23-08-2004 20:40									#331
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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

I would dearly love to, Kid. 'cept that your answer changes hour to hour. That makes it a shade problematic.

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 20:42									#332
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Do you believe in the military draft under any circumstance?

Personally nope. The cause should be sufficient that people are willing to volunteer.

	23-08-2004 20:43									#333
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Undrstood-- and again I agree. But scientific facts are discoverable.

What about mathematical facts?

What about the fact that you love your girl?

What about the experience of hearing Beethoven's C#Minor quartet?

Are these any less real because they are not empirically discoverable?

quote: 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

Exactly. This is how ethics works. You find something that almost everyone agrees upon and extrapolate principles from that, testing them against other things that everyone agrees upon. This is what we do in moral argument. It is a practice, with its own expectations and standards just like any other practice.

	23-08-2004 20:45									#334
	Got spare money?

Ag - we're still speaking different languages. you're saying yes...a tyrant CAN stumble in (or even do it intentionally) and make a fair and just law.

I'm saying it doesn't matter that it CAN happen. That is irrelevant.

What matters is how much control those living under the "Fairness" have in modifying it.

If the only recourse of your system is to kill the people at the top...you don't see that as problematic?

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 20:46									#335
	Remove this text

quote: Kid is proposing very different concepts of fairness than the ones I accept.

Sure. Our general theories of justice tend to diverge because they are usually just rules of thumb rather than being fully worked out theories.

I would say a good starting point for an ethical theory would be this:

Can you honestly say that your welfare matters more than anyone else's from the moral point of view?

Can a third person honestly say that your welfare matters more than someone else's from the moral point of view?

	23-08-2004 20:46									#336
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Flubber 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.

The murderer may claim that murder is fair. Why? Because he faces punishment. Murder is not fair though, is it?

	23-08-2004 20:48									#337
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Agathon 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.

I need a moral justification for free speech? Thats all I am proposing here. If the majority was content, truly content, I would live within the system while never stopping trying to change people's minds.

I believe in democracy far more than I believe in capitalism. I would be vocal to fight against the loss of capitalism. I would bear arms only to protect democracy.

	23-08-2004 20:48									#338
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: What matters is how much control those living under the "Fairness" have in modifying it.

But this is irrelevant to the justice of the law. If the law is something they would have agreed to anyway, what case would they have?

You need to show that there is some added value to a law that is enacted by consent over the same law enacted by the tyrant. It's the same law in both cases and has the same effects..

What's the moral difference?

	23-08-2004 20:49									#339
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Personally nope. The cause should be sufficient that people are willing to volunteer.

Do you not see that there are some people who will not volunteer so that others can go and pay the price for their freedom?

	23-08-2004 20:51									#340
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx I would dearly love to, Kid. 'cept that your answer changes hour to hour. That makes it a shade problematic. -=Vel=-

That's a load of bull hockey. I changed my mind once, and I acknowledged it.

	23-08-2004 20:52									#341
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Do you not see that there are some people who will not volunteer so that others can go and pay the price for their freedom?

Sure and

again free choice.

	23-08-2004 20:53									#342
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ag - Doesn't matter.

That one is imposed upon them and one was freely chosen makes all the difference in the world.

The ACT of the imposition itself is immoral. Even if it is for their own "good." You see...we are not children. We are adults. We have free will.

To repress mine for the sake of your version of "fair" and to leave me no recourse but to kill you to prevent its impact on me....that is an unacceptable methodology to me, and I would resist it MOST ardently, I assure you.

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 20:55									#343
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

That's a load of bull hockey. I changed my mind once, and I acknowledged it.

You sure you want to go there?

I'm asking once...just to be sure.

-=Vel=-

EDIT: Spiff....that was for you....

	23-08-2004 20:56									#344
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Sure and again free choice.

I've just demonstrated to you that it is unfair, because the most heroic will go and die, while the selfish will live. Free choice or not, you call this fair.

	23-08-2004 20:58									#345
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx That's a load of bull hockey. I changed my mind once, and I acknowledged it. You sure you want to go there? I'm asking once...just to be sure. -=Vel=- EDIT: Spiff....that was for you....

Have you been on drugs for three days or something. Honestly, you are not yourself. I've never known you to be this ridiculous.

	23-08-2004 21:00									#346
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Agathon But this is irrelevant to the justice of the law. If the law is something they would have agreed to anyway, what case would they have? You need to show that there is some added value to a law that is enacted by consent over the same law enacted by the tyrant. It's the same law in both cases and has the same effects.. What's the moral difference?

Are you truly arguing the efficacy of decision made by a larger group verses that of an individual. It has been shown repeatedly that group decisions whilst harder to achieve offer a far better result than that of an individual. Refer to any team training to verify.

