Tweet
If 99% of people see Democracy as a just and fair system, does this become an objective truth?
-
No. That is the fallacy of majority belief.Only feebs vote. -
Oh I'll answer you anyway
The tyrant would never be better, he would just have better/more just laws.
I see this premise as highly unlikely since my view of better and fairer laws would of necessity require free elections, free press, right to dissent, right to amend laws according to the will of the majority, a codification of basic rights etc etc.
If the tyrant did all that, sure he's better . . .. but he's no longer a tyrant as he has passed laws stripping himself of all powerYou don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto LuongoComment
-
You say that the enaction of laws is "no less important" than the quality of the laws, yet only the quality of the laws affects us.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.
You say that you would rather live in a democracy that makes mostly unjust laws, than a tyranny which makes mostly just laws.
Hence you think injustice is preferable to justice.Only feebs vote.Comment
-
But the tyrant's society would be better. Which would you rather live in: the just society, or the unjust society?The tyrant would never be better, he would just have better/more just laws.Only feebs vote.Comment
-
Just because you are required to pay for your benefits doesn't mean that it's unfair.Originally posted by Flubber
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 notI drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Originally posted by Agathon
No. That is the fallacy of majority belief.
ok so fainess is subjective as I argued earlier LOL.
You argued that fairness could be factual and knowable. I agreed that in many cases you can get widespread agreement on what is fair in a situation but there are many cases of substantial disagreement.
So by your answer I take it that if even 99% of people know or believe something , that is not sufficient to reach your standard for an objective truth since they can all be mistaken and only someone else ( you perhaps?) have the ability to see what is truly fair and just.
Oh and I do agree that 99% of people can be mistaken about something. Its just massively more frequent that the 1% have it "wrong".You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto LuongoComment
-
Why? He doesn't have to pass electoral laws. As was said earlier, the method by which laws are enacted is independent of their value.If the tyrant did all that, sure he's better . . .. but he's no longer a tyrant as he has passed laws stripping himself of all powerOnly feebs vote.Comment
-
Ag, you are beginning to sound a lot like Kid....you been working the Hooka today?
You say that the enaction of laws is "no less important" than the quality of the laws, yet only the quality of the laws affects us.
Is that a fact?
So the fact that under one set of conditions you are free to affect change in the system itself (and, by extension, in things that affect your daily life), has NO BEARING on your daily life *in* that society?
Interesting.
-=Vel=-Comment
-
Um... no. Because a majority of people believe something, it doesn't make it true. But that doesn't make it subjective either.ok so fainess is subjective as I argued earlier LOL.
In the Late Middle Ages a majority of people believed in a geocentric cosmos. That didn't make it true and nor did it imply that the nature of the cosmos was a subjective matter.Only feebs vote.Comment
-
Why not?Originally posted by Ned
Just a small comment here. One can see Kid's thinking running throughout socialist dogma: equality of results based on denial of freedom of contract and "progressive" taxation. Nothing is "fair" about socialism if "fair" is understood to mean to be getting equal value for what one gives up.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
I don't understand what you are talking about-- are you talking economics or war?Originally posted by Kidicious
Just because you are required to pay for your benefits doesn't mean that it's unfair.
If its economics, I accept levels of taxation on both income and property as well as consumption. These largely go to provide services and effect a partial redistribution of the wealth to bring pople up to acceptable standards of living.
If its war, I have no idea what you are trying to say.You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto LuongoComment
-
It has no bearing on the justice of that society, since your freedom can be used for good or ill, to create just or unjust laws. What has bearing on your life is the quality of the laws. The same law can be passed by a tyrant as by a parliament and the effects will be the same.So the fact that under one set of conditions you are free to affect change in the system itself (and, by extension, in things that affect your daily life), has NO BEARING on your daily life *in* that society?
You've as much as admitted that it has no bearing. If you change now, you will be contradicting your own statements.Only feebs vote.Comment
-
The green light to write a half a page of garbage. I wouldn't do that to those contributing to this thread in vain.Originally posted by Velociryx
I observe that Kid got real quiet, too....
Re-considering giving me the green light, Kiddero? Your call.
-=Vel=-I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
I reject your position, Ag.
For me, personal freedom is the more important of the two.
To juxtapose Ben Franklin, my freedom to flail my arms about stops at the tip of your nose, and not one hair before.
Attempt to take that away by installing a Dictator, no matter how enlightened or well-intentioned, and I'll be the biggest problem child your regieme has ever known.
So yes. Give me a democratic process by which I can affect change any day over a tyrant, even when they make mistakes (and by the way, a democratic society passing unjust laws--which they do now and again--does not automatically mean that the "majority of their laws are unjust" as you attempted to cheese in earlier. It means that people are...people, and as such, prone to make mistakes.
One man declaring "justice" by fiat is much more likely to make mistakes than a body of learned individuals, democratically elected, so I'll take my chances, thanks.
And that is anything BUT contradicting my position.
-=Vel=-Comment
-
What's the difference? If you recieve a benefit you need to pay for it if there is a cost associated with it. Do you agree?Originally posted by Flubber
I don't understand what you are talking about-- are you talking economics or war?I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
Comment