29-04-2004 06:24									#31
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia so then make sure that it is illegal for people to be enslaved and for others to take and to coerce others. a democracy doesnt necesasairlyu do this.

Yes. But who would you want to decide this? A "despot" (i.e somebody who doesn't have a democratic mandate)? If he infringes on your freedom to enslave, where is the telling he won't infringe on your freedom to sodomize next?

	29-04-2004 07:08									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: What is it that gives the majority in a true democracy the right to impose themselves on the minority.

Might makes right, that's the transparently immoral basis for democracy, and people who preach democracy only like it when they are in the majority, i.e., it's inherently hypocritical.

quote: And what are the limits to that imposition?

This is where we hear platitudes about protecting individual rights, but again, the majority ends up deciding what those rights should be - nice little catch-22.

quote: if the majority of people thought that all immigration to the US needs to be stopped, would that make them right?

Ask the owners. When property such as public property and borders are "communal", majority rule holds sway over minority rule. The justification? One could at least argue the majority should have a greater say than the minority regarding property owned by more than 2 co-owners.

quote: what if they thought that only whites can be admitted into america? is that right?

Immoral perhaps, but it's still their right to set policy on communally owned property.

quote: or what if the majority decided that slavery was the way to go? does this justify slavery.

Nothing can justify slavery, and this question shows why democracy is a morally bankrupt ideology.

quote: my question i guess is how can we rely and trust in a democracy when there is no inherent limit to what the majority can do.

Can't, just keep telling everyone how free we are as we add more laws to the millions we already have.

	29-04-2004 07:11									#33
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Edit:

quote: Might makes right, that's the transparently immoral basis for democracy, and people who preach democracy only like it when they are in the majority, i.e., it's inherently hypocritical.

False. I preach democracy and the maximal use of referenda (as long as it is practical) even when I know the results will be unfavourable to my ideas.

	29-04-2004 07:32									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: False. I preach democracy and the maximal use of referenda (as long as it is practical) even when I know the results will be unfavourable to my ideas.

What if the majority wanted to enslave you and your family? It's easy to be a "democrat" when the majority makes small demands on you, but when those demands become intolerable, democracy isn't a pretty picture and even the most ardent proponents of democracy would have to admit it is a morally bankrupt ideology.

quote: Who gets to decide whether slavery is legal or illegal then?

In a democracy, the majority. Your question makes 2 assumptions - that someone or some group however large has the moral authority to decide whether or not you can be enslaved and that a state can be created to enforce their decision. I reject both assumptions... I look at such questions with the state removed from the picture to determine what should be once the state is introduced into the picture. Since it is immoral for me to enslave another person, it cannot become moral for me to create or use a state to enslave others. Effectively, I make the decision but it's not really a decision since I don't even contemplate whether or not I can or should be allowed to enslave others.

quote: What form of government is less "morally bankrupt" than democracy?

A constitutional republic based on libertarian principles, that's about as moral as any government can get.

	29-04-2004 07:32									#35
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Yes. But who would you want to decide this? A "despot" (i.e somebody who doesn't have a democratic mandate)? If he infringes on your freedom to enslave, where is the telling he won't infringe on your freedom to sodomize next?

Enslavement infringes on anothers' rights. Sodomy doesn't.

Rights stop when they are the direct cause of infringing another's rights.

	29-04-2004 07:35									#36
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by mrmitchell Enslavement infringes on anothers' rights. Sodomy doesn't.

As always: "says who?"

	29-04-2004 07:36									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

If you enslave me, you're busting my right to work as I choose. Logic says.

Sodomy doesn't directly (DIRECTLY!) **** anyone else's rights.

	29-04-2004 07:39									#38
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker In a democracy, the majority. Your question makes 2 assumptions - that someone or some group however large has the moral authority to decide whether or not you can be enslaved and that a state can be created to enforce their decision. I reject both assumptions...

Great. Then what happens if your neighbour starts to randomly enslave people, and there is no State to put an end to his actions?

quote: I look at such questions with the state removed from the picture to determine what should be once the state is introduced into the picture. Since it is immoral for me to enslave another person, it cannot become moral for me to create or use a state to enslave others. Effectively, I make the decision

So the epitome of a morally great political system is your own little world. Do you intend to port this bright idea to the real world?

quote: but it's not really a decision since I don't even contemplate whether or not I can or should be allowed to enslave others.

