23-08-2004 18:17									#301
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Ah.

Then there is the key difference, and proof positive that we really were talking about two different things.

Yes. Enforcement of that which has been determined to be fair (by whatever methodology) will be (more-or-less) absolute. (as we all know, there are certain subsets of people in any society for whom the law simply does not apply to....unfortunate, but that's the reality)

And I'm not disagreeing with that.

I'm not even *talking* about that, actually.

I'm talking about the act of establishing what is fair and what is not.

Dictatorial decree is not the way to go about deciding such matters.

That you seem to think it is, speaks volumes about the underlying nature of the system you propose.

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 18:23									#302
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Dictatorial decree is not the way to go about deciding such matters.

Why not?

Let's say that Socrates becomes the tyrant of Athens. He has a choice over which laws to make. Shall he make just ones or not? It's perfectly possible for him to make just laws.

There's no necessary connection between the means by which a law is instituted and its justice. Both tyrannies and democracies may have laws forbidding murder - in that case the law is the same. How can one be just and the other unjust?

	23-08-2004 18:31									#303
	Suffering from ads?

Lots to reply to, so I'll take them one at a time:

Spiffor: The reason I make that assumption (the "head honcho" running Ag's Utopia) is because that is all the information Ag has given me. All he has said is that fairness will be dictated. No mention of judicial review, or mechanisms for change. Only dictation.

Now...from my perspective, one who dictates is...pretty much in charge of things.

So one who dictates fairness in a society is....well, the Dictator.

In the absence of any refutation on that point by the Agster, I assume it stands. (it has for two pages anyway). And because, per your comments earlier, I'm trying extra hard not to misrepresent Ag, so am not commenting on what MIGHT be, but only what has been openly stated--less chance to misrepresent.

Ag: Yes...it is possible for a Tyrant to make a just law.

It is also possible for a democratic society to make an unjust law.

The difference is...barring the changing whim of the Tyrant, there's no possibility of undoing an unjustly made law.

The same cannot be said of the democratic society, and THAT is the telling point.

One is by fiat.

One is evolutionary, and subject to a greater degree of control by the people who must live their lives UNDER said definitions.

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 18:34									#304
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx In the absence of any refutation on that point by the Agster, I assume it stands. (it has for two pages anyway).

Indeed. I thought it was obvious to him that there would be a democratic process, while you'd consider it obvious there would be an autocratic rule (ordinary setup of a misunderstanding)
But his last comment made me understand he does not criticize the "enlightened despot" on principle, meaning that I was wrong in assuming a democratic decision process.

quote: And because, per your comments earlier, I'm trying extra hard not to misrepresent Ag, so am not commenting on what MIGHT be, but only what has been openly stated--less chance to misrepresent.

	23-08-2004 18:36									#305
	Got spare money?

Aggie,

I thought you were strongly against an authoritarian implementation of communism. Why the desire to argue the (de)merits of a police state now?

IIRC you were in advocacy of a future society of that relied on articifical intelligence to guide the future of man. If so, how would those algorithms be codified or moreover how would you envision the decision to empower the AI? (Is this an instance of only those coders being party members?)

	23-08-2004 19:02									#306
	Inflate your Upload Space

Hiyas, Og!

And Spiff....based on what we know so far, why do I get the sinking feeling that I'm not gonna enjoy Ag's version of the Utopia any more than Kid's?

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 19:51									#307
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Agathon [quote]If they are "fair' the vast majority will accept their legitimacy. Fairness itself remains a subjective concept.[quote] No one really believes that. Everyone thinks that their version of fairness is the right one. And there are norms of debate when it comes to ethical notions like justice - it's amenable to rational debate.

I'm not sure what you are debating here. While everyone may have different concepts of fairness, there will be much commonality. If results or laws are viewed as fair by massive majorities, they will generally be accepted as legitimate.

quote: Originally posted by Agathon It doesn't matter if vast numbers of people accept the way a society is run, it would still be possible to have two such societies with different norms of justice. It is still an open question as to whether either is just, if we take "just" in the sense it is used by normal people.

Again I agree with you-- If my society is run one way and all my people are happy with it and another society is run another way and THOSE people are happy with it, I have no issue with it. In fact, anyone in my society that wishes to join another is free to do so. they are also free to try to convince the folks in my society of the merits of the other way and if enough agree, we will try it out . . . But if enough of us don't like it, we can swing things back again.

-------------------------------------------------


It is patently obvious that fairness is subjective. The whole basis of thie thread was kidicious with his assertions that it is not "fair" for one person to earn more money than another or to have more "stuff" than another. He appears to hold this belief strongly that this is unfair. I see it as fair but do find his proposed measures to be unfair as I see them as restricting personal freedoms to an extent I find unacceptable.

