Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MushroomMan Mycology
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
Political Justice, the "right" to survive?
    #2189180 -

This thread or rather this post is specifically for Pinky. But I would be delighted if others would share their views as well.

Is there such a thing as political justice? I have maintained for a long time that the rights of the individual supersede the rights of a group of individuals because the rights of the group are derived from the rights of the individuals.

But is it just to deny your fellow man a loaf of bread in order to protect the individual from force if he cannot provide himself with it?

Somehow that doesn't seem very just.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Political Justice, the "right" to survive? [Re: ]
    #2189255 -

Short term assistance? Yes. Anybody who has put into the system deserves a helping hand if they fall on a patch of hard times.

Long-term assistance? Hard to say. No able-bodied person should receive indefinite (or years and years) of assistance, as seems to be the case in some European countries where there are hordes of unemployed 20-somethings living with their parents, and yet still on the dole.

Long-term assistance for those who are absolutely incapable of supporting themselves should be provided by the family to the extent of their ability. If the family's contribution plus other charitable, voluntary contributions do not suffice to keep the incapacitated individual alive, I think there's something to be said for the public making up the difference (not footing the whole bill).

I would argue that in a just society a human being has a right to live independent of his standing within the social value-negotiating system known as "the economy." In cases of last resort this takes priority over the property rights of others.

Justice of course is an abstraction (a textbook example, in fact) which means societies can take it or leave it. I personally think that it is what separates barbarism from civilization, but that's only my own unproveable opinion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Political Justice, the "right" to survive? [Re: EchoVortex]
    #2189266 -

Thanks.

I almost agree with you. I am still trying to parse this one out. I really hope I don't end up convinced that the rights of the property owners should be abrogated in order to satisfy the needs of dependent individuals (even in a worst case scenario).

Justice is certainly an abstract concept but that doesn't make it any less real than freedom or cheese for that matter. The same could be said of good and evil. I don't want this thread to be derailed on that point. I am assuming, for this argument, that justice is a real quantifable entity.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Political Justice, the "right" to survive? [Re: ]
    #2189399 -

Mr Mushrooms writes:

Is there such a thing as political justice?

Define "justice", political or otherwise.

But is it just to deny your fellow man a loaf of bread in order to protect the individual from force if he cannot provide himself with it?

Define "deny".

Do I prevent him from buying a loaf of bread, or baking one? If not, how am I "denying" him one? Am I seizing a loaf of bread he has acquired? If not, how am I "denying" him one?

Here's a telling quote. Adjust for inflation as you see fit:

"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you DO or do NOT have the right to exist WITHOUT giving him that dime."

Somehow that doesn't seem very just.

How is it "just" to presume that the mere fact of your existence gives you a claim on the efforts of others?

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Political Justice, the "right" to survive? [Re: Phred]
    #2189640 -

Quote:
Do I prevent him from buying a loaf of bread, or baking one? If not, how am I "denying" him one? Am I seizing a loaf of bread he has acquired? If not, how am I "denying" him one?




I think it is fairly obvious that MM meant this man does not have the facility to buy or make bread. If you are aware of this and choose not to give him some of your own bread you are denying him bread as you have made a concious choice not to give him bread.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Political Justice, the "right" to survive? [Re: GazzBut]
    #2190061 -

GazzBut said:
Quote:
Do I prevent him from buying a loaf of bread, or baking one? If not, how am I "denying" him one? Am I seizing a loaf of bread he has acquired? If not, how am I "denying" him one?




I think it is fairly obvious that MM meant this man does not have the facility to buy or make bread. If you are aware of this and choose not to give him some of your own bread you are denying him bread as you have made a concious choice not to give him bread.


If I was able to do work and obtain bread, and my hard work enabled me to obtain said bread, why should I be compelled by legal or other forceful action to give him bread? The thing is, in this case, I'd rather it be his family that picks up the ball. His brother, father, whoever, that DOES have bread should help him out. The thing that I don't understand is where does the responsibility lie on me to feed this man. I don't want him to starve to death, but if I gave bread to every person who didn't have it, I would have less for myself and my family. Should I give the bread that I have until it's balanced out, so that everyone has equal bread? If so, what do I get for my dedication and will to have a job and put forth some effort to have the food?

