quantifying moral responsibility

[I AM I AM MOBIUS]

I don't think he understands what he wrote either.

[Kidlicious]

i don't think you understood what i wrote.

There has never been any system like what you are advocating, so why do you bother?

[C0ckney]

there have been some approximations: the paris commune; the anarchist experiments during the spanish civil war, and more recently; the zapatistas and; the rojava kurds, are building new, democratic, societies based on local control and self-government.

going back further, there was a greek (i forget which) who said that "you can always recognise a democracy, because it is a city where the poor have their hands around the throats of the rich". that's about where i'd like to get to.

[Kidlicious]

I think you equate the poor as noble human beings who are pure of heart, and you equate the rich as wicked. That is sometimes the case, but not always. I have sympathy for the Kurds and Zapatistas, and I wish them well, but I think if there revolution is successful they will create an oppressive society when their noble leaders have passed on, and less noble people, or even the mob takes over. I say that because of their world view. Some who hold it have noble intentions, but most just want to cause harm to those they disagree with out of spite, like your little sweethearts down in Argentina.

[C0ckney]

I think you equate the poor as noble human beings who are pure of heart, and you equate the rich as wicked. That is sometimes the case, but not always.

i don't think so, and if i'm honest, i'm not even sure what that means.

I have sympathy for the Kurds and Zapatistas, and I wish them well, but I think if there revolution is successful they will create an oppressive society when their noble leaders have passed on, and less noble people, or even the mob takes over.

which noble leaders? the whole point of movements like this is that they don't rely on 'great men', but rather on collective organisation and action. it is mob rule; it's just that mob rule i.e. rule by the people has got a bad name, because the mob were always asking the emperor or some other leader to do something on their behalf, instead of doing the thing themselves.

[Kidlicious]

I just don't understand why you think a mob can justly rule a society.

[C0ckney]

that's probably becasue you think of them as a mob, rather than the people.

[Kidlicious]

that's probably becasue you think of them as a mob, rather than the people.

A mob is different from people. Almost anyone is not that bad if they aren't part of a mob. Once they become part of a mob they are no longer themselves.

[C0ckney]

could you describe the difference then, because your meaning is very unclear.

[Kidlicious]

Here's some examples. An employee can get along with his employer if he is not part of a mob, but if he becomes part of a mob now he hates his employer. A wife can get along with her husband until she becomes part of a mob, then she hates men. A black man can get along with white people until he becomes part of a mob. Then he thinks they are all racist.

Mobs don't think rationally, only people do. I have no problem with people.

[C0ckney]

that's not very convincing. could you describe the process by which you think this happens.

by 'mob' do you mean 'group of people'? and if not: how does a group of people become a 'mob'. at what point does, say, a congregation become a 'mob'.

[Kidlicious]

could you describe the difference then, because your meaning is very unclear.

The problem is when you decide that the mob is always right you put the mob over justice. When the mob isn't right you have injustice. Initially you have a mob that overthrows an evil regime. So you say the mob is good. But you have no good reason to believe the mob is good. Because they destroyed evil doesn't make them good, not all the time. So then you have mob rule, and the mob starts oppressing minorities. Can good people defend minorities? No, only the mob can do that now, because the mob is always right. But the mob isn't defending minorities. It can't. It's against it's world view. Minorities are not the mob, and therefore bad, and must be destroyed.

[Kidlicious]

that's not very convincing. could you describe the process by which you think this happens.

by 'mob' do you mean 'group of people'? and if not: how does a group of people become a 'mob'. at what point does, say, a congregation become a 'mob'.

A mob is a group of people who believe they are right because they are a mob. They believe in mob rule. How many people I don't know. They have to be the majority of their subgroup. So, if they are a minority the tend not to believe in mob rule, and so are not a mob.

[C0ckney]

i read that three times and i don't have a clue what you are trying to say; it's just totally incoherent.

edit: that goes for both posts.

[Kidlicious]