Is a wealthy government or a poor government more just?

[emotional leper]

Not sure I agree with that. Could be easier to hide because a smaller government is more self-contained.

--A

The fewer people the public have to keep an eye on the more effort can be spent keeping track of each public official. I wouldn't mind seeing elected officials and governmental employees losing a good deal of their civil rights in the name of making sure the dangerous parasite known as government is kept safely caged.

[Avatar]

I'd be fully in favour of that. I'm largely of the opinion that nobody who seeks public office is fit to hold it anyway.

Still, while I see your point, the breadth of reach necessary to even a small government means fewer people spread thinner. It might lead to more focussed observation, or it might mean a lighter touch, and therefore harder to see. *shrug* Not that it matters. Government is government and always will be.

--A

[emotional leper]

I'd be fully in favour of that. I'm largely of the opinion that nobody who seeks public office is fit to hold it anyway.

Still, while I see your point, the breadth of reach necessary to even a small government means fewer people spread thinner. It might lead to more focussed observation, or it might mean a lighter touch, and therefore harder to see. *shrug* Not that it matters. Government is government and always will be.

--A

And that's why, from time to time, the tree of liberty must be renewed with the blood of tyrants.

And those societies and peoples who forget this are doomed to be crushed by those who have the weapons.

[Avatar]

Hmm, I'm pretty sure the quote doesn't specify that is has to be the blood of tyrants that waters that tree. Could be wrong...

--A

[Plissken]

Blood of patriots.

[Cail]

But it's sort of implied that there'll be some bleeding tyrants as well.

[Plissken]

Yeah, but it's important to remember what the real cost of violent idealism is.

(I'm not saying it's always a bad idea -- just that there are costs.)

[Cail]

And I'd agree.

[iQuestor]

I'd be fully in favour of that. I'm largely of the opinion that nobody who seeks public office is fit to hold it anyway.

Still, while I see your point, the breadth of reach necessary to even a small government means fewer people spread thinner. It might lead to more focussed observation, or it might mean a lighter touch, and therefore harder to see. *shrug* Not that it matters. Government is government and always will be.

--A

I read an interesting story a long time ago where that was the main idea -- those that seek public office arent fit for it. So the new president was chosen from the entire group of eligible citizens each 4 years.


Pliss said:

Yeah, but it's important to remember what the real cost of violent idealism is.

(I'm not saying it's always a bad idea -- just that there are costs.)

I dont trust things without a cost. You cant earn it, you cant learn from it.

[Plissken]

Patriots' blood is one of the highest costs. Seems unjust (see how I bring the topic back?) to spend it as foolishly as we currently are.

[emotional leper]

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

[Avatar]

Problem is, the winners decide which was which.

--A

[emotional leper]

Problem is, the winners decide which was which.

--A

Might makes right, just as the city fathers of Carthage discovered.

[Lord Mhoram]

emotional leper,

Might makes right, just as the city fathers of Carthage discovered.

That is about as far from a categorical statement as one can make. There are many, myself included, who would strenuously disagree with that notion, both in principle and in practice. The simplicity of the statement ("Might makes right") is philosophically offensive in that it gives an appearance of factuality. It isn't a fact at all.

[emotional leper]

emotional leper,

Might makes right, just as the city fathers of Carthage discovered.

That is about as far from a categorical statement as one can make. There are many, myself included, who would strenuously disagree with that notion, both in principle and in practice. The simplicity of the statement ("Might makes right") is philosophically offensive in that it gives an appearance of factuality. It isn't a fact at all.

Really? You wouldn't be saying I was wrong if I killed you. Which proves my point.

[Lord Mhoram]

emotional leper,

...You're going to have to elaborate on that before I can comment. What exactly are you saying? It seems to me that you're arguing that an action justifies itself.

[emotional leper]

emotional leper,

...You're going to have to elaborate on that before I can comment. What exactly are you saying? It seems to me that you're arguing that an action justifies itself.

The reason the Nazis were wrong is because we won the war and say so. Had they won, they would be right.

The Victors make the rules.

This is how reality works. Please get used to it.

[Avatar]

I'm afraid that while might doesn't morally make right, it certainly does practically.

Even the laws that we follow are laws by virtue of the ability of the state to enforce them. In other words, if you disobey whatever the state says is law, then they'll punish you, because they have the power to.

All law grows from the barrel of a gun.

--A

[iQuestor]

emotional leper,

...You're going to have to elaborate on that before I can comment. What exactly are you saying? It seems to me that you're arguing that an action justifies itself.

The reason the Nazis were wrong is because we won the war and say so. Had they won, they would be right.

The Victors make the rules.

This is how reality works. Please get used to it.

to expound upon this excellent point -- In the US revolution, we have our heros we hold high: George Washington. Ben Franklin. John Adams. Patrick Henry.

However, if we had lost our revolution -- and were now part of Britain -- those names would surely be synonymous with traitors -- kinda like Benedict Arnold is now.

The reason the winners are right is because the losers are dead or eventually reprogrammed. Young people in the society are brought up to beleive the current system is right and that is their moral foundation.

[Lord Mhoram]

emotional leper,

The reason the Nazis were wrong is because we won the war and say so. Had they won, they would be right.

This assumes that people are incapable of analysis. Personally, I can look at something critically and arrive at an opinion about it; certainly, history is written by the victors within the victors' culture. But the victors simply have their own paradigm; people hold differing opinions. The victors' paradigm is the dominant one (within that dominant culture, remember), but it is far from an inescapable one. You might amend the statement to "Might makes the mighty think they are right." It doesn't make everyone agree upon a notion of "rightness."

This is how reality works. Please get used to it.

Have you been reading anything the moderators have been saying recently? Need you be so rude?