I think that the primary moral justification is the claim that if their is a system set up to help those "in need", then if I should ever myself become in need, I know that I'll be helped as well. I'd much rather opt out of this system, sign a waiver that I'll never accept any form of public assistance, and thus, I dissolve any 'contract' that is forced upon me by society to partake in such a system. Since I know that I am pretty self-sufficient and I've managed to save my money, I am sure that I won't need societies help, at least in this fashion. Thus, the 'safety net' is, for most people who pay large amounts of 'bread' into the system, never going to be used by them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Political Justice, the "right" to survive? [Re: GazzBut]
    #2190524 -

GazzBut writes:

If you are aware of this and choose not to give him some of your own bread you are denying him bread as you have made a concious choice not to give him bread.

I am not preventing him from acquiring "bread", I am choosing not to give him my bread. There is a difference. I am not the sole holder of bread in the world, or even in his immediate area.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Political Justice, the "right" to survive? [Re: Phred]
    #2190641 -

Define "justice", political or otherwise.

Justice is that which is derived from an action. It is a prescriptive truth, an "ought to". This stems from interaction with others. If we as humans need air, and we admit that life is qualitatively better than death (we have to assume that since we do not know what death is like), in other words the known is better than the unknown.

It follows then that we "ought to" breath air. Is it "good" for us.

Then it also follows that choking someone (denying them air) is "bad" since it is necessary for life.

How closely related to that is sharing air? If I have a lot of air and someone has none do I have to give them some of my air in order to live?

This may seem like a silly example but there are instances where this might be the case.

Think of an area underwater where there are lots of scuba divers and a person's regulator goes haywire.

Would it be just or "good" to let them die from asphyxiation?

"Hey buddy, I don't have to help you. Can't you see I just came down and I am busy looking at some coral?"

I swim away and continue taking pretty pictures of the coral while he dies.

I "denied" him air. It is in that sense that I mean 'deny'.

How is it "just" to presume that the mere fact of your existence gives you a claim on the efforts of others?

Mere existence distorts the issue I think. There isn't anything 'mere' about being alive. The quote also distorts the issue I think. All of us have the right to exist. But that says nothing about whether giving of our abundance would cause our existence to cease.

Your take?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Political Justice, the "right" to survive? [Re: ]
    #2191015 -

Mr Mushrooms writes:

It follows then that we "ought to" breath air. Is it "good" for us.

Yes, this follows. How does it follow that it is the responsibility of one human to provide air to another human, and if he fails to do so, he may rightfully be killed? Lay the chain of reasoning out for us.

Then it also follows that choking someone (denying them air) is "bad" since it is necessary for life.

Choking someone is clearly an initiation of force. This is what I was getting at when I asked if your definition of "deny" involved action rather than passivity -- are you seizing bread he already has, or preventing him from baking his own, etc.

Think of an area underwater where there are lots of scuba divers and a person's regulator goes haywire.
Would it be just or "good" to let them die from asphyxiation?
"Hey buddy, I don't have to help you. Can't you see I just came down and I am busy looking at some coral?"
I swim away and continue taking pretty pictures of the coral while he dies.

Bad analogy. You can do better than that.

First, swimming underwater breathing compressed air is not the normal state of existence for humans. It is a temporary activity undertaken voluntarily by humans who know up front the risks associated with it.

Second, humans do not need to swim underwater breathing compressed air in order to survive. It is done mainly for recreation (i.e. hang gliding, mountain climbing and other risky leisure activities) or to gather knowledge non-essential to the business of survival day to day. Note how many billions of humans lived long and fulfilling lives before the invention of SCUBA gear.

Third, the situation you describe certainly fits the definition of an emergency. As I have already pointed out, the ethics of emergencies are not a rational base on which to design the rules governing human interaction. They are by definition exceptions to the rule.

I "denied" him air. It is in that sense that I mean 'deny'.

You did not deny him air. There's plenty of air at the surface. You denied him your air. The two concepts are not equivalent.

Do you think Congress should pass a law requiring all scuba divers to donate air to other scuba divers? What should be the penalty for failing to do so? How is a court to decide whether the "donater" had enough air on hand at the time to support both divers? What if during the process another diver's regulator malfunctions? Is he to supply air for all three of them?

