23-08-2004 22:19									#391
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: If 99% of people see Democracy as a just and fair system, does this become an objective truth?

No. That is the fallacy of majority belief.

	23-08-2004 22:20									#392
	Inflate your Upload Space

Oh I'll answer you anyway

The tyrant would never be better, he would just have better/more just laws.

I see this premise as highly unlikely since my view of better and fairer laws would of necessity require free elections, free press, right to dissent, right to amend laws according to the will of the majority, a codification of basic rights etc etc.

If the tyrant did all that, sure he's better . . .. but he's no longer a tyrant as he has passed laws stripping himself of all power

	23-08-2004 22:22									#393
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: This is no less important than the quality of laws coming out of the system, and I would rather live under a democracy that makes its share of mistakes than a tyrant whose laws prove just more often than not.

You say that the enaction of laws is "no less important" than the quality of the laws, yet only the quality of the laws affects us.

You say that you would rather live in a democracy that makes mostly unjust laws, than a tyranny which makes mostly just laws.

Hence you think injustice is preferable to justice.

	23-08-2004 22:23									#394
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: The tyrant would never be better, he would just have better/more just laws.

But the tyrant's society would be better. Which would you rather live in: the just society, or the unjust society?

	23-08-2004 22:24									#395
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Yes I call it fair. Nobody makes anyone do anything in this scenario. Lets say the war was in say Iraq-- some people believe in the cause and go fight. thers do not believe in it and do not

Just because you are required to pay for your benefits doesn't mean that it's unfair.

	23-08-2004 22:25									#396
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Agathon No. That is the fallacy of majority belief.

ok so fainess is subjective as I argued earlier LOL.

You argued that fairness could be factual and knowable. I agreed that in many cases you can get widespread agreement on what is fair in a situation but there are many cases of substantial disagreement.


So by your answer I take it that if even 99% of people know or believe something , that is not sufficient to reach your standard for an objective truth since they can all be mistaken and only someone else ( you perhaps?) have the ability to see what is truly fair and just.


Oh and I do agree that 99% of people can be mistaken about something. Its just massively more frequent that the 1% have it "wrong".

	23-08-2004 22:25									#397
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: If the tyrant did all that, sure he's better . . .. but he's no longer a tyrant as he has passed laws stripping himself of all power

Why? He doesn't have to pass electoral laws. As was said earlier, the method by which laws are enacted is independent of their value.

	23-08-2004 22:26									#398
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Ag, you are beginning to sound a lot like Kid....you been working the Hooka today?

You say that the enaction of laws is "no less important" than the quality of the laws, yet only the quality of the laws affects us.


Is that a fact?

So the fact that under one set of conditions you are free to affect change in the system itself (and, by extension, in things that affect your daily life), has NO BEARING on your daily life *in* that society?

Interesting.

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 22:27									#399
	Put an end to popups!

quote: ok so fainess is subjective as I argued earlier LOL.

Um... no. Because a majority of people believe something, it doesn't make it true. But that doesn't make it subjective either.

In the Late Middle Ages a majority of people believed in a geocentric cosmos. That didn't make it true and nor did it imply that the nature of the cosmos was a subjective matter.

	23-08-2004 22:28									#400
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ned 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.

Why not?

	23-08-2004 22:28									#401
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Just because you are required to pay for your benefits doesn't mean that it's unfair.

I don't understand what you are talking about-- are you talking economics or war?

If its economics, I accept levels of taxation on both income and property as well as consumption. These largely go to provide services and effect a partial redistribution of the wealth to bring pople up to acceptable standards of living.

If its war, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

	23-08-2004 22:30									#402
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: So the fact that under one set of conditions you are free to affect change in the system itself (and, by extension, in things that affect your daily life), has NO BEARING on your daily life *in* that society?

It has no bearing on the justice of that society, since your freedom can be used for good or ill, to create just or unjust laws. What has bearing on your life is the quality of the laws. The same law can be passed by a tyrant as by a parliament and the effects will be the same.

You've as much as admitted that it has no bearing. If you change now, you will be contradicting your own statements.

	23-08-2004 22:39									#403
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx I observe that Kid got real quiet, too.... Re-considering giving me the green light, Kiddero? Your call. -=Vel=-

The green light to write a half a page of garbage. I wouldn't do that to those contributing to this thread in vain.

	23-08-2004 22:40									#404
	Put an end to popups!

I reject your position, Ag.

For me, personal freedom is the more important of the two.

To juxtapose Ben Franklin, my freedom to flail my arms about stops at the tip of your nose, and not one hair before.

Attempt to take that away by installing a Dictator, no matter how enlightened or well-intentioned, and I'll be the biggest problem child your regieme has ever known.