What about other people whose morality is less spotless than yours?

quote: A constitutional republic based on libertarian principles, that's about as moral as any government can get.

Again, who says what the "libertarian principles" are? David Floyd? Berzerker? LoA? Ayn Rand? What makes one of these versions more right than the others?

	29-04-2004 07:40									#39
	Got spare money?

There is no objective commonly accepted base on which you can call one mind more important then an other mind so democracy is the most logical system to decide things.

Quite every nation that has a constitution has a democratic way to change that constitution. If in the USA 3/4(or do you only need 2/3, not sure) of the states vote for an anti-consitution party then can that party use an amandement to get rid of the constitution so it is still a democracy.

For the people who are againsts democray: please give me an alternative. Even if you have a constitution shall that constitution somehow have to be decided by either the majority or a despot and quite all constitutions can on democratic ways be changed or even cancelled.

If the majority wants to really change the consitution shall they do that, there democratic ellected leader can always say "I declare the constitution null and void and I order the army and the police to arrest every judge who still follows the constitution or considers this ruling illegal" as long as more then 50% of the army/police support that can he do that and there is nothing you can do against it. A constitution is nothing more then a piece of paper, when the majority really wants to get rid of it shall they get rid of it. It is not some sort of physical law that can't be changed.

	29-04-2004 07:42									#40
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by mrmitchell If you enslave me, you're busting my right to work as I choose. Logic says.

I don't care about logic. I care about people.

If somebody (or some institution) is in position to tell slavery is illegal, why would that somebody not be in position to tell sodomy is illegal? What makes sodomy magically protected from the lawmaker?

(for the record, I have absolutely no problem with sodomy - I am precisely comparing something that we all agree should be outlawed with something we all agree should be allowed)

	29-04-2004 07:42									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: f in the USA 3/4(or do you only need 2/3, not sure) of the states vote for an anti-consitution party then can that party use an amandement to get rid of the constitution so it is still a democracy.

IIRC 2/3 of the Congress vote, then 3/4 of the States must approve it.

	29-04-2004 07:43									#42
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: As always: "says who?"

Everyone, that's the beauty of the golden rule and why it is a solid foundation for government wrt rights. No one wants to be enslaved, so only a hypocrite would enslave others.

	29-04-2004 07:44									#43
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: If somebody (or some institution) is in position to tell slavery is illegal, why would that somebody not be in position to tell sodomy is illegal? What makes sodomy magically protected from the lawmaker?

I just told you. Logic The lawmaker wouldn't...oh, I think I get what you mean

Well we'd need a bunch of checks and balances, like the USA.

	29-04-2004 07:45									#44
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Everyone, that's the beauty of the golden rule and why it is a solid foundation for government wrt rights. No one wants to be enslaved, so only a hypocrite would enslave others.

It's funny history has known so many hypocrites then. The ancient Egyptians had slave, as did the 1861 Americans. And slavery was a consistent historical fact, that was nearly universal as well.

Unless you posit that nobody is a hypocrite anymore, I ask my question again: what happens if your (hypocrite) neighbour starts enslaving people?

	29-04-2004 07:55									#45
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by mrmitchell Well we'd need a bunch of checks and balances, like the USA.

Yes. And again, the question of "who writes the rules" come to mind. And that's because the real question is "what makes several people agree to a common rule?"

The question asked in this thread (democracy), is fundamentally a question about who wields power. With my annoying questions, I just want to force the libertarians to acknowledge power must be held by someone or some people at some point (something I think you understand, mrmitchell)

The Libertarians seem to want to live in a dream world where there is no need of power. I believe that this real world needs power. Once this is posited, the question is about who the Libs prefer... Elected people representing the will of the people? Themselves, being inherently superior to everybody else? Some despot they happen to agree with? The strongest kid of the block who'll beat them up until they pledge allegiance to him? WHO?

	29-04-2004 07:56									#46
	Increase Your PM Length

Spiffor -

quote: Great. Then what happens if your neighbour starts to randomly enslave people, and there is no State to put an end to his actions?

Who said there should be no state? If there wasn't, anyone and everyone would be justified in stopping the neighbor - that's why a state would be justified too.

quote: So the epitome of a morally great political system is your own little world. Do you intend to port this bright idea to the real world?