Mere existence distorts the issue I think.

In what way? I see no distortion. Elaborate, please.

If you hold that the a starving human has a rightful claim on the belongings of other humans, ultimately you are saying nothing more than that if there is more than one human, no human has the right to be free. Work it backwards down the chain of logic to verify this for yourself -- I am exercising no distortion here, merely compressing a lengthy chain of logic.

There isn't anything 'mere' about being alive.

Then substitute the phrase "the simple fact" or "the bare fact" or "the essential fact" or "the salient fact" if you feel more comfortable. Or eliminate all modifiers entirely and go with "The fact of your existence doesn't give you a just claim on the efforts of others".

The quote also distorts the issue I think.

I disagree most strongly. The quote cuts to the very heart of the issue under discussion.

All of us have the right to exist. Take one --

Not so. All of us have the right to take those actions we judge to be required to continue and further our existence without the forcible interference of other humans. Or, to put it another way, we have the right to attempt to continue to exist. That is not the same thing at all.

All of us have the right to exist. Take two --

Except, apparently, those of us who vigorously resist having our belongings forcibly seized from us to be given to others. In other words -- to refer to the quote -- if all of us have the right to exist, all of us have the right to exist without giving a dime to a beggar.

But that says nothing about whether giving of our abundance would cause our existence to cease.

Agreed. Giving part of an abundance of my belongings will likely not lessen the odds of my continued survival and the survival of my family and friends by very much if at all. This is why throughout recorded history humans on the whole normally choose to voluntarily assist other humans who are in desperate straits.

But that is not what is under discussion. We are discussing the acceptability of seizing by force the belongings of one human to transfer them to another human -- and if the owner resists strongly enough, he ends up dead.

Not the same thing at all. Not even close.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Political Justice, the "right" to survive? [Re: ]
    #2191030 -

is it just to deny your fellow man protection from (foreign or domestic) enemies in order to protect the individual from force if he cannot provide himself with it?


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Political Justice, the "right" to survive? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2191087 -

Oooooooh!

Slam dunk!

Bravo, infant dictator!

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Political Justice, the "right" to survive? [Re: Phred]
    #2191095 -

Funny thing is, I'm not sure I really understand the origional question.


--------------------
https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-for-renee-goods-wife-and-son

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Political Justice, the "right" to survive? [Re: Phred]
    #2191616 -

Please note that this isn't my argument.  I am not defending the position.  I am repeating, to the best of my ability, a position I have read about.  What I need you to do is to provide me with solid answers in the form of a counter argument so that I don't end up holding what would be an uncomfortable position.

It follows then that we "ought to" breath air. Is it "good" for us.

Yes, this follows. How does it follow that it is the responsibility of one human to provide air to another human, and if he fails to do so, he may rightfully be killed? Lay the chain of reasoning out for us.

I said nothing about "he may rightfully be killed".  That invention is yours and doesn't appear in the author's position even by extrapolation.  Therefore, I cannot lay out a chain of reasoning to defend it.  Nor would I want to.

Then it also follows that choking someone (denying them air) is "bad" since it is necessary for life.

Choking someone is clearly an initiation of force. This is what I was getting at when I asked if your definition of "deny" involved action rather than passivity -- are you seizing bread he already has, or preventing him from baking his own, etc.

Yes, that is very easy to understand and easy to agree with.

Think of an area underwater where there are lots of scuba divers and a person's regulator goes haywire.
Would it be just or "good" to let them die from asphyxiation?
"Hey buddy, I don't have to help you. Can't you see I just came down and I am busy looking at some coral?"
I swim away and continue taking pretty pictures of the coral while he dies.

Bad analogy. You can do better than that.

Agreed.  The author doesn't use analogies to make his point(s).  I pulled that one out of my ass and it was the best I could do off the top of my head.

First, swimming underwater breathing compressed air is not the normal state of existence for humans. It is a temporary activity undertaken voluntarily by humans who know up front the risks associated with it.

The fact that scuba diving is a voluntary action has relevance to some degree but that doesn't address the primary thrust of the argument.  One could say that deciding to continue to exist is also a voluntary action because living can be hard work.

