Tweet
LC :d:
-
Only feebs vote. -
The difference in a tyrant imposed law and a dermocratically imposed one is the ability to change it.
In a democracy I can rail against a law and effect change if I can get enough people to agree. If the tyrant listens to his people and efects change in the same manner then he's not really a tyrant now is he?
I would say that truly unjust laws are less likely in a democracy .You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto LuongoComment
-
No. You can revolt against the tyrant to change it. That's an ability to change it.The difference in a tyrant imposed law and a dermocratically imposed one is the ability to change it.
Secondly, the ability to change a law seems to have no bearing on whether or not that law is just. At least Vel can't seem to come up with a good reason why it does.Only feebs vote.Comment
-
Vel? .... Vel?Only feebs vote.Comment
-
I don't think the ability to overthrow a system should be a justification for that systemOriginally posted by Agathon
No. You can revolt against the tyrant to change it. That's an ability to change it.
Secondly, the ability to change a law seems to have no bearing on whether or not that law is just. At least Vel can't seem to come up with a good reason why it does.
and no, my ability to change the unjust law does not make it just. But the system itself permits if not encourages the fix to the problem. With the tyrant you have to overthrow the entire system to effect change.You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto LuongoComment
-
Is just/moral defined as the almost universal belief in a held precept? If so the likelihood of that precept being correctly codified is vastly improved when the participating decision makers are as large a sampling of the population as possible. Is it possible that an individual can do so, perhaps. Is the likelihood as great, IMO no.
Realize this is a contrarian arguement that Aggie is making as he has more than often times railed at the imposition of US just/moral stances against the world claiming their tyrannical/dictatorial approach."Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy CarterComment
-
I would say that truly unjust laws are less likely in a democracy .
That's a pragmatic argument for democracy, but not really relevant for the matters of principle we would appear to be discussing here.Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- ElokComment
-
I would agree, but that has no bearing on the justice of the laws themselves.I would say that truly unjust laws are less likely in a democracy.
So when Vel has spent large parts of the thread arguing that communism is unjust because it is enacted by a revolutionary junta, he has said nothing about whether or not communism is just. In fact whether or not it is established by a revolutionary junta, or a democracy or something else makes no difference and simply doesn't matter.Only feebs vote.Comment
-
Wasn't it you who claimed morality as a subjective. That implies that subjectivity is changing with time. Therefor the ability to modify the law is indeed part of the discussion.Originally posted by Agathon
Secondly, the ability to change a law seems to have no bearing on whether or not that law is just. At least Vel can't seem to come up with a good reason why it does."Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy CarterComment
-
That's true, but I have in mind the consequences. And have been proved right so far.he has more than often times railed at the imposition of US just/moral stances against the world claiming their tyrannical/dictatorial approach.Only feebs vote.Comment
-
No. That was Flubber.Wasn't it you who claimed morality as a subjective.Only feebs vote.Comment
-
To step back
I reject tyranny as an acceptable system . Partly thats because I think its only "fair" that the people have a say in their governance.
I accept democracy, with its flaws, as the only "fair" and acceptable system to me. Most people in Canada would accept democracy as "fair".
Ag does that make it "fair"-- as an absolute moral truth?You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto LuongoComment
-
Why? What if they enact unjust laws? Surely a tyrant who enacted just laws would be better, since justice is better than injustice.I reject tyranny as an acceptable system . Partly thats because I think its only "fair" that the people have a say in their governance.Only feebs vote.Comment
-
Ag answer my question first.
If 99% of people see Democracy as a just and fair system, does this become an objective truth?You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto LuongoComment
-
Vel was eating lunch with his benevolently tyrannical boss...thus the delay...
We're essentially speaking of two different, but closely related things here.
One is the creation of laws, be they just or unjust.
On this, I think we can agree. Justice is better than injustice.
The other matter is control.
With a tyrant (benevolent or not), control is limited to taking his head off to change the system.
With a democratic process....many avenues of change and control are open.
This is no less important than the quality of laws coming out of the system, and I would rather live under a democracy that makes its share of mistakes than a tyrant whose laws prove just more often than not.
-=Vel=-Comment
Comment