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

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Agathon


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.

You've as much as admitted that it has no bearing. If you change now, you will be contradicting your own statements.

OTOH, you've admitted that democratic societies are more likely to pass just laws. I fail to see why pragmatism is not allowed in these discussions.

[Velociryx]

The green light to write a half a page of garbage. I wouldn't do that to those contributing to this thread in vain.

Kid, that's the amusing part...it wouldn't take half a page. Not much over a quarter, actually. I can type small, and squeeze them all in, in that amount of space....

-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

For me, personal freedom is the more important of the two.

So, for you, freedom has priority over justice. But the tyrant may well allow a great deal of personal freedom, whereas a democracy may choose to restrict it (perhaps the majority are religious maniacs).

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.

It doesn't matter. You still haven't given a reason to prefer an unjust democracy over a just tyrant. Or a democracy that tramples personal freedoms over a tyranny that allows its citizens more latitude.

[Agathon]

OTOH, you've admitted that democratic societies are more likely to pass just laws. I fail to see why pragmatism is not allowed in these discussions.

Because it is irrelevant to the justice of the laws themselves. Vel has been complaining that laws imposed by a revolutionary junta are by that very fact unjust. Yet he has found himself mired in contradictions when he has tried to defend that statement. Now he's tried to seek refuge in freedom: but exactly the same argument applies.

The argument should really be about the justice of the proposed laws, not the irrelevancy of how they come about.

[Velociryx]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record:

Living in the hypothetical unjust democracy you speak of would mean living under conditions whereby I could exert a degree of political control, and work with the system to affect change. In case you're just having a tough time with comprehension today (this being about the fourth time I've covered the same ground), the reason that this is preferable is because MY LIFE...my destiny, my future, is, at least to some degree, in my hands (as opposed to being in the hands of the tyrant).

And no matter how much latitude and personal freedom the dictator gave his subjects (historially, not much, unless you have a specific example in mind), I would forever chaffe under what limits I found, and secretly plot against him to change them. In short, you system would turn me into a killer in order to gain the freedom I seek.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Ag, I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about. Vel's not budging from his position.

You can keep trying all day long if you wanna, but it's not going to change my mind, and for all your doubletalk, yep, I'd not be surprised in the least if watching the dizzying display has caused me to misspeak here and there.

But, you keep putting different spins on it, and I'll keep giving you the same answer, if that makes you feel any better, 'k?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
According to you , it is OK for those in they system not to trade with those outside because it sould be unjust if the system followed by those outside came to prevail . But what if those people who were in capitalist were very much in thy system , paying taxes to it , and contributing to the system itself ?

They don't contribute to the system. They are merely outsiders making deals with the system. They don't pay taxes, and their work does not contribute to the system. The people inside the sytem work to contribute to the things which the system provides. Their labor is taxed in a way, because it allows the govt to provide the needed things like roads.

And is it justice if those same people who contributed to the system and actually helped further its interests are forced out of work or forced ( because of unemployment , which the state is supposed to prevent ) to work at lower wages ( the state pays less , remember ) ?

No, they shouldn't be forced out of the system. That's another issue that I'm sure we don't disagree on.

I'm guessing that you missed my previous post saying that the business pays ( comparatively ) hefty taxes and contributes to various local government programs . The workers also pay taxes .

There are no taxes in such a system. It is worked out so that your pay is lower so that resources can be devoted to things like roads.

[Agathon]

Living in the hypothetical unjust democracy you speak of would mean living under conditions whereby I could exert a degree of political control, and work with the system to affect change. In case you're just having a tough time with comprehension today (this being about the fourth time I've covered the same ground), the reason that this is preferable is because MY LIFE...my destiny, my future, is, at least to some degree, in my hands (as opposed to being in the hands of the tyrant).

And no matter how much latitude and personal freedom the dictator gave his subjects (historially, not much, unless you have a specific example in mind), I would forever chaffe under what limits I found, and secretly plot against him to change them. In short, you system would turn me into a killer in order to gain the freedom I seek.

You sound like a broken record because you continue to contradict yourself.