You have a better way of deciding what is moral? Would you rather rely on the democratic majority to tell you what is moral? Spare me the sarcasm, it was neither logical or constructive.

quote: What about other people whose morality is less spotless than yours?

What about them?

quote: Again, who says what the "libertarian principles" are? David Floyd? Berzerker? LoA? Ayn Rand? What makes one of these versions more right than the others?

Begin with the definition of freedom and apply it to real world situations. The Golden Rule is a good place to start too, if no one wants to be enslaved then freedom becomes a universal desire and the basis for a human right.

Spiffor, are you going to answer my questions?




[quote]

	29-04-2004 08:02									#47
	Tired of ads?

quote: The question asked in this thread (democracy), is fundamentally a question about who wields power. With my annoying questions, I just want to force the libertarians to acknowledge power must be held by someone or some people at some point (something I think you understand, mrmitchell)

Damn. I see your point.

The US, in theory, is the best job so far of this (keeping demoracy AND liberties).

Of course, in reality, it's deteriorated (not so greatly though).

	29-04-2004 08:05									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"The rule of the stupid, clueless majority in preference to a corrupt, fanatical minority."

Next question.

	29-04-2004 08:06									#49
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy Benevolent dictatorship (assume no corruption and expertise in relevant matters), or possibility of AI technocracy operating on a concrete libertarian principle.

Don't be such a moron. Benevolent dictatorships always degenerate. And I would sincerely love to see what a libertarian society would look like, especially when the rich realize that they only need to overcome computers to get the power.

	29-04-2004 08:07									#50
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris Don't be such a moron. Benevolent dictatorships always degenerate.

Governments in general always degenerate

	29-04-2004 08:07									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Who said there should be no state?

I believed you said you couldn't support a State that enslaved people. I also understood from previous threads that any State-led coercion was slavery in your mind (such as taxes). Correct me if I am wrong.
And I can't imagine a State that does no coercion. A State is here, at the very least, to enforce the rules people trespass, when they would not listen to reason. Such as your slaver neighbour.

quote: You have a better way of deciding what is moral?

I loathe your morality. I couldn't bear living in a country that applies your stinking principles. Not that it would last long, since I would quickly live under the rule of a local thug anyway. I find it infinitely better to have a system based on the beliefs of most people, instead on the beliefs of the lunatic fringe you belong to. So, to replay your next question:

quote: Would you rather rely on the democratic majority to tell you what is moral?

Definitely. There is no comparison between the majority of the people, and Berzerker alone.

quote: What about them?

Yes, what about them, when they ponder enslaving, killing, raping, stealing? These people of low morality, who dare think of such acts and even act on them. What about them? What about the punishment for them, for breaking your precious morality?

quote: Begin with the definition of freedom and apply it to real world situations.

Do you Libertarians all agree on the same definition of freedom? And what about the non-libertarians who have a different definition of freedom?

quote: The Golden Rule is a good place to start too, if no one wants to be enslaved then freedom becomes a universal desire and the basis for a human right.

Does everybody agree with that statement? Those people who disagree with it, could they opt-out of your political system? Or would they be coerced into accepting your principles?

quote: Spiffor, are you going to answer my questions?

Unless I overlooked any, I think I've answered to all of them.

	29-04-2004 08:21									#52
	Suffering from ads?

quote: It's funny history has known so many hypocrites then. The ancient Egyptians had slave, as did the 1861 Americans. And slavery was a consistent historical fact, that was nearly universal as well.

And? "Nearly universal" is an overstatement and irrelevant, the Golden Rule is about how you want to be treated and doing likewise to others, not how hypocrites want to treat others.

quote: Unless you posit that nobody is a hypocrite anymore, I ask my question again: what happens if your (hypocrite) neighbour starts enslaving people?

Others, including the state, would be justified in stopping him.

quote: Yes. And again, the question of "who writes the rules" come to mind. And that's because the real question is "what makes several people agree to a common rule?"

Self interest.

quote: The question asked in this thread (democracy), is fundamentally a question about who wields power. With my annoying questions, I just want to force the libertarians to acknowledge power must be held by someone or some people at some point (something I think you understand, mrmitchell)

Under libertarianism everyone has power and that power can be partially ceded to a state for protection of the remaining power. Generally, the state can only act on your behalf when you can morally act on your own behalf even if you lack the ability.

quote: The Libertarians seem to want to live in a dream world where there is no need of power.