So yes. Give me a democratic process by which I can affect change any day over a tyrant, even when they make mistakes (and by the way, a democratic society passing unjust laws--which they do now and again--does not automatically mean that the "majority of their laws are unjust" as you attempted to cheese in earlier. It means that people are...people, and as such, prone to make mistakes.

One man declaring "justice" by fiat is much more likely to make mistakes than a body of learned individuals, democratically elected, so I'll take my chances, thanks.

And that is anything BUT contradicting my position.

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 22:41									#405
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Flubber I don't understand what you are talking about-- are you talking economics or war?

What's the difference? If you recieve a benefit you need to pay for it if there is a cost associated with it. Do you agree?

	23-08-2004 22:42									#406
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Agathon It has no bearing on the justice of that society, since your freedom can be used for good or ill, to create just or unjust laws. What has bearing on your life is the quality of the laws. The same law can be passed by a tyrant as by a parliament and the effects will be the same. You've as much as admitted that it has no bearing. If you change now, you will be contradicting your own statements.

OTOH, you've admitted that democratic societies are more likely to pass just laws. I fail to see why pragmatism is not allowed in these discussions.

	23-08-2004 22:42									#407
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The green light to write a half a page of garbage. I wouldn't do that to those contributing to this thread in vain.

Kid, that's the amusing part...it wouldn't take half a page. Not much over a quarter, actually. I can type small, and squeeze them all in, in that amount of space....

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 22:45									#408
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: For me, personal freedom is the more important of the two.

So, for you, freedom has priority over justice. But the tyrant may well allow a great deal of personal freedom, whereas a democracy may choose to restrict it (perhaps the majority are religious maniacs).

quote: So yes. Give me a democratic process by which I can affect change any day over a tyrant, even when they make mistakes (and by the way, a democratic society passing unjust laws--which they do now and again--does not automatically mean that the "majority of their laws are unjust" as you attempted to cheese in earlier. It means that people are...people, and as such, prone to make mistakes.

It doesn't matter. You still haven't given a reason to prefer an unjust democracy over a just tyrant. Or a democracy that tramples personal freedoms over a tyranny that allows its citizens more latitude.

	23-08-2004 22:48									#409
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: OTOH, you've admitted that democratic societies are more likely to pass just laws. I fail to see why pragmatism is not allowed in these discussions.

Because it is irrelevant to the justice of the laws themselves. Vel has been complaining that laws imposed by a revolutionary junta are by that very fact unjust. Yet he has found himself mired in contradictions when he has tried to defend that statement. Now he's tried to seek refuge in freedom: but exactly the same argument applies.

The argument should really be about the justice of the proposed laws, not the irrelevancy of how they come about.

	23-08-2004 22:51									#410
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

At the risk of sounding like a broken record:

Living in the hypothetical unjust democracy you speak of would mean living under conditions whereby I could exert a degree of political control, and work with the system to affect change. In case you're just having a tough time with comprehension today (this being about the fourth time I've covered the same ground), the reason that this is preferable is because MY LIFE...my destiny, my future, is, at least to some degree, in my hands (as opposed to being in the hands of the tyrant).

And no matter how much latitude and personal freedom the dictator gave his subjects (historially, not much, unless you have a specific example in mind), I would forever chaffe under what limits I found, and secretly plot against him to change them. In short, you system would turn me into a killer in order to gain the freedom I seek.

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 22:54									#411
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Ag, I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about. Vel's not budging from his position.

You can keep trying all day long if you wanna, but it's not going to change my mind, and for all your doubletalk, yep, I'd not be surprised in the least if watching the dizzying display has caused me to misspeak here and there.

But, you keep putting different spins on it, and I'll keep giving you the same answer, if that makes you feel any better, 'k?

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 22:55									#412
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by aneeshm 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 ?

They don't contribute to the system. They are merely outsiders making deals with the system. They don't pay taxes, and their work does not contribute to the system. The people inside the sytem work to contribute to the things which the system provides. Their labor is taxed in a way, because it allows the govt to provide the needed things like roads.

quote: 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 ) ?

No, they shouldn't be forced out of the system. That's another issue that I'm sure we don't disagree on.

quote: 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 .

There are no taxes in such a system. It is worked out so that your pay is lower so that resources can be devoted to things like roads.

	23-08-2004 22:56									#413
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Living in the hypothetical unjust democracy you speak of would mean living under conditions whereby I could exert a degree of political control, and work with the system to affect change. In case you're just having a tough time with comprehension today (this being about the fourth time I've covered the same ground), the reason that this is preferable is because MY LIFE...my destiny, my future, is, at least to some degree, in my hands (as opposed to being in the hands of the tyrant). And no matter how much latitude and personal freedom the dictator gave his subjects (historially, not much, unless you have a specific example in mind), I would forever chaffe under what limits I found, and secretly plot against him to change them. In short, you system would turn me into a killer in order to gain the freedom I seek.

