It's all so very nice, BUT

Byron · 2002-07-24 15:18:21

For the record, I concur. . .
So Byron, why did you ask the question anyway?

...Good question, actually..LOL. I guess I just wanted to see what kind of debates it would generate. It's always a good thing to see ideas and thoughts hashed out in the open, and these debates have opened up whole new worlds of thought (sorry for the pun) for me. In addition, it's just plain fun to debate about things like this ....

B

clark · 2002-07-24 15:44:55

I agree, and the discussions have helped me codify some ideas into more sensible wholes.

Maybe an interesting discussion would be to look at what independance could be allowed legitametly, given the constraints imposed by mars.

Remeber, the "human condition" is the result of millions of years of adapation to our native environment, i.e Earth. Mars requires that we adapt to her environment in the same way. The "human condition" is not absolute, it can be altered (by man or by nature).

I wonder how many people still would want to go to Mars if they realize how it might really be. (before others scream, please note the word MIGHT).

I for one can understand the "romantic" promise, but that romance is predicated on a certain amount of freedom that I believe can only come for small bases on Mars.

Even assuming that mass-production can reduce costs- it would have to reduce costs by a magnitude of 1000 before individuals, or even small groups would have the financial resources for the investment neccessary to start an "independant mars". I laughed reading KSR's vision of nomads wandering in caravans of rovers mining for Nitrogen... those rovers would cost millions, if not billions of dollars- even if they were made there you can't escape the cost factors associated with living on mars.

This is the fundamental reason I have a problem with Zubrin and his politcs- he marginalizes the reality of the situation on Mars.
???

A.J.Armitage · 2002-07-24 20:42:09

Byron;

Everyone cooperating out of necessity is an entirely different proposition from a state that can destroy its own cities with a "judicial process".

Unfortunely, there's an automatic tendency to think that if people will have to rely on the community, a totalitarian political system should or must follow. You've fallen for it somewhat, and clark is given over to it entirely.

If you wait for people to change to "fit" what you imagine Mars will be like, we'll never settle there. It'll be flags and footprints, and then nothing. We need to do things the other way around: get as many settlers there as quickly as possible. Make it resemble a "normal" community more and a submarine less. Having more people who can cover for each other, economies of scale, and so on, will make Mars less risky and less demanding.

Byron · 2002-07-25 06:03:04

Unfortunely, there's an automatic tendency to think that if people will have to rely on the community, a totalitarian political system should or must follow. You've fallen for it somewhat, and clark is given over to it entirely.
If you wait for people to change to "fit" what you imagine Mars will be like, we'll never settle there. It'll be flags and footprints, and then nothing. We need to do things the other way around: get as many settlers there as quickly as possible. Make it resemble a "normal" community more and a submarine less. Having more people who can cover for each other, economies of scale, and so on, will make Mars less risky and less demanding.

An "automatic" tendency to link the "needs" of a Martian community with that of a totalitarian state?...I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, as I'm the last person in the world to think that a Mars settlement would be totalitarian in nature, and I really don't think clark feels that way either...

What clark has pointed out in various instances on this board, which I've come to realize as perfectly valid, is that the conditions of Mars will dictate how people will live, not the other way around...at least in the beginning. There is simply no way that people will be able to just pack up their belongnings and carry on on Mars just like back here on Earth. I don't like it, you may not like it..I doubt that clark likes it either, but there is no escaping the REALITY of a 7 mb atmosphere, constant radiation, extreme cold, ad infintum. That is just the way Mars is, unfortunately... ???

What all this means is that a newly-established community will have to live under a totally different set of rules than we may be used to here on Earth...what those rules may be, that remains to be seen, but there's little question that people are going to have to modify their behavior in order to ensure the long-term survival of the community as a whole.

As much as a freedom-lover as I am...I actually don't have a "problem" with this, as no one will be forced to go to Mars against their will. People will be selected for the privilege of going to Mars, whether it be for a visit or a lifetime stay. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Mars immigration authorities or whatever to stipulate that each immigrant will have to abide by a certain set of rules..(again, what these rules may actually be is debatable ) If they don't like it, they don't have to go...they'll be plenty of others willing to take their place, believe me..lol. I happen to like my freedom....so I think I'll stick with my own vision of "fantasy Mars", thank you very much....