	23-08-2004 21:01									#347
	Remove this text

Was that a green light, Kid?

I'm making sure before I prove you wrong.

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 21:01									#348
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: That one is imposed upon them and one was freely chosen makes all the difference in the world.

But you've already conceded the opposite.

Is a just law:

(i) just because it is enacted democratically?

or

(ii) enacted by a democratically elected government because it is just?

You've already denied that a law is necessarily just because it is enacted by democratic means, so you denied (i).

That leaves (ii) which entails that the justice of a law is independent of the method of its enaction (if you denied this, you would be saying that democrats enact a law because it is enacted by democrats).

This means that a just law enacted by a tyrant is just as just as a just law enacted by a democracy.

So you can't object that tyranny is unjust in principle, only that tyrannies that enact unjust laws are unjust. Good tyrants are exempt from your wrath.

	23-08-2004 21:03									#349
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

More to the point, if a just tyrant refuses to bow to the will of the majority because their will is unjust, then he seems to have done the right thing.

	23-08-2004 21:04									#350
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Define just.

	23-08-2004 21:04									#351
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

No such thing as a good tyrant.

Anyone who imposes his will on others and denies them any possible recourse other than his own death is morally wrong. Therefore unjust....EVEN IF some of his actions may be just.

Because it is wrapped in the veil of force, it matters not at all.

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 21:05									#352
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

and *yawn* for the love of god, don't bring up the prison-guard example. You know better, I trust.



-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 21:09									#353
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Anyone who imposes his will on others and denies them any possible recourse other than his own death is morally wrong.

Really, what about an armed Frenchman who refuses to let Nazi officials into his town to see whether they have any Jews about? He is imposing his will on them, and they'll have to kill him to find the Jews. Is he morally wrong?

quote: Therefore unjust....EVEN IF some of his actions may be just.

Why? Why can't all his laws be just? Even if he intends to do evil, and through his own stupidity ends up enacting just laws, what is the problem?

And you've already said that the question of whether a law is just is independent of whether a democracy enacts it, so now you appear to be contradicting yourself.

	23-08-2004 21:14									#354
	Put an end to popups!

I knew it.

I knew you'd bring it down to the microcosm.

Damn I hate being right.

'k....let's get it straight.

We're talking about a Dictatorial Tyrant and his power over a whole societal group, NOT over a particular individual.

We're talking about one man, or a small elite, imposing his will...his view of "Fair" and "Justice" upon a larger societal group.

See the difference here between this and the one on one interaction? There IS a difference. Just as communism has proved not to be scalar in its nature, just as the laws of physics change at the quantum level, some things change at the macro level.

And such a tyrant, imposing his will on his subjects, decreeing by fiat what is fair and just, giving them no recourse but to kill him if they wish to effect change....this is what I object to.

If you don't have a particular problem with it...fantastic!

That was never a part of the debate.

However, the point is....if this is how you plan to structure your utopia, then it falls to you to sell me on it.

So...spin it. Sell me.

Why should I view this as a vast improvement over the system I already live under?

Got any snappy arguments close at hand, or would you like to go another eight or ten rounds with deviating from the core issue?

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 21:16									#355
	Support Apolyton

* chegitz guevara belches in this threads general direction, and it's a nasty garlic one too.

	23-08-2004 21:19									#356
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I observe that Kid got real quiet, too....

Re-considering giving me the green light, Kiddero? Your call.

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 21:21									#357
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

And yes...I did misspeak myself and allow you to take my words out of the context of the original discussion...so the fault is mine.

That should have been: Any leader (keeping the context tied to leadership of the government...ie, a tyrant, a dictator, as we have been discussing this whole time, rather than a frenchman with an arquebus).

	23-08-2004 21:24									#358
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

So you are now saying that any law enacted by a tyrant is necessarily unjust?

	23-08-2004 21:25									#359
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious 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. Maybe you want to ask these questions a different way now. 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.

According to you , it is OK for those in they system not to trade with those outside because it sould be unjust if the system followed by those outside came to prevail . But what if those people who were in capitalist were very much in thy system , paying taxes to it , and contributing to the system itself ?

And is it justice if those same people who contributed to the system and actually helped further its interests are forced out of work or forced ( because of unemployment , which the state is supposed to prevent ) to work at lower wages ( the state pays less , remember ) ?

I'm guessing that you missed my previous post saying that the business pays ( comparatively ) hefty taxes and contributes to various local government programs . The workers also pay taxes .

	23-08-2004 21:27									#360
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Just a small comment here. One can see Kid's thinking running throughout socialist dogma: equality of results based on denial of freedom of contract and "progressive" taxation. Nothing is "fair" about socialism if "fair" is understood to mean to be getting equal value for what one gives up.