Not true.

quote: I believe that this real world needs power. Once this is posited, the question is about who the Libs prefer... Elected people representing the will of the people? Themselves, being inherently superior to everybody else?

I'm assuming you think your system is superior to ours, so stop with the hypocritically snide comments please. Obviously libertarians believe their system should be followed? EVERY ideology's proponents believe their system should be followed and whomever their system empowers to make decisions should have that power... "Democrats" say the majority should have that power until the majority gets out of hand, i.e., democracy is good until the majority does things I hate. That's a contradiction...Libertarians don't want other people forcing their likes and dislikes on you regardless of how many there are using the force.

	29-04-2004 08:22									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Everyone in this thread should take a deep breath and read Rousseau's Of Social Contract. It may not be the best political theory ever, but at least it adresses the basics of democratic reasoning in a way that many trivialities being debated here would be solved.

	29-04-2004 08:43									#54
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: I believed you said you couldn't support a State that enslaved people. I also understood from previous threads that any State-led coercion was slavery in your mind (such as taxes). Correct me if I am wrong. And I can't imagine a State that does no coercion. A State is here, at the very least, to enforce the rules people trespass, when they would not listen to reason. Such as your slaver neighbour.

Not all taxes are coercive and I'm on the fence regarding general taxes for "collective" goods like police and military. This doesn't preclude the existence of a state, just the current state that's uses taxation to "re-distribute" wealth.

quote: I loathe your morality. I couldn't bear living in a country that applies your stinking principles. Not that it would last long, since I would quickly live under the rule of a local thug anyway. I find it infinitely better to have a system based on the beliefs of most people, instead on the beliefs of the lunatic fringe you belong to. So, to replay your next question:

And your morality is based upon what? Majority rule? Then go right ahead and defend Nazi Germany and slavery in the US. The irony here is that while you claim your morality is based on what most people think, my morality is based on what everyone thinks. I just apply the Golden Rule and you don't. If I don't want people taking my money simply because they outnumber me, I cannot consent to joining your mob when it's taking other people's money. So nice of you to expose your hypocrisy though, you obviously feel your system is superior to mine yet you make snide comments about me thinking my system is superior to yours.

quote: Definitely. There is no comparison between the majority of the people, and Berzerker alone.

You can't think for yourself?

quote: Yes, what about them, when they ponder enslaving, killing, raping, stealing? These people of low morality, who dare think of such acts and even act on them. What about them? What about the punishment for them, for breaking your precious morality?

You think slavery and murder are moral? If not, why ridicule me for believing the same? I've already answered your question, anyone and everyone including the state is justified in stopping them.

quote: Do you Libertarians all agree on the same definition of freedom? And what about the non-libertarians who have a different definition of freedom?

There is only one definition of freedom.

quote: Does everybody agree with that statement?

I assume so, let me know if you find someone who wants to be enslaved.

quote: Those people who disagree with it, could they opt-out of your political system? Or would they be coerced into accepting your principles?

Yes and no. This country was founded by people who opted out of a system they disliked.

quote: Unless I overlooked any, I think I've answered to all of them.

I'll settle for just one, if the majority wanted to enslave you and your family would you still be extolling the virtues of your democracy?

	29-04-2004 08:45									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker And? "Nearly universal" is an overstatement and irrelevant

Yes, it just shows human nature includes going to the deepest lows to get what one wants. I have heard utopies often enough to know one shouldn't bring the ugly side of mankind in.

quote: the Golden Rule is about how you want to be treated and doing likewise to others, not how hypocrites want to treat others. Others, including the state, would be justified in stopping him.

So, if I understand correctly, the basis of your system is that everybody agrees on the same rules, because they match a universal desire, that tolerates no exception?
What about the people who want to be enslaved? There are some people who feel comfort in such things like knowing their place in society, in knowing whom to obey, in knowing what tomorrow will look like etc. There have been instances of freed slaves who remained with their masters, and continued to work for them like before.
Since these people exist (however few they are), does it make slavery something valid, because some people will accept being enslaved? Does it make the golden rule (the only thing on which you seem to base policy) null and void?

quote: Self interest.