As for your statement about waiting for people to change in order to "fit" on Mars...your point is perfectly valid...I would hate to see another "flag and footprints" as well...BUT...until we have some fantastic techologies that will enable us to fly into space for little more than the cost of a transcontinental flight, cheap, super-abundent energy supplies on Mars, the ability to build incredibly huge domes or other enclosed habitats, and the means to produce all manner of the "good things in life," your idea of getting as "many people as possible" on Mars is not going to happen.

Establishing a civilization on Mars is a process that will have to take us from point "A" (First Landing) to point "B" (first continually manned base) to point "C" and so on. The "rules of the game" will undoubtably change as conditions permit...but I personally have to admit it isn't going to be bed of roses, hence the "harsh reality" of what living on Mars is really going to be like. This means no trips to the mall, no living in a nice, big house...no trips to the beach...the first Martian pioneers will be giving up more than you and I will ever know, and that is going to take some mighty courage from these brave souls to pull something like that off.

As for some of clark's statements about life support, etc...I think it's important to consider them in the proper context. Like for example, I seriously doubt there was anything "wrong" with the U.S. going into Afghanistan to bust up those terrorist training camps...it is simply defending ourselves from further harm. Same thing on Mars..if a person or a group of persons is engaging in activity that endangers the lives of everyone else, I fully support engaging in whatever means necessary to defend the community at large...survival has to come first...everything else comes second, third, etc.

Hope this clears things up a bit...

B

clark · 2002-07-25 07:17:17

Everyone cooperating out of necessity is an entirely different proposition from a state that can destroy its own cities with a "judicial process".

Really? Care to defend this assertion?

What is it that I have proposed that is so different from American punishment system?

A society be definition is everyone cooperating out of neccessity. That's why we are a society, it defines us as US. That same society, that same group also has the power to destroy individuals within society- through a judicial process.

Replace "cities" with people and you should understand what I mean. If you are arguing that the death penalty is wrong, then that is a different issue- I would expect Adrian to have a different take on the death penalty versus a general american perspective. However AJ, you have identified yourself as American, so I ask you, do you have a problem with the laws you live under now in the USA?

I think it might help me if you explained how you see the differences between what is done in America and what I am proposing. I know you highlighted some- but those were all based on the assumption that there was no judicial review prior to executive action (which is untrue about the suggestion).

The rationale for this level of control, and yes, it is extreme control is that the infrastructure for supporting life must be protected. An assult on a base is tantamount to an assult on all individuals that reside there. Open rebellion on Mars? Hardly. One wrong step and <poof> everyone is dead.

Ultimate control is neccessary for the same reason that we try to keep WMD from unstable countries (or any country we can). On Mars, or in space, we end up with the ultimate perversion of MAD. On earth, as individuals, our ability to kill others can go only so far- in space, we have the equivelant power of a nation armed with nuclear weapons- we have the ability to asert our individual soverigenty with the ultimate exchange.

AJ, seriously, if the liberty that you seem to want is allowed in space, you will have an unstable environment- where any individual conflict has the potential to kill everyone else in the process.

India and Pakistan come to mind.

Now instead of nations, imagine individuals- imagine ME with this ability. How does that make you feel?

The stories abotu Mars rebelling are passionate, but unrealistic as well.

:0

Cobra Commander · 2002-07-25 09:04:40

Cobra, please re-read my previous post (the QUOTES). I am not suggesting we skip that process. Judical review FIRST...look in the post and you will see.

I understand what you're saying. My point is that a judicial process is not sufficient. If discussing an issue were the same as physically accomplishing it we'd be on Mars now. The judicial process, because it does not involve any real effort, lends itself to abuse. Blathering about whether to execute someone then flipping a switch is not the same as hunting the offender down. If I could kill people with nothing more than consent from a few others and a toggle switch I'd have done so many times. Any government will be the same way, don't make it easy.

Clark is absolutely correct when he says that the reality of the Martian environment will limit the amount of personal freedom...