You sound like a broken record because you continue to contradict yourself.

Exactly the same argument can be used to chafe against a democracy that restricts freedom and in which you have little prospect of convincing the others. Let's say this democracy mandates religious practices because 75% of them belong to some weird cult. In fact, in some cases it would probably be easier to persuade a tyrant than a fanatical mob.

In any case, what would be the point of trying to overthrow a just tyrant? If his laws are just, what is the objection? It would seem that you merely seek to replace them with unjust laws.

You've spent the thread arguing a hopeless position. Either argue against the justice of the communist system, or give up.

	23-08-2004 22:56									#414
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Because it is irrelevant to the justice of the laws themselves. Vel has been complaining that laws imposed by a revolutionary junta are by that very fact unjust.

Justice cannot be dictated.



-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 22:58									#415
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Because it is irrelevant to the justice of the laws themselves.

But it is not irrelevant to the societal design absent known leaders who we think just or unjust. And as with all these Cap/Com discussion, we really are talking societal design. Further even if we assume a one of kind super uber dictator who creates just laws, the liklihood of that being sustained across multiple generations is miniscule. Given that you, Vel and I agree the potential for creating just laws is maximized in a Democratic society (even if we can't agree to a definition of just or moral ), why the need to defend the infrequent odd instance of happenstance wherein a tyrant passes just laws.

	23-08-2004 22:59									#416
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

How do you figure, Ag, that I am contradicting myself.

By saying that personal freedoms are important, or by saying that fairness and justice just can't spring up becauase you, as the big party boss man says so?

Spiffor actually made sense when he spoke on this topic.

To date, you have not.

-=Vel=-

	23-08-2004 23:04									#417
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Justice cannot be dictated. -=Vel=-

If you believe that justice equals freedom then you don't believe in laws at all.

	23-08-2004 23:04									#418
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious What's the difference? If you recieve a benefit you need to pay for it if there is a cost associated with it. Do you agree?

It matters because it matters how I receive a benefit.

If I am downtown and some lout wants to steal my wallet and a good samaritan stops him, I have receive a benefit but did not pay-- should I?

Likewise I stop someone mugging a little old lady-- I expect no payment even though she benefitted.

A group of volunteers clean my street . . . a couple of days back I mowed my neighbors lawn and in winter I may shovel his walk-- I expect nothing for this-- My labour is mine to give as I choose-- maybe he'll do me a favour sometime but maybe not.

Economics-- I pay taxes to pay for the benefits of the society I live in and I actually pay more taxes than most people although I don't use much of the services at present-- so right now I pay more than my "share" and I accept that as fair since it is part of creating a safety net if I DO get sick or whatever.

War-- some of my taxes go to pay for the war, and I'll live with that too although perhaps I might protest or attempt to end our involvement---but my willingness to "pay" for that war with my own life??-nope not unless I am freely able to decide that the cause was worth it to me.

My personal effort and identity exists outside the existence of any state. if I don't like my state, I can always leave I guess. Maybe sail out to some deserted island and eat bananas -- if Kid will let me leave of course

	23-08-2004 23:07									#419
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Agathon The argument should really be about the justice of the proposed laws, not the irrelevancy of how they come about.

You see my problem is my view that the law that says that I can't freely vote is unjust.

oh and that law taking away freedom of the press
and that law taking away my right to vote for people that have actual power to change the laws

etc etc

You can't have just laws and a tyrant. To me the two are incompatible

	23-08-2004 23:11									#420
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Flubber It matters because it matters how I receive a benefit. If I am downtown and some lout wants to steal my wallet and a good samaritan stops him, I have receive a benefit but did not pay-- should I?

Do you feel no obligation to him whatsoever?

quote: Economics-- I pay taxes to pay for the benefits of the society I live in and I actually pay more taxes than most people although I don't use much of the services at present-- so right now I pay more than my "share" and I accept that as fair since it is part of creating a safety net if I DO get sick or whatever.

You plainly contradict yourself here. Taxes are unfair but fair?

quote: War-- some of my taxes go to pay for the war, and I'll live with that too although perhaps I might protest or attempt to end our involvement---but my willingness to "pay" for that war with my own life??-nope not unless I am freely able to decide that the cause was worth it to me.

We are talking about people who know it is very important to fight the war, but want other people to go in harms way instead of you. You admitted that there would be such people.

quote: My personal effort and identity exists outside the existence of any state. if I don't like my state, I can always leave I guess. Maybe sail out to some deserted island and eat bananas -- if Kid will let me leave of course

Eating bananas on a deserted island isn't going to make anything fair.