, then they would have no place to deport you to...

-=Vel=-