Correct, the Martian enviroment will severely impact personal freedom. However it need not be as severe as Clark is making it out to be.

clark · 2002-07-25 09:36:10

Correct, the Martian enviroment will severely impact personal freedom. However it need not be as severe as Clark is making it out to be.

That is a matter of opinion which I am at least defending. If you honestly think it will be otherwise, please explain how and why. I believe, and others see it as well, that the environment of space will radicaly alter our concepts of personal freedom and personal responsibility. Does it have to be like this, certainly not. However, if it ISN'T like I say, what is the alternative? The same issues, the same risks I have been pointing out exsist, and they MUST be addressed.

I'll tell you what will happen if we accept otherwise: A system of selection and exclusion will be created to vet potential canadites for Mars. This system would screen all individuals looking for the specfic criteria that is "deemed" neccessary. Instead of rules instutited that require everyone to submit to the rule of law, only complacent cows will be allowed to go. You will in effect put Mars further away for most people- you will in effect be lying to others about their personal prospects for getting to Mars- yet getting to Mars is dependant upon the masses of people who will never get to go to mars without the instutions that I we have been discussing.

Blathering about whether to execute someone then flipping a switch is not the same as hunting the offender down.

Ah, so your qualms are related to the effeciency of action then. It seems too easy to you. I ask you what a court trial to determine if a man should be executed is any less easy? That is a judical process- the same thing I am suggesting.

On earth we have to "hunt people down" becuase they can go walk outside- anywhere. On mars, you are limited to small areas and can go as far as your air and water supply will allow- if the radiation dosen't get you.

How the judical process is handled- the appeals, the arbitration, the decisions, etc- none of that has been touched on, so your claims that the judical process is not enough are groundless- there has been no discussion to warrant a factual claim against the judical process as inadequete- only your continued assertion that it isn't "enough".

If I could kill people with nothing more than consent from a few others and a toggle switch I'd have done so many times. Any government will be the same way, don't make it easy.

That is currently what the President of the United States can do- in 20 minutes he can end the world on his command alone. Yet most people accept that as rationale. With consent from 12 people on a jury, a man may be injected with chemicals that will end his life- with a flip of the switch.

The saftey or the idea that it is not easy here on Earth for the executive to kill someone is wholly illusionary. We rationalize it as acceptable- but here I am, spelling it out in dark colors- in very frank terms as to what it is that we have rationalized and unsurprisingly, you and many others revolt at the idea.

So why do you have problem with a system of coercison and retribution that you currently live under and accept? Just tell me you think the death penalty is wrong, otherwise, explain why it is OK here but not there.

My point is that a judicial process is not sufficient. If discussing an issue were the same as physically accomplishing it we'd be on Mars now.

So a death penalty that is difficult in execution (pardon the pun) is better? Why would we want the decisions we make, or the decisions made by our governing instutions, be difficult to enact?

That's like having the governmentdecide to build roads, but then finding ways to complicate the enactment of the decision to build roads... silly.

What would be sufficeint (since a judge and jury are apparently insufficient- that is a judicial process btw) in your opinion to merit an executive action of that magnitude?

Should the president poll the populace everytime we bomb a city on Earth? Do you believe that is practical?

A.J.Armitage · 2002-07-25 18:22:51

Byron;

An "automatic" tendency to link the "needs" of a Martian community with that of a totalitarian state?...I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, as I'm the last person in the world to think that a Mars settlement would be totalitarian in nature,

I probably should have said "authoritarian", to be more accurate. One of the favorite debating techniques of anti-libertarians to point out that "no man is an island", which is supposed to support statism for some reason.

I really don't think clark feels that way either...

Oh yes he does. He's totalitarian to the bone. Pure USDA 100% Rousseauan grain-fed totalitarian, with Nazi sauce and a side of fried Communism, and a big glass of Reign of Terror to wash it all down.

With Rousseau, it's either wondering in the forest only meeting others to copulate, or totalitarianism. By not acting like an animal, you "consent" to totalitarianism.

