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

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
I agreed with you pretty much all the way.

That's because we have been conditioned to agree that only a system where the governed have input and the ability to change the rules can be (but isn't necessarily) just. My definition recognizes that what is just depends on what people consider just, and that they can (and did for millenia) consider the absolute rule of a single man (and the occasional woman) just.

Justice should not be individually defined, either. Aileen Wornous did not consider her execution just, though she murdered at least seven men. She claimed to have been justified. Individual codes of justice often lead to acts of revenge, which refquently piral out of control and into escalating feuds.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Do you not do things that really piss you off sometimes, things that in retrospect you say to yourself, I'm an idiot? Is it possible that you could be tricked into voting for someone who turns out not to have your best interests at heart (like that never happens in America).

Is it possible that there might be times when democracy might not be the best idea, say, Iraq following the overthrow of Hussein (in spite of the U.S. ruling in a pretty boneheaded way at first)?

To the first issue, democracy is self corrcting in that if a person is despised then there is an opportunity to get rid of them.

As for Iraq-- good question. I believe in democracy now for the west since we have viable democracies and now have a history of them. With respect to other nations, there have been some notable failures of democracies over the years, but I still see democracy as the ultimate goal. When such democracy is established is a question that will have a different answer for every nation.

But I support Iraq's right to a democracy even if the elected rulers espoused cutting all ties with the west. They have that right. As a nation they have every right to self-determination.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Velociryx
PS to LC - Oh, and by the way...are you telling me that the scenario I outlined in my "emotional response" regarding getting tossed into jail for an unspecified amount of time and/or awakened in the dead of night is an unheard of methodology in Autocratic societies?

No, I'm not.

Actually, I'm slightly surprised at the fact that despite the mountains of empirical evidence that autocracy is a bad idea, people still feel the need to construct theoretical cases against it. To make it worse, those theoretical cases are, more often than not, either fallacious or circular.

[Velociryx]

LC - because you have a chance to affect a societal change via legal means (and without killing everybody currently in power). The system sometimes produces results you don't like. But it still allows you to express your views and work from within it to change things, so at worst, you can say it's a temporary defeat (tho admittedly, going back to your theft example, it's prolly not something you can win a lot of hearts and minds over to change).

Still, the mechanism that MAKES it different is the power you hold to make changes in YOUR society.

You are denied even that in an Autocratic regieme.

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Che - Yep...I've admitted already that democracies can make mistakes, but you know something? I'll take an imperfect democracy ANY DAY over an 'as-close-to-perfect-as-humanly-possible Dictatorship.

I would also, but that's a value judgement and not an objective argument against the possibility of justice coming from a dictatorship.

Any day (cos lets face it, he'll die one day, and his kid might be a total f*ckup). And case in point...Dubya.

Not all dictatorships are handed down from father to son. The Communist dictatorships, with the lone exception of North Korea, were not. If Fidel dies before Raul, I expect that it will be another case of Commie nepotism, but those are the only two cases of which I'm aware. Anyway, this isn't an argument against dicatorship, it's an argument against a specific form of transferal of power. It has nothing to do with what is just or is not.

[Velociryx]

Well....yes and no, to the value judgement thing.

See...I value participation IN making the rules that govern me even more than I value the rules themselves.

I accept on faith that, for the most part, the rules my representatives come up with will be good ones, and that the bad ones will be weeded out in time.

Because I value my ability to participate so much (or to choose not to, in the case of the last presidential election--I wasn't about to vote for either of those idiots!--then no matter how wonderful a guy the dictator might be, he's still denying me my participation.

For that reason, I must decline.

-=Vel=-

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That's because we have been conditioned to agree that only a system where the governed have input and the ability to change the rules can be (but isn't necessarily) just. My definition recognizes that what is just depends on what people consider just, and that they can (and did for millenia) consider the absolute rule of a single man (and the occasional woman) just.

Justice should not be individually defined, either. Aileen Wornous did not consider her execution just, though she murdered at least seven men. She claimed to have been justified. Individual codes of justice often lead to acts of revenge, which refquently piral out of control and into escalating feuds.

Fine- I see nothing to disagree with here.

I can accept that I have been conditioned to believe in democracy and that earlier, people were conditioned to believe in the divine rights of monarchs.

If where you are headed is that it is possible that a majority of peple might view tyrannical rule as just, I can accept that slim possibility (in current canadian society as an example).

If the conclusion is a "legitimate" tyranny . .. . does this system allow for the people to change their mind about their ruler?( without having to violently overthrow a ruler with all the resources of the state at his disposal

[Last Conformist]

If I live under an autocracy, perhaps I can convince the autocrat to change his rules. Y'know, it might even be easier to convince a single man than millions of voters.

I do not have the power to change the law in a democracy - if I had, it wouldn't be a democracy.

[Kidlicious]

Posted by Flubber
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-- )

You really expect us to believe that you will go to a deserted island? More appealing to
our emotions I suspect.

Exactly how many brain surgeries are equal to 8 hours of ditch digging anyway?

Oh and in demand services like the Intensive Care Unit, are you going to keep it
constantly staffed at maximum levels (very inefficient since it can be double what
isusually needed) or are you going to staff it at regular levels and if so, what do you do
when more people are needed ( note these are specialized skills)? having someone work
an extra shift leaves you with 2 apparent choices

1. pay someone to work "extra"
2. don't pay them

Either would be a problem for you since option one gives someone extra stuff while 2
would demand extra work .

I’m not an absolutist. An honest effort has to be made to be fair to everyone. The effort
in capitalism is weak. Reason: People ranting and raving about freedom always equaling
justice. The result is some poor smucks being treated poorly, and people saying they have
a choice so screw them.

[Velociryx]

LC - that would ONLY be possible *if* you could even gain access to the Dictator.

If we're still talking about the thief example, then realistically speaking, unless you're just the best cat burglar of all time (in which case, how'd you get caught?!), you'll likely never get within a hundred miles of the person you need to talk to.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Kid, your emotions are showing again....

-=Vel=-
(hey, since everybody ELSE can bring it up... )

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

I’m not an absolutist. An honest effort has to be made to be fair to everyone.

What does this mean in the context of extra work? If the state needs extra work does the person get extra pay or not ??

OH and would that fairness include paying more to people that worked harder or more (without stripping them of the fruits of their labour by taking more stuff away later in a wholescale wealth redistribution?)

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

You really expect us to believe that you will go to a deserted island? More appealing to
our emotions I suspect.

No but I would go to wherever my skills were valued. If there were no free societies left, I think the deserted island is preferable to what you propose. At least on the island I get to benefit if I work harder or smarter

[Velociryx]

He's obviously scared of you tho....and suspicious. Of the heinous damage you could do to the system. Otherwise, there'd be no need to ask the question....interesting.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

homeward bound...will rejoin the festivities later...

-=Vel=-

(capitalists: Don't exploit anyone without me!
communitsts: Don't forcibly re-educate anyone without me!)

Was that equal opportunity enough?