And what happens when opposing self interests clash?

quote: Under libertarianism everyone has power and that power can be partially ceded to a state for protection of the remaining power. Generally, the state can only act on your behalf when you can morally act on your own behalf even if you lack the ability.

Say, I'm one of the loony guys who wouldn't mind being enslaved. As such, I see no problem at the news of a slaver in town. What should the police do? Break down on the slaver, or respect my rights to slavery, and do nothing? After all freedom has stopped being an absolute right in this society, since my loony self has stopped believing in it. It would be immoral for the police, or for the population, to enforce a morality that is not universally shared - they'll infringe on me!

quote: I'm assuming you think your system is superior to ours, so stop with the hypocritically snide comments please. Obviously libertarians believe their system should be followed? EVERY ideology's proponents believe their system should be followed and whomever their system empowers to make decisions should have that power... "Democrats" say the majority should have that power until the majority gets out of hand, i.e., democracy is good until the majority does things I hate. That's a contradiction...

My snide comments aren't hypocritical. I don't want to force my beliefs on people. I want my beliefs to be applied only when this application is deemed legitimate by the people (even by the people who don't agree with me). This way, I wouldn't be using coercion on them, as their democratic system of valors would have them accept their defeat with resignation (=legitimacy).

Besides, I have never crowned myself as the superior authority whose decisions would make the most moral system.

quote: Libertarians don't want other people forcing their likes and dislikes on you regardless of how many there are using the force.

I hate it when people have their dog poop on the sidewalk. They are forcing their dog's crap under my shoes. Why shouldn't they suffer from the regulations set up by angry neighbours such as me? How is forcing your neighbours to walk on your crap any superior than being forced to take care?

	29-04-2004 08:46									#56
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I forget who used to have a certain quote under their post around here, but it went "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others."

When the founding fathers took up the "bold experiment" of democracy, their reasons were just. After all, you couldnt just go out and rally the people to impeach or recall the king. Heavy taxes on a poeple by a ruler whose lands many of those subjects did not call home.

With the liberties of the revolution, if the people did not like what was being brought up in meeting they could protest. As long as no one was hurt during these massings, they could do it as long as they like.

However democracy in america has evolved into monstrously complex bureaucratic scoial structure that the elected officals will say whatever makes the masses happy.

	29-04-2004 08:59									#57
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Not all taxes are coercive and I'm on the fence regarding general taxes for "collective" goods like police and military. This doesn't preclude the existence of a state, just the current state that's uses taxation to "re-distribute" wealth.

Good, thanks for the correction.
But what happens if you are in a purist State like Floyd's, where every tax is considered theft?

quote: And your morality is based upon what? Majority rule? Then go right ahead and defend Nazi Germany and slavery in the US. The irony here is that while you claim your morality is based on what most people think, my morality is based on what everyone thinks. I just apply the Golden Rule and you don't. If I don't want people taking my money simply because they outnumber me

I happen to want to contribute to society (yes, even welfare) through taxes. Whenever I get my wage leaflet, I can only feel proud at the sight of the money I poured into the medication of the sick, the retirement of the elderly, the education of the young etc. Am I mad?

quote: I cannot consent to joining your mob when it's taking other people's money. So nice of you to expose your hypocrisy though, you obviously feel your system is superior to mine yet you make snide comments about me thinking my system is superior to yours.

I have no problem with you thinking your system is superior. I have a problem with you thinking you Berzerker are the highest form of morality on Earth, whose decisions are the wisest and truest morals.

quote: You can't think for yourself?

Of course I can. That's why I don't want to live by the principles you dictate to me.

quote: You think slavery and murder are moral? If not, why ridicule me for believing the same? I've already answered your question, anyone and everyone including the state is justified in stopping them.

Back to the political system then, since it is a common decision after all. WHo decides the punishment? Who decides whether the slaver should be mauled, quartered, simply killed with a firearm, whipped, imprisoned, fined, or whatever? Who decides that? Is the punishment for this offense, like all the specifics of public decisions encompassed in the golden rule?

quote: There is only one definition of freedom.

Which is?

quote: I assume so, let me know if you find someone who wants to be enslaved.

You'll always find loonies who wish to be enslaved, raped, abducted or whatever. Heck, there has even been one loonie who wanted to be eaten alive (Germany last year). Does this mean it is OK to eat other people?

quote: Yes and no. This country was founded by people who opted out of a system they disliked.