	23-08-2004 19:54									#308
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Flubber!

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 19:57									#309
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm To Kidicious - please tell me the purpose of a state under your system .

Give me a moment please. It's 8am here.

	23-08-2004 19:59									#310
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Give me a moment please. It's 8am here.

Ahh no wonder . .. you live on the "left coast"

	23-08-2004 20:01									#311
	Inflate your Upload Space

On a roll this morning, I see!

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 20:08									#312
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Sikander More like, Kid: I like Rage Against the Machine because I relate emotionally to their lyrics, but I'm too stupid to do a simple thought experiment, or even follow someone else's.

That's real nice Sikander. I'm responding to people. Vel is just being ridiculous here. Why don't you go debate Fez for days on end?

	23-08-2004 20:11									#313
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Am I?

Being rediculous here?

I'm attempting to understand the system YOU are proposing, and what it would mean to live under it.

Can YOU think of another methodology of doing that, besides asking questions about it?

If so...please enlighten.

Perhaps I should adopt your debate style and use it on you for a while....yes, I think I'll do that...hold on...

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 20:12									#314
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Vel is just being ridiculous here.

I don't understand. That sounds like you are being very elitist.



-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 20:13									#315
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I just want what is fair, and your plan does not sound very fair to me.

-=Vel=-

(/kid mode)

	23-08-2004 20:16									#316
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Kid

while I don't always see the necessity of some of Vel's approaches, he has been far from ridiculous.

you propose a radical departure from the current economic and political system and are questioned on it. You don't answer the question in most cases.

One example from me.

I asked a couple of times whether in your new improved system, my wife could choose not to work if our family unit were willing to forgo the income. Your response was a flip answer that many people HAVE to work.

Fine thats true now but I'm talking in your system where theoretically we are all making the same wage. My wife wants to work less or not at all. Is that permitted?? In previous posts you indicated NO it would not be permitted (but I am giving you a chance to reconsider).

If it is not permitted, why not?

	23-08-2004 20:17									#317
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I saw another strawman coming 2 pages back. Ag is trying to make a point. Stick to the argument or give it up.

	23-08-2004 20:17									#318
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: The difference is...barring the changing whim of the Tyrant, there's no possibility of undoing an unjustly made law.

Yes there is. Kill him.

quote: Indeed. I thought it was obvious to him that there would be a democratic process, while you'd consider it obvious there would be an autocratic rule (ordinary setup of a misunderstanding) But his last comment made me understand he does not criticize the "enlightened despot" on principle, meaning that I was wrong in assuming a democratic decision process.

My point is that democracy is just as absolutist with regard to its own principles, as is every political creed.

quote: So one who dictates fairness in a society is....well, the Dictator.

Even if it is a democratically elected government. It makes no difference. Whatever conception of fairness comes up will necessarily be imposed by force on some people who do not like it, so merely claiming that people won't like it or will disagree doesn't really get you very far.

quote: It is patently obvious that fairness is subjective

It is not patently obvious at all. People have different ideas about what counts as fair, yet they engage in arguments about it and are often found to be inconsistent. That isn't the case with the more obvious cases of subjectivity like whether or not one likes the taste of broccoli.

In any case, if you wish to argue that fairness and justice are subjective, then it's open season for might makes right since you can offer no reasons to anyone for any substantial political position.

	23-08-2004 20:23									#319
	Got spare money?

Ag

huh?? You argue against subjectivity of fairness but then point out that we all have different ideas on it that are often inconsistent??

	23-08-2004 20:25									#320
	Full PM-box? Change here!

OK - many of us have different ideas about the Special Theory of Relativity, that in no way entails that someone can't be right about it.

People have all sorts of false beliefs about all sorts of things: that doesn't entail subjectivism with regard to those things.

	23-08-2004 20:29									#321
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Kid....

Ag is trying to make a point. Stick to the argument or give it up.

Perhaps....just *perhaps* you might want to consider returning the favor? Doing for us what you are asking us to do for you?

Flubber

I must confess that some of my methods stem from sheer frustration. After days of beating one's head against the immovable wall, you do what you must to maybe get something to seep through. :: sheepish grin::

Ag -

Ahhhh.....kill him.

That would be the guy in chage of the military-industrial apparatus enforcing his whimsical decrees?

Yes...I'm sure that'd be as simple as making a withdrawl from an ATM.

Violence begetting violence. Is that really the system you're proposing? Sounds delicious!

