 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
Yep LC – sorry about that….you got temporarily lost in the shuffle when I went to lunch with the boss.
how can you justify punishing thieves if dictating to them that theft is something you've got a problem with?
The thieves are a part of the society that made the laws against theft. They are free to attempt (tho incredibly unlikely to succeed) in convincing their countrymen to repeal any and all laws relating to thievery being a crime. They are also free to lobby as hard as they wish to, in order to minimize sentences FOR those crimes (again, with the easy admission that the probability for success is quite small). The point is, as citizens of the democratic system, they have a voice. They have a say. It is NOT the same as some guy in a Colonel’s uniform standing on a balcony and decreeing that “all theft will be punishable by death from this day forward!”
Also note that in the democratic system, the review system (courts, trials by a jury of your peers, etc), takes pains to make SURE they are, in fact guilty. Contrast this to being awakened in the middle of the night by the People’s Anti-Theft Division, Squad 3645-DD, and tossed in His Excellency’s jail for God-knows-how long.
However, once a crime has been committed, then it’s true…the hammer falls, but at least the criminals have been a part of the process, and are more likely to get fair treatment meted out by a democratized SYSTEM than by a Dictator, ruling via decree.
This again reads as opposition to autocracy in principle. I really cannot see any other reason to object to an enlightened despot - if there is, please tell me.
If that’s what you wanna call it, then sure. I reject any political system that would curtail my personal freedoms. If there’s an “enlightened despot” out there in the world somewhere who would not do this…I don’t know…never had the experience, personally. Never even HEARD of such an example. Have you? (I mean, do you have one in mind? If so…tell me about him).
You're assuming that change is necessary. Since you've already conceded that the tyrant can make just laws, you appear to be saying that an otherwise just system needs to be brought down just because it's autocratic. That position makes no sense unless you're opposed to autocracy on principle.
The human condition is all about change. Of course change is necessary. Without change, stagnation results. Stagnation = (to borrow a phrase from Flubber), DoublePlusUnGood.
And yes…just because a tyrant passes the occasional just law makes him no less tyrannical. It just means he got one right for a change.
-=Vel=-
PS to Che: Do we live in an Athenian Democracy, or do you suppose that perhaps there's a reason it died out in WampumWayBack BC? But yes, I agree with you in principle....those expressed protections are (sometimes...not always, I would argue, although for no reason in particular other than to leave the door open...I have no example in my mind) required as an extra "layer" of the process.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
 |
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
how can you justify punishing thieves if dictating to them that theft is something you've got a problem with?
The thieves are a part of the society that made the laws against theft. They are free to attempt (tho incredibly unlikely to succeed) in convincing their countrymen to repeal any and all laws relating to thievery being a crime. They are also free to lobby as hard as they wish to, in order to minimize sentences FOR those crimes (again, with the easy admission that the probability for success is quite small). The point is, as citizens of the democratic system, they have a voice. They have a say. It is NOT the same as some guy in a Colonel’s uniform standing on a balcony and decreeing that “all theft will be punishable by death from this day forward!”
Also note that in the democratic system, the review system (courts, trials by a jury of your peers, etc), takes pains to make SURE they are, in fact guilty. Contrast this to being awakened in the middle of the night by the People’s Anti-Theft Division, Squad 3645-DD, and tossed in His Excellency’s jail for God-knows-how long.
However, once a crime has been committed, then it’s true…the hammer falls, but at least the criminals have been a part of the process, and are more likely to get fair treatment meted out by a democratized SYSTEM than by a Dictator, ruling via decree. |
I'm starting to agree with with Spiff's comment on emotional language.
Moreover, your above argument certainly seems to stand in open contradiction to your statement that justice cannot be dictated; you're fine with the democracy dictating to the thieves that theft is wrong.
About the only way out I can see is the utilitarian one; violating the thieves' right not to have justice dictated to them is a lesser evil than have theft rampaging unchecked. Is this what you have in mind? If so, why doesn't it apply equally to the dictator? (If I'm allowed some emotional rhetorics myself, I for one would rather live under a dictator who punishes theft than under one who doesn't.)
quote:
This again reads as opposition to autocracy in principle. I really cannot see any other reason to object to an enlightened despot - if there is, please tell me.
If that’s what you wanna call it, then sure. I reject any political system that would curtail my personal freedoms. If there’s an “enlightened despot” out there in the world somewhere who would not do this…I don’t know…never had the experience, personally. Never even HEARD of such an example. Have you? (I mean, do you have one in mind? If so…tell me about him). |
Again, I'm arguing principles here. The fact there's never been any enlightened despots (or enlightened democrats, in any absolute sense, for that matter) doesn't mean debating them is without interest.