Second, humans do not need to swim underwater breathing compressed air in order to survive. It is done mainly for recreation (i.e. hang gliding, mountain climbing and other risky leisure activities) or to gather knowledge non-essential to the business of survival day to day. Note how many billions of humans lived long and fulfilling lives before the invention of SCUBA gear.

Indeed.  And quite beside the point.  The issue is survival, period.

Third, the situation you describe certainly fits the definition of an emergency. As I have already pointed out, the ethics of emergencies are not a rational base on which to design the rules governing human interaction. They are by definition exceptions to the rule.

Yes, and that is what makes it a poor analogy.  It contains the fallacy of "hard cases".  And we both know hard cases make bad law.  But it shouldn't be very hard to understand the premise of the argument.  My analogy is a poor one but that alone doesn't destroy nor defeat the premise.

I "denied" him air. It is in that sense that I mean 'deny'.

You did not deny him air. There's plenty of air at the surface. You denied him your air. The two concepts are not equivalent.

True, the two concepts are not exactly equivalent.  But since the only air that was readily available to him was mine and I decided not to give him any I did deny him air, even though the air was in my possession.

Do you think Congress should pass a law requiring all scuba divers to donate air to other scuba divers? What should be the penalty for failing to do so? How is a court to decide whether the "donater" had enough air on hand at the time to support both divers? What if during the process another diver's regulator malfunctions? Is he to supply air for all three of them?

This is getting ahead of the argument.  I am only on page three. :wink:  Seriously though, the application of any law and the sense of justice it is derived from are two separate, albeit related, issues.  We are only considering what justice requires, not the application of it.

Mere existence distorts the issue I think.

In what way? I see no distortion. Elaborate, please.

In the sense that the qualifier 'mere' could mean small, slight, of relative unimportance.

If you hold that the a starving human has a rightful claim on the belongings of other humans, ultimately you are saying nothing more than that if there is more than one human, no human has the right to be free. Work it backwards down the chain of logic to verify this for yourself -- I am exercising no distortion here, merely compressing a lengthy chain of logic.

In some sense yes.  But others would say your definition of 'freedom' is harsh in the sense that it violates what justice requires.  Your definiton could be considered extreme.  That is the premise and the position of the author.  I too find it repugnant.  Which is why I turned to you for help. :smile:

All of us have the right to exist. Take one --

Not so. All of us have the right to take those actions we judge to be required to continue and further our existence without the forcible interference of other humans. Or, to put it another way, we have the right to attempt to continue to exist. That is not the same thing at all.

This may be but it appears to be hair splitting and is irrelevant to the issue at hand.  Perhaps I am confused about it.  Let's focus on the major premise before tackling tangential ones.

All of us have the right to exist. Take two --

Except, apparently, those of us who vigorously resist having our belongings forcibly seized from us to be given to others. In other words -- to refer to the quote -- if all of us have the right to exist, all of us have the right to exist without giving a dime to a beggar.

Who said we didn't have that right?  Certainly not the author and certainly not me.  I think you have extrapolated a windmill there.

Do we have the right to retain our possessions?

Yes, obviously.

Do we have the right to retain our possessions and withhold them from a starving beggar?

Again, inarguably, yes, obviously.

Can we withhold those possessions from the beggar and not violate what justice requires?

This is the issue.

But that says nothing about whether giving of our abundance would cause our existence to cease.

Agreed. Giving part of an abundance of my belongings will likely not lessen the odds of my continued survival and the survival of my family and friends by very much if at all. This is why throughout recorded history humans on the whole normally choose to voluntarily assist other humans who are in desperate straits.

Do you then agree that giving of an abundance of your belongings to humans beings is a good thing to do?

But that is not what is under discussion. We are discussing the acceptability of seizing by force the belongings of one human to transfer them to another human -- and if the owner resists strongly enough, he ends up dead.

Not the same thing at all. Not even close.

I have said absolutely nothing about force in so far as the author's premise is concerned.  And neither did he.  It is most decidedly not what we are discussing.

I know what you are driving at though and I couldn't agree with you more.  But the author's point is that withholding your abundant goods from another in dire straits constitutes a violation of justice.