Good. Then, I hope you'll found a sort of Sealand with Libertarian friends then, and see ow it works out without forcing us to live under such rule.

quote: I'll settle for just one, if the majority wanted to enslave you and your family would you still be extolling the virtues of your democracy?

Of course not, but that would be an emotional statement.

	29-04-2004 09:30									#58
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Yes, it just shows human nature includes going to the deepest lows to get what one wants. I have heard utopies often enough to know one shouldn't bring the ugly side of mankind in.

And how is this relevant? It is relevant to your position since you derive your morality from the majority which has committed such atrocities. C'mon Spiffor, would you really have concluded slavery was moral if you lived in a country where the majority said it was moral? Of course not, so why claim your morality is based on what the majority thinks?

quote: So, if I understand correctly, the basis of your system is that everybody agrees on the same rules, because they match a universal desire, that tolerates no exception?

What matters is they agree they don't want to be robbed or murdered. Those are universal desires inspite of the fact that there are hypocrites in the world who won't treat others as they want to be treated - that is the principle I apply.

quote: What about the people who want to be enslaved? There are some people who feel comfort in such things like knowing their place in society, in knowing whom to obey, in knowing what tomorrow will look like etc.

C'mon Spiffor, that's ridiculous. People will give up their freedom temporarily to work for what they want even if that's only to achieve some security, but no one wants to be a slave. You're adding caveats, some people are willing to die if their family will receive alot of money, that doesn't mean they want to die. It means they are willing to die to get something of value in return. I'd gladly die if doing so would end disease, that's called a caveat and it doesn't mean I want to die, it means if you introduce other factors into situations, what we want and don't want can change.

quote: There have been instances of freed slaves who remained with their masters, and continued to work for them like before.

So what? Once freed they were free to decide, that ain't slavery anymore, that's employment.

quote: Since these people exist (however few they are), does it make slavery something valid, because some people will accept being enslaved? Does it make the golden rule (the only thing on which you seem to base policy) null and void?

You haven't shown that anyone wants to be enslaved.

quote: And what happens when opposing self interests clash?

Morality enters the picture, where the moral authority to make decisions resides.

quote: Say, I'm one of the loony guys who wouldn't mind being enslaved. As such, I see no problem at the news of a slaver in town. What should the police do? Break down on the slaver, or respect my rights to slavery, and do nothing?

You're introducing another caveat and creating a hypothetical.

quote: After all freedom has stopped being an absolute right in this society, since my loony self has stopped believing in it. It would be immoral for the police, or for the population, to enforce a morality that is not universally shared - they'll infringe on me!

Produce someone who wants to be enslaved without adding a bunch of caveats to create a different situation.

quote: My snide comments aren't hypocritical. I don't want to force my beliefs on people. I want my beliefs to be applied only when this application is deemed legitimate by the people (even by the people who don't agree with me).

You mean everyone must agree with your belief system before you'll want it applied? BS.

quote: This way, I wouldn't be using coercion on them, as their democratic system of valors would have them accept their defeat with resignation (=legitimacy).

Isn't it your system? Explain how it works when you can't enforce your system without everyone agreeing with it? And you call me a utopian? Hell, I don't even believe everyone has to agree with what I want.

quote: Besides, I have never crowned myself as the superior authority whose decisions would make the most moral system.

Does that mean you think there is another known system out there superior to yours but which you reject anyways? Ri...ight.

quote: I hate it when people have their dog poop on the sidewalk. They are forcing their dog's crap under my shoes. Why shouldn't they suffer from the regulations set up by angry neighbours such as me? How is forcing your neighbours to walk on your crap any superior than being forced to take care?

Is that crap on the property of the dog owner? If so, too bad, look where you're walking. If it's on someone else's property, even public property, then the owners of that property get to decide if the dog can poop there.

	29-04-2004 10:01									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: If you enslave me, you're busting my right to work as I choose. Logic says.

But what if you choose to be enslaved? Is that allowed? Why or why not? Aren't you choosing where you work.

Spiffor is making good sense on this thread. Saying society should be based on the golden rule is all good and well until someone with some power decides they don't want to be subject to it and has no problem with being a hypocrite.

	29-04-2004 10:08									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

What I hate when libertarians join the debate is that I have to side with Imran.

EDIT: long time no see eh? glad to see we're both back.