As for a political system that does not curtail your personal freedoms, that sounds like a contradiction in terms. Restricting what people are allowed to do is what political systems do. That's why we have them.
quote:
You're assuming that change is necessary. Since you've already conceded that the tyrant can make just laws, you appear to be saying that an otherwise just system needs to be brought down just because it's autocratic. That position makes no sense unless you're opposed to autocracy on principle.
The human condition is all about change. Of course change is necessary. Without change, stagnation results. Stagnation = (to borrow a phrase from Flubber), DoublePlusUnGood.
And yes…just because a tyrant passes the occasional just law makes him no less tyrannical. It just means he got one right for a change. |
Are you entirely unaware of the practice of discussing hypotheticals to more clearly see the core of an argument?
You can oppose autocracy because it's in practice prone to be unjust. You can oppose autocracy because you consider it inherently evil. But you cannot reasonably oppose autocracy because it necessarily is unjust, because that does not follow from the definition of autocracy. Nonetheless, the last is the position you appear to be taking.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
LC
Where did I get all emotional in my reply to you? 
your above argument certainly seems to stand in open contradiction to your statement that justice cannot be dictated; you're fine with the democracy dictating to the thieves that theft is wrong.
If you have a voice in the government that establishes the rules you live under, then you cannot rightly say that you are being dictated to.....at least....not in any way that I can see from here. Again, do you have something in mind?
As for a political system that does not curtail your personal freedoms, that sounds like a contradiction in terms. Restricting what people are allowed to do is what political systems do. That's why we have them.
Yes....again, Ben Franklin: My freedom to flail my arms about stops at the tip of your nose. Fine and good. I can do as I will, so long as it does not impact you. If my democratic society passes laws that constrain this further, you can bet I'll fight against it via the established system (and thus have my say). If it passes anyway, I will abide (having HAD my say), and will continue to lobby for the return of my freedom, using the various legal means at my disposal. I am well aware that certain restrictions on personal freedom are necessary for society to function at all, yes. And I don't have a beef with not being able to run around naked with a raw fish in my mouth, cutting small dogs who get in my path, and kicking children (to provide a suitably rediculous example).
As to opposition of autocracy....I oppose it because rule by fiat does not...DOES NOT constitute a just society. A society in which the citizens OF that society do not have any say or recourse (short of killing the autocratic ruler) does not a fair and just system of governance make.
Excuse me, but what the hell does that have to do with anything?
It has a whole lot to do with having to give up increasing amounts of freedom for precious little gain.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
You plainly contradict yourself here. Taxes are unfair but fair?
|
No contradiction at all. I accept that the existence of a society and good government have partially led to my income so I do not dispute that it is appropriate that they should take some portion. That they take more proportionally from me than the proportion of services is ok with me as it is part of creating a social safety net that involves minimum levels of income and care for us all. The appropriate portion to go to the government is the subject of most elections as parties propose taxes that go up or down and the programs they can fund.
Its called democracy .. . its imperfect but I like it
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Eating bananas on a deserted island isn't going to make anything fair. |
No if you have made everything "fair" according to your definitions and your perfect world and all the populace but me agrees with you, PLEASE PLEASE let me leave. I wouldn'r be productive to you anyway so let me trade in my prior assets and run away fro the horror you see as a perfect society. ( Note that even though I would abhor your society I wouldn't attempt to overthrow it if people were freely choosing it-- )
Last edited by Flubber on 24-08-2004 at 01:10
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Democracy does none of those things. Athenian democracy could be very nasty to those it didn't like, including stoning someone to death for suggesting they put the Persian offering to a vote. If you didn't show up to the Agora (the public meeting hall) you could be fined, etc.
This is why democracy needs to be mitigated with protections for the politically weak. |
Agreed-- Thats why I also like a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and an independent judiciary
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
PS to Che: Do we live in an Athenian Democracy, or do you suppose that perhaps there's a reason it died out in WampumWayBack BC? But yes, I agree with you in principle. |
The point was that democracy can be just as tyrranical as the rule of a despot. You are placing form above essence. Hell, it hasn't even been the last hundred years that the idea of popular rule has become accepted, even in the United States. Mob rule has been decried since the beginning of the American experiment, frequently againt people like me (until the Soviets decided to prove everyone wrong by going 180 degrees and becoming a dictatorship based on a cult of personality).
Ceterus parabus, we agree that democracy is the superior form of government, and not just because trade is doubled and corruption lowered  . We have as an ideal that humans have the right to particpate in their own government. Many on right and left, however, have been all to willing to express the caveat, "unless my side loses." Lots of people who decry the lack of democracy in Communist dictatorships at the same time openly wish for a coup d'etat against elected leftists like Chavez, or supported war against the elected Sandanistas. As for the left, I don't think I need to instruct you on our democratic failings.