Try to stick to the points if you can.  It is the only way you can help me figure this out.  You are the only person I can turn to that I trust has the intelligence and the will to do it.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. :smile:

MM

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Political Justice, the "right" to survive? [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2191637 -

Baby_Hitler said:
is it just to deny your fellow man protection from (foreign or domestic) enemies in order to protect the individual from force if he cannot provide himself with it?


I would say no.  But that is just my opinion.  The author doesn't have a chapter on that one.

:lol:

Your point is VERY good!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Political Justice, the "right" to survive? [Re: enimatpyrt]
    #2191709 -

Quote:
I think that the primary moral justification is the claim that if their is a system set up to help those "in need", then if I should ever myself become in need, I know that I'll be helped as well. I'd much rather opt out of this system, sign a waiver that I'll never accept any form of public assistance, and thus, I dissolve any 'contract' that is forced upon me by society to partake in such a system.



Then I should be able to get all the tax dollars I paid that went into this war. (elaboration of what I think Baby Hitler was getting at).

Using that logic,how can you support a war supposedly meant to defend others?


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Political Justice, the "right" to survive? [Re: ]
    #2191878 -

I know this isn't your argument. That is one reason why I asked you to define "political justice".

I said nothing about "he may rightfully be killed". That invention is yours and doesn't appear in the author's position even by extrapolation.

This is exactly why I wanted a clarification of the term "political justice". The qualifier "political" necessarily implies the intervention of the state. As we are all aware, the state's only function is to coerce. If you resist to your utmost capacity doing what the state demands, the state will kill you.

But if we are speaking strictly in terms of what an individual should normally willingly do with no prompting by the state, then I certainly don't disagree that voluntarily giving a starving man some of my "excess" bread is acceptable -- always assuming I know enough about him to be sure I am not keeping alive an Adolf Hitler or Idi Amin or Ted Bundy or Saddam Hussein.

The fact that scuba diving is a voluntary action has relevance to some degree but that doesn't address the primary thrust of the argument. One could say that deciding to continue to exist is also a voluntary action because living can be hard work.

It is not necessary to the process of staying alive. As I pointed out, billions of humans survived quite handily without ever going scuba diving.

Indeed. And quite beside the point. The issue is survival, period.

Again, involving oneself voluntarily in risky and unnecessary activities means deliberately and knowingly placing oneself outside the realm of straightforward survival.

My analogy is a poor one but that alone doesn't destroy nor defeat the premise.

Fine. Let's just forget the whole scuba analogy then and address the premise of food.

Reverse your question. Rather than ask if it is "just" to decline to share one's belongings with another human, ask if it is "just" for a human to demand that others give him some of their belongings. Why does he feel they owe him something? What claim does he feel he has on their belongings?

But since the only air that was readily available to him was mine and I decided not to give him any I did deny him air, even though the air was in my possession.

No, you did not deny him "air". You "denied" him your air. This is not a subtle distinction at all -- it cuts to the very heart of the issue under discussion.

Seriously though, the application of any law and the sense of justice it is derived from are two separate, albeit related, issues. We are only considering what justice requires, not the application of it.

More accurately, the enforcement of it rather than the application of it. This is where the "political" aspect of the phrase "political justice" enters the picture.

But others would say your definition of 'freedom' is harsh in the sense that it violates what justice requires. Your definiton could be considered extreme.

There is nothing either "harsh" or "extreme" about it. It is an "either/or" situation. Either my belongings are mine or they are not. Modifiers such as "harsh" or "extreme" are irrelevant to the ethical principle involved.

The position you are arguing by proxy states that my belongings are not mine at all -- they are the belongings of any stray human (or group of humans) who judge themselves to be in greater "need" of them than I. In other words, my belongings are only "mine" if I am lucky enough to never encounter such humans. They (my belongings) are at best conditionally mine.

Once we get government (politics) involved, I can no longer even hope I never encounter such humans -- the government seeks me out on their behalf.

I too find it repugnant.

Then by all means give some of your belongings willingly to others. I do it all the time. But the fact that I do doesn't mean I must, and it doesn't change the validity of my points. My points would be as valid if I had never willingly given a scrap to anyone.

This may be but it appears to be hair splitting and is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Perhaps I am confused about it.