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 20:29									#322
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm Is this really exploitation , where the workers get more than they would otherwise from the state ?

I'm using the word to mean use someones labor and not give them the full benefit of it. You caught me with this hypothetical example because the workers are getting paid more than they were before, but capitalism is an exploitive system. Preventing a capitalist system from being created is justified as long as it is fair to every individual. Those within the system owe those outside of the system nothing, so it's fair not to trade with them.

quote: And if it is exploitation by your definition, then is it necessary to curtail such exploitation if , for the same amount of actual physical labout , the worker is getting more ? Again , if this is exploitation , then are not the factories owned by the state also exploiting the workers ?

Maybe you want to ask these questions a different way now.

quote: And the last most important question - What is the purpose of the state in your system ?

To me the purpose of the govt is to make sure that each individual is treated fairly. Justice. There are other purposes that may conflict with it, but it's the most important.

	23-08-2004 20:30									#323
	Increase Your PM Length

In any event, subjective or objective, I am willing to live under the majority's views of fairness as set out in our laws and as enforced by the checks and balances of our courts and Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Are some of the laws viewed as unfair by some? Surely. Must they obey them in the interim? Again yes or you have anarchy.

But you can fight as longly and loudly as you wish to change the laws without negative consequences. If enough people agree with you, the law will change.


I would not be willing to live in a society where my freedoms are curtailed to the extent proposed by kid. I would rail against it and attempt to change it.

	23-08-2004 20:32									#324
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Violence begetting violence. Is that really the system you're proposing? Sounds delicious!

Why deal with the argument when you can resort to irrelevancies.

You said:

quote: The difference is...barring the changing whim of the Tyrant, there's no possibility of undoing an unjustly made law.

That is false.

	23-08-2004 20:34									#325
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Flubber I would not be willing to live in a society where my freedoms are curtailed to the extent proposed by kid. I would rail against it and attempt to change it.

Do you believe in the military draft under any circumstance?

	23-08-2004 20:34									#326
	Support Apolyton

So...you admit then, that under the Dictatorial Decree you propose, the only way to effect change is with killing those in charge.

If it's one man...one must die.

If it's a whole group at the top...kill 'em all.

Purgings?

Is any of this beginning to sound familiar, Ag?

Maybe just a wee little bit?



And thank you.

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 20:38									#327
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: In any event, subjective or objective, I am willing to live under the majority's views of fairness as set out in our laws and as enforced by the checks and balances of our courts and Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So you've reported your preference. That doesn't tell us much except that you like it.

quote: Are some of the laws viewed as unfair by some? Surely. Must they obey them in the interim? Again yes or you have anarchy. But you can fight as longly and loudly as you wish to change the laws without negative consequences. If enough people agree with you, the law will change.

And the point is?? Let's say you lived in Kidicious' society and most people were content with it. Let's also say that you can rant and rave about how bad the system is, but the state takes no interest because no one is listening to you. If you then commit a crime, is it unreasonable for the state to enforce the law?

quote: I would not be willing to live in a society where my freedoms are curtailed to the extent proposed by kid. I would rail against it and attempt to change it.

OK - but what is your moral justification for doing so? It's one thing to say, I don't like it, therefore I am going to revolt, and another to give moral reasons for revolution.

	23-08-2004 20:38									#328
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Can YOU think of another methodology of doing that, besides asking questions about it?

For christ sake, take the answer I give you and debate that. Stop insisting that I'm being dishonest.

	23-08-2004 20:40									#329
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Is any of this beginning to sound familiar, Ag? Maybe just a wee little bit?

Sure... if someone had blown up Hitler in 1933, the world would have been a better place.

I don't understand your point. Political violence is often justified when the end is significant enough.

	23-08-2004 20:40									#330
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Agathon OK - many of us have different ideas about the Special Theory of Relativity, that in no way entails that someone can't be right about it. People have all sorts of false beliefs about all sorts of things: that doesn't entail subjectivism with regard to those things.

Undrstood-- and again I agree. But scientific facts are discoverable . Theories abound until additional evidence is available to reveal a truth, or at the very least discredit some theories and support some others. You should be able to PROVE the scientific fact at some point.


How can you EVER do this with fairness? I can make some statements that 99% of people would agree with , for example.

If a competent adult shoots another person dead for no other reason than he was curious to see that person die, it is fair that that person should be punished.


But if I then went on to say.

It is fair that the person be given the death penalty.


Will holy cow, imagine the hubub. Are you telling me there is a "right" answer on that question?

------------------------------------------------------------------

Kid is proposing very different concepts of fairness than the ones I accept. Perhaps he is just wrong? In time he will discover the true meaning of fairness .