So what does that mean for justice? What is just is a value judgement. Like morals, ethics, race, rights, culture, etc., it doesn't have an existence seperate from humans and thus cannot be defined objectively, despite Plato's attempts to do so in The Republic. Justice is subjective and relative. The best we can do is create a system of rules upon which the majority can agree is just, and that can be done by imposing it from above via a dictator or by working it out amongs ourselves democratically.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
So if we democratically create a law that requires all citizens to share equally in the work load and recieve equal pay for it, do you still think that’s an injustice in your opinion? |
I would abide by the law while fighting against it. I believe in democracy more than I do the free market. Democratically imposed laws can still be unjust.
If the law remained I would perhaps leave that society and join one where my skills were more valued. Although it might be worth sticking around to see the fun of the implementation. When the strapping young factory worker finds out that he no longer gets extra pay for producing 60 units while everyone else produces 40 . .. . or when everyone sees the lazy ass bumped up to their pay scale.
Exactly how many brain surgeries are equal to 8 hours of ditch digging anyway?
Oh and in demand services like the Intensive Care Unit, are you going to keep it constantly staffed at maximum levels (very inefficient since it can be double what isusually needed) or are you going to staff it at regular levels and if so, what do you do when more people are needed ( note these are specialized skills)? having someone work an extra shift leaves you with 2 apparent choices
1. pay someone to work "extra"
2. don't pay them
Either would be a problem for you since option one gives someone extra stuff while 2 would demand extra work .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
|
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
LC
Where did I get all emotional in my reply to you? |
Don't tell me that passages such as this one are not intended to provoke emotional hostility towards autocrats:
Also note that in the democratic system, the review system (courts, trials by a jury of your peers, etc), takes pains to make SURE they are, in fact guilty. Contrast this to being awakened in the middle of the night by the People’s Anti-Theft Division, Squad 3645-DD, and tossed in His Excellency’s jail for God-knows-how long.
quote:
your above argument certainly seems to stand in open contradiction to your statement that justice cannot be dictated; you're fine with the democracy dictating to the thieves that theft is wrong.
If you have a voice in the government that establishes the rules you live under, then you cannot rightly say that you are being dictated to.....at least....not in any way that I can see from here. Again, do you have something in mind? |
Of course I can say I'm being dictated to if others, in this case a democratic majority, are laying down rules I have to follow even if I do not agree with them. That's what being dictated to means.
quote:
As to opposition of autocracy....I oppose it because rule by fiat does not...DOES NOT constitute a just society. |
Point. You can adjust the definiton of justice too, of course. I'd suggest this is not the usual sort of justice people normally think of; equal treatment for all, appropriate rewards and punishments for achievements and transgressions, and the like.
quote:
Excuse me, but what the hell does that have to do with anything?
It has a whole lot to do with having to give up increasing amounts of freedom for precious little gain. |
Which is not an issue I've addressed in this thread, nor, as far as I can recall, in any thread on 'Poly in the last several weeks.
Last edited by Last Conformist on 24-08-2004 at 01:18
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So what does that mean for justice? What is just is a value judgement. Like morals, ethics, race, rights, culture, etc., it doesn't have an existence seperate from humans and thus cannot be defined objectively, despite Plato's attempts to do so in The Republic. Justice is subjective and relative. The best we can do is create a system of rules upon which the majority can agree is just, and that can be done by imposing it from above via a dictator or by working it out amongs ourselves democratically. |
I agreed with you pretty much all the way . . . so close.
To me a set of rules imposed from above could only be acceptable if one of them was that "rules are not imposed from above". Democracy is an end as well as a means.
If the tyrant wanted to impose a set of rules that included the populace to change them, fine, but you no longer have a tyrant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
:: Shrug:: Sorry LC....but nope. That one was entirely unintentional. (the "emotional reference," that is) - if you took it that way...if it came OUT that way, it was not by design.
And I disagree...any system which allows you a fair say prior to rendering its decision is not dictatorial in its nature, *especially* if said decision is not set in stone, but subject to continual review, testing, and change by you and your constituants at some later time. You may not like, enjoy, or agree with the end result if "your side loses," but you cannot rightly say that you are being dictated to in the sense of the "rule by fiat" dictation. Not even in the same ballpark.
As to the last...what can I say but that since you seemed interested to know more about my views, I thought that might interest you as well.
If that was a mistaken assumption...oops.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
Vel
that was not emotional-- dictators often toss people in jail or kill them on whims-- I don't know why a reference to that fact should be offensive to anyone in discussing why you prefer democracy
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-08-2004 23:13
(I didn't vote for either of them, but still!)
|