It is not hair splitting at all. You have no inherent right to exist. You do however have every right to attempt to continue to exist. I really don't know how to explain it more concisely than that.

Who said we didn't have that right? Certainly not the author and certainly not me. I think you have extrapolated a windmill there.

Do we have the right to retain our possessions?

Yes, obviously.

Do we have the right to retain our possessions and withhold them from a starving beggar?

Again, inarguably, yes, obviously.

Can we withhold those possessions from the beggar and not violate what justice requires?

This is the issue.

Then, again, we are not talking about "political justice", we are talking about some other form of justice. See why definition of terms is so key?

Do you then agree that giving of an abundance of your belongings to humans beings is a good thing to do?

In some circumstances, to freely give some humans some portion of some of my belongings would not harm me and may even be beneficial to me (even if only to the point of soothing my conscience), yes. But I am the one who must decide which circumstances, which humans, and how much of which belongings.

I have said absolutely nothing about force in so far as the author's premise is concerned. And neither did he. It is most decidedly not what we are discussing.

Maybe he has not said it in so many words. But do his statements imply it? What does he believe should be done to people who refuse to give up any of their belongings?

This is why it's difficult to argue by remote control.

But the author's point is that withholding your abundant goods from another in dire straits constitutes a violation of justice.

Then he needs to provide a definition of "justice" that he agrees to stick with throughout the entire argument. If we withdraw the modifier "political" from the phrase "political justice", in essence all he is saying is that a human -- in order to be judged "just" by his fellows -- must indulge in charitable actions. Or to reverse it, a human who refuses to indulge in charitable actions is to be judged an "unjust" human.

Presumably such "unjust" humans are to be looked down upon and vilified. I have no problem with that. Where I would have a problem is if he were to extend this social ostracization (i.e. shunning or name-calling) to the world of the physical -- forcibly seizing his belongings.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Political Justice, the "right" to survive? [Re: Phred]
    #2192466 -

Good answers.

Let me read a little more deeply before I respond.

Cheers,

MM

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Political Justice, the "right" to survive? [Re: Phred]
    #2193592 -

Rather than go over your points one by one (which I deplore as I hate long posts) let me shift gears and quote a sentence directly from the book. I said that you had good answers but by that I didn't mean I agreed or disagreed with them. I am withholding judgment until a later time.

"Constitutional government, said Aristotle, is that form of government in which the citizens are free men and equals, ruling and being ruled in turn."

Do you agree or disagree, and why?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Political Justice, the "right" to survive? [Re: ]
    #2193618 -

Do you agree or disagree, and why?

It's a not inaccurate description of a constitutional government, therefore I agree with his statement, depending on how he defines "to rule".

This of course does not mean that just any old Constitutional government is necessarily to be desired. Depends on the constitution, natch.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Political Justice, the "right" to survive? [Re: Phred]
    #2193628 -

I think I'll go with Aristotle on this one unless I find your redefinition more cogent.

What changes would you make to the definition?

Thanks for working through this with me. I really helps me flesh these issues out in my mind. In the end I may reach a different conclusion but that shouldn't make you think you have wasted your time.

Cheers,

MM

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Political Philosophy Game
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 EchoVortex 5,890 91 08/21/22 05:52 AM
by sudly
* Justice Dept. Drafts Sweeping Expansion of Powers Evolving 859 2 02/08/03 09:05 AM
by Angry Mycologist
* World Trade Center Attacks..Political Implications
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 shellacct 9,361 72 10/30/11 11:03 AM
by mm.
* The Politics of Canada
( 1 2 all )		 machineelf368 3,115 25 12/13/02 10:30 AM
by 1stimer
* Religion a part of politics?
( 1 2 3 all )		 sir tripsalot 4,658 45 09/25/02 01:57 AM
by Lallafa
* Dems political strategy is to demonize Christians
( 1 2 all )		 Ellis Dee 5,558 35 02/16/23 11:43 AM
by tyrannicalrex
* Post deleted by Moe Howard
( 1 2 all )		 Macey Howard 2,615 29 09/27/02 09:53 PM
by mntlfngrs
* Support political prisoners (links) YouInfoIt 774 16 11/16/02 02:39 PM
by Huxley

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,134 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 20 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.037 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 18 queries.