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

[Velociryx]

Ah.

Then there is the key difference, and proof positive that we really were talking about two different things.

Yes. Enforcement of that which has been determined to be fair (by whatever methodology) will be (more-or-less) absolute. (as we all know, there are certain subsets of people in any society for whom the law simply does not apply to....unfortunate, but that's the reality)

And I'm not disagreeing with that.

I'm not even *talking* about that, actually.

I'm talking about the act of establishing what is fair and what is not.

Dictatorial decree is not the way to go about deciding such matters.

That you seem to think it is, speaks volumes about the underlying nature of the system you propose.

-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

Dictatorial decree is not the way to go about deciding such matters.

Why not?

Let's say that Socrates becomes the tyrant of Athens. He has a choice over which laws to make. Shall he make just ones or not? It's perfectly possible for him to make just laws.

There's no necessary connection between the means by which a law is instituted and its justice. Both tyrannies and democracies may have laws forbidding murder - in that case the law is the same. How can one be just and the other unjust?

[Velociryx]

Lots to reply to, so I'll take them one at a time:

Spiffor: The reason I make that assumption (the "head honcho" running Ag's Utopia) is because that is all the information Ag has given me. All he has said is that fairness will be dictated. No mention of judicial review, or mechanisms for change. Only dictation.

Now...from my perspective, one who dictates is...pretty much in charge of things.

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

In the absence of any refutation on that point by the Agster, I assume it stands. (it has for two pages anyway). And because, per your comments earlier, I'm trying extra hard not to misrepresent Ag, so am not commenting on what MIGHT be, but only what has been openly stated--less chance to misrepresent.

Ag: 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.

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

The same cannot be said of the democratic society, and THAT is the telling point.

One is by fiat.

One is evolutionary, and subject to a greater degree of control by the people who must live their lives UNDER said definitions.

-=Vel=-

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Velociryx
In the absence of any refutation on that point by the Agster, I assume it stands. (it has for two pages anyway).

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.

And because, per your comments earlier, I'm trying extra hard not to misrepresent Ag, so am not commenting on what MIGHT be, but only what has been openly stated--less chance to misrepresent.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Aggie,

I thought you were strongly against an authoritarian implementation of communism. Why the desire to argue the (de)merits of a police state now?

IIRC you were in advocacy of a future society of that relied on articifical intelligence to guide the future of man. If so, how would those algorithms be codified or moreover how would you envision the decision to empower the AI? (Is this an instance of only those coders being party members?)

[Velociryx]

Hiyas, Og!

And Spiff....based on what we know so far, why do I get the sinking feeling that I'm not gonna enjoy Ag's version of the Utopia any more than Kid's?

-=Vel=-

[Flubber]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Agathon
[quote]If they are "fair' the vast majority will accept their legitimacy. Fairness itself remains a subjective concept.

No one really believes that. Everyone thinks that their version of fairness is the right one. And there are norms of debate when it comes to ethical notions like justice - it's amenable to rational debate.

I'm not sure what you are debating here. While everyone may have different concepts of fairness, there will be much commonality. If results or laws are viewed as fair by massive majorities, they will generally be accepted as legitimate.

Originally posted by Agathon


It doesn't matter if vast numbers of people accept the way a society is run, it would still be possible to have two such societies with different norms of justice. It is still an open question as to whether either is just, if we take "just" in the sense it is used by normal people.

Again I agree with you-- If my society is run one way and all my people are happy with it and another society is run another way and THOSE people are happy with it, I have no issue with it. In fact, anyone in my society that wishes to join another is free to do so. they are also free to try to convince the folks in my society of the merits of the other way and if enough agree, we will try it out . . . But if enough of us don't like it, we can swing things back again.

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


It is patently obvious that fairness is subjective. The whole basis of thie thread was kidicious with his assertions that it is not "fair" for one person to earn more money than another or to have more "stuff" than another. He appears to hold this belief strongly that this is unfair. I see it as fair but do find his proposed measures to be unfair as I see them as restricting personal freedoms to an extent I find unacceptable.

[Velociryx]

Flubber!

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
To Kidicious - please tell me the purpose of a state under your system .

Give me a moment please. It's 8am here.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Give me a moment please. It's 8am here.

Ahh no wonder . .. you live on the "left coast"

[Velociryx]

On a roll this morning, I see!

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sikander


More like,

Kid: I like Rage Against the Machine because I relate emotionally to their lyrics, but I'm too stupid to do a simple thought experiment, or even follow someone else's.

That's real nice Sikander. I'm responding to people. Vel is just being ridiculous here. Why don't you go debate Fez for days on end?

[Velociryx]

Am I?

Being rediculous here?

I'm attempting to understand the system YOU are proposing, and what it would mean to live under it.

Can YOU think of another methodology of doing that, besides asking questions about it?

If so...please enlighten.

Perhaps I should adopt your debate style and use it on you for a while....yes, I think I'll do that...hold on...

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Vel is just being ridiculous here.

I don't understand. That sounds like you are being very elitist.



-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

I just want what is fair, and your plan does not sound very fair to me.

-=Vel=-

(/kid mode)