Exactly the same argument can be used to chafe against a democracy that restricts freedom and in which you have little prospect of convincing the others. Let's say this democracy mandates religious practices because 75% of them belong to some weird cult. In fact, in some cases it would probably be easier to persuade a tyrant than a fanatical mob.

In any case, what would be the point of trying to overthrow a just tyrant? If his laws are just, what is the objection? It would seem that you merely seek to replace them with unjust laws.

You've spent the thread arguing a hopeless position. Either argue against the justice of the communist system, or give up.

[Velociryx]

Because it is irrelevant to the justice of the laws themselves. Vel has been complaining that laws imposed by a revolutionary junta are by that very fact unjust.

Justice cannot be dictated.



-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Agathon


Because it is irrelevant to the justice of the laws themselves.

But it is not irrelevant to the societal design absent known leaders who we think just or unjust. And as with all these Cap/Com discussion, we really are talking societal design. Further even if we assume a one of kind super uber dictator who creates just laws, the liklihood of that being sustained across multiple generations is miniscule. Given that you, Vel and I agree the potential for creating just laws is maximized in a Democratic society (even if we can't agree to a definition of just or moral ), why the need to defend the infrequent odd instance of happenstance wherein a tyrant passes just laws.

[Velociryx]

How do you figure, Ag, that I am contradicting myself.

By saying that personal freedoms are important, or by saying that fairness and justice just can't spring up becauase you, as the big party boss man says so?

Spiffor actually made sense when he spoke on this topic.

To date, you have not.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Justice cannot be dictated.



-=Vel=-

If you believe that justice equals freedom then you don't believe in laws at all.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


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?

It matters because it matters how I receive a benefit.

If I am downtown and some lout wants to steal my wallet and a good samaritan stops him, I have receive a benefit but did not pay-- should I?

Likewise I stop someone mugging a little old lady-- I expect no payment even though she benefitted.

A group of volunteers clean my street . . . a couple of days back I mowed my neighbors lawn and in winter I may shovel his walk-- I expect nothing for this-- My labour is mine to give as I choose-- maybe he'll do me a favour sometime but maybe not.

Economics-- I pay taxes to pay for the benefits of the society I live in and I actually pay more taxes than most people although I don't use much of the services at present-- so right now I pay more than my "share" and I accept that as fair since it is part of creating a safety net if I DO get sick or whatever.

War-- some of my taxes go to pay for the war, and I'll live with that too although perhaps I might protest or attempt to end our involvement---but my willingness to "pay" for that war with my own life??-nope not unless I am freely able to decide that the cause was worth it to me.

My personal effort and identity exists outside the existence of any state. if I don't like my state, I can always leave I guess. Maybe sail out to some deserted island and eat bananas -- if Kid will let me leave of course

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Agathon




The argument should really be about the justice of the proposed laws, not the irrelevancy of how they come about.

You see my problem is my view that the law that says that I can't freely vote is unjust.

oh and that law taking away freedom of the press
and that law taking away my right to vote for people that have actual power to change the laws

etc etc

You can't have just laws and a tyrant. To me the two are incompatible

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


It matters because it matters how I receive a benefit.

If I am downtown and some lout wants to steal my wallet and a good samaritan stops him, I have receive a benefit but did not pay-- should I?

Do you feel no obligation to him whatsoever?

Economics-- I pay taxes to pay for the benefits of the society I live in and I actually pay more taxes than most people although I don't use much of the services at present-- so right now I pay more than my "share" and I accept that as fair since it is part of creating a safety net if I DO get sick or whatever.

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

War-- some of my taxes go to pay for the war, and I'll live with that too although perhaps I might protest or attempt to end our involvement---but my willingness to "pay" for that war with my own life??-nope not unless I am freely able to decide that the cause was worth it to me.

We are talking about people who know it is very important to fight the war, but want other people to go in harms way instead of you. You admitted that there would be such people.

My personal effort and identity exists outside the existence of any state. if I don't like my state, I can always leave I guess. Maybe sail out to some deserted island and eat bananas -- if Kid will let me leave of course

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