The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
I don't think GWB is a real fundy, he's just a puppet of his neo-conservative party mostly - no right-thinking man who had a real cause would make such flip flops and contradictions and mistakes in his speech. Such mistakes only happen when what you say isn't what you truly believe. He's just been instructed to appeal to the conservative side of the US.
Neocons aren't religious fundies. They're seperate groups.
Give me a policy that would give a small benefit to 99% and charge 1% a small amount.
Ok, how about taking away some funding from Aid to Dependant Children or something like that and using that money to fund something else or reduce taxes for everyone else.
The Theory of Justice would definetly reject it, because you are making the least advantage members of society worse off.
That example won't work. The cost to the children is at least equal to (and most probably far greater than) the benefit that others recieve. You have to give me a theory where the cost to the minority is very small and the overall benefit to the majority is very large.
You said that the minorities are screwed in a system where the powerfull get to determine which rights people will have, but that the powerfull sometimes feel guilty and grant the minorities rights. When the powerfull do so, aren't they just doing what the Rawlsian model suggests?
Rights in Rawls' work is a totally different inquiry than the maximin. I don't see anything wrong with his ideas on political rights, but then again that isn't something he created (it's more of a Lockian model, if anything). He does say that people don't go into the original position with any rights and rights are formed from the contractual relationship, which is unlike Locke, but not entirely new. His new ideas spring from his maximin which arises from a original position with a veil of ignorance. The ideas on political rights were well developed before him.
That's not the way I interpret it. I interpret it to mean that people should have such rights that they would agree to having behind the veil of ignorance. The maximin is just an assumption that he made about the results that people would hypothetically make.
And the Rawlsian model proposes the maximin because people fear they'll be the abject poor. The powerful who give rights aren't doing so because one day they fear they'll be poor so they want those rights to protect them! If they ever get overthrown, they'll be dead or will go into exile anyway.
But if they grant the poor rights which benefit them, aren't they doing the same thing that they would be doing behind the veil?
I'm starting to see that Agathon was right. you are really just a conservative.
Aggie called me a classical liberal on the first page.
Oh well, you also said that you have a tendency to follow Burke. That's what I was refering to.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
The cost to the children is at least equal to (and most probably far greater than) the benefit that others recieve. You have to give me a theory where the cost to the minority is very small and the overall benefit to the majority is very large.
Not if you take $1 from each child. The cost to child is small and the benefits can be potentially large.
That's not the way I interpret it. I interpret it to mean that people should have such rights that they would agree to having behind the veil of ignorance. The maximin is just an assumption that he made about the results that people would hypothetically make.
But the point is that those rights are also agreed to without the veil of ignorance, in a simple social contract theory. So then, what is the point of the veil of ignorance? The veil of ignorance is there so that people don't know their class therefore would agree to a maximin.
His whole veil of ignorance is simply an attempt to get to his maximin.
But if they grant the poor rights which benefit them, aren't they doing the same thing that they would be doing behind the veil?
But the point is that the veil isn't needed to get there. You have to ask why is the veil needed. What is Rawls trying to prove with it?
I already said I have no problem with his ideas of political rights. His theory on that is a simple social contract, which would have happened with or without a veil of ignorance.
Now, my justification for rights is a bit different than a social contract idea (mostly that they come from those in power and constant use after that makes it become legitimate and justified).
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
The cost to the children is at least equal to (and most probably far greater than) the benefit that others recieve. You have to give me a theory where the cost to the minority is very small and the overall benefit to the majority is very large.
Not if you take $1 from each child. The cost to child is small and the benefits can be potentially large.
Those children are already disadvantaged in an unfair system and you want to take food out of their mouths? Of course that doesn't fit into the Theory of Justice. If that's why you reject the model then you don't believe in justice at all.
That's not the way I interpret it. I interpret it to mean that people should have such rights that they would agree to having behind the veil of ignorance. The maximin is just an assumption that he made about the results that people would hypothetically make.
But the point is that those rights are also agreed to without the veil of ignorance, in a simple social contract theory. So then, what is the point of the veil of ignorance? The veil of ignorance is there so that people don't know their class therefore would agree to a maximin.
No they are not agreed to as though they would behind the veil of ignorance. What the hell would he have any motivation to come up with that theory if that were true.
His whole veil of ignorance is simply an attempt to get to his maximin.
Well Yeah. It's not called justice for nothing.
I already said I have no problem with his ideas of political rights. His theory on that is a simple social contract, which would have happened with or without a veil of ignorance.
You absolutely do have a problem with it. And your idea of what rights people would agree to is completely insane.
Now, my justification for rights is a bit different than a social contract idea (mostly that they come from those in power and constant use after that makes it become legitimate and justified).
That's just plain old conservatism. It's nothing like the Theory of Justice at all.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Those children are already disadvantaged in an unfair system and you want to take food out of their mouths? Of course that doesn't fit into the Theory of Justice. If that's why you reject the model then you don't believe in justice at all.
Like I said a small loss of the 1% and leads to the betterment of the 99% is something Rawls wouldn't support.
A better example would be to take something that causes a small loss for, say, 20% of the population, but would give the 80% of the rest a much bigger benefit. Something like welfare reform in the US.
The 99-1 was just an example, and not always what will happen. Sometimes it is 80-20 or even 60-40. For Rawls you look at the lower number (if they are the least advantaged) and decide what to do based on that.
No they are not agreed to as though they would behind the veil of ignorance. What the hell would he have any motivation to come up with that theory if that were true.
And that's what I'm saying (albeit in a different way). If his big leap was to come up with a system of rights, then the veil of ignorance doesn't make sense.
And yes, they are agreed to as they would without the veil of ignorance. All of the political rights he wants in his society are the rights that are in the US Constitution (in the Bill of Rights) for the most part.
You absolutely do have a problem with it.
Yeah, sure, because I agree with his rights system? It's basic classical liberal rights, enshrined in the US Bill of Rights. That isn't the point of the veil of ignorance. The point of the veil is to get to his maximin. The rights have to be gotten out of the way first because he's a liberal and he can't get rid of the rights and says that is what his original position people would agree with.
That's just plain old conservatism.
Not really. There was a reason that 'The Prince' was reviled all over Europe, especially by those conservative rulers. Conservatism isn't one for realpolitik. It makes their whole, we are moving towards a special brotherhood (whether it is in the context of a religion or national identity) useless.
It's nothing like the Theory of Justice at all.
No **** sherlock... but the rights are the same - the classical liberal rights which have been articulated in some form or another since Locke.
Last edited by Imran Siddiqui; September 29, 2004, 21:40.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
which happened to be one space after the exclamation point...
Aggie called me a classical liberal on the first page.
No they are not agreed to as though they would behind the veil of ignorance. What the hell would he have any motivation to come up with that theory if that were true.
Tweet
Comment