What clark has pointed out in various instances on this board, which I've come to realize as perfectly valid, is that the conditions of Mars will dictate how people will live, not the other way around...at least in the beginning. There is simply no way that people will be able to just pack up their belongnings and carry on on Mars just like back here on Earth. I don't like it, you may not like it..I doubt that clark likes it either, but there is no escaping the REALITY of a 7 mb atmosphere, constant radiation, extreme cold, ad infintum. That is just the way Mars is, unfortunately...

Partly, it may be we're looking at different stages. When there are six people, sure, there won't be much privacy, and they'll have to be very self-disciplined, ect. But that's like living in tin cans on the surface: something to get past as quickly as possible.

And yes, clark likes it. The Spartan/Platonic strain of political thought has always been very strong with at least a few.

As for your statement about waiting for people to change in order to "fit" on Mars...your point is perfectly valid...I would hate to see another "flag and footprints" as well...BUT...until we have some fantastic techologies that will enable us to fly into space for little more than the cost of a transcontinental flight, cheap, super-abundent energy supplies on Mars, the ability to build incredibly huge domes or other enclosed habitats, and the means to produce all manner of the "good things in life," your idea of getting as "many people as possible" on Mars is not going to happen.

Getting as many people on Mars as possible is exactly the thing that will bring those about. Especially the "good things in life". How are you going to spare the people to make luxuries without a big population? If you wait for the results of large scale colonization before beginning large scale colonization, not much is going to happen.

As for some of clark's statements about life support, etc...I think it's important to consider them in the proper context. Like for example, I seriously doubt there was anything "wrong" with the U.S. going into Afghanistan to bust up those terrorist training camps...it is simply defending ourselves from further harm. Same thing on Mars..if a person or a group of persons is engaging in activity that endangers the lives of everyone else, I fully support engaging in whatever means necessary to defend the community at large...survival has to come first...everything else comes second, third, etc.

That's warfare. He's talking about central control within the polity through the threat of mass destruction. More "efficient" than guillotines, but it's a bad idea to begin with, so efficiency makes it worse.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-07-25 19:04:03

Everyone cooperating out of necessity is an entirely different proposition from a state that can destroy its own cities with a "judicial process".

Really? Care to defend this assertion?

I love the incredulous "Really?" as if I had something unusual instead of something obvious.

Since I'm the normal one and you're the whacked-out Jacobin with spare guillotine parts laying around the house, maybe you should explain why cooperating out of necessity isn't entirely different from a political authority based on the power to wipe out it's own cities.

What is it that I have proposed that is so different from American punishment system?

You know, I haven't addressed this argument for a simple reason: it's too stupid for words.

Replace "cities" with people and you should understand what I mean.

Except, of course, that cities don't murder anyone, don't rape anyone, and don't rob anyone, and that people do. Other than that little detail, it makes perfect sense.

I think it might help me if you explained how you see the differences between what is done in America and what I am proposing.

If you think killing people and killing cities is the same thing, you're hopeless.

I know you highlighted some- but those were all based on the assumption that there was no judicial review prior to executive action (which is untrue about the suggestion).

You know, I think you really are just as blinkered as you look.

Hey, quit telling me you want "judicial review". I don't care. Really, I don't. It makes not the least bit of difference what procedure you use. If you got the Pope in Rome to bless it and sprinkle holy water on it, I wouldn't care. Got it? The act itself is evil. Using "judicial review" for it is obscene.

The rationale for this level of control, and yes, it is extreme control is that the infrastructure for supporting life must be protected.

We had to shut the life support off in order to protect it?

An assult on a base is tantamount to an assult on all individuals that reside there.

Well, yeah. Not just the guilty (or "guilty") parties, but everyone.

Ultimate control is neccessary for the same reason that we try to keep WMD from unstable countries (or any country we can).

We don't, however, bury nuclear bombs under every city and hand the controls over to the UN. That's because, as bad as our political leaders are, they aren't howling-at-the-moon hello-my-name-is-Napoleon freaking INSANE.

I mean, giving more people the power to kill everyone kinda defeats the purpose.

AJ, seriously, if the liberty that you seem to want is allowed in space, you will have an unstable environment

If the authority you want in space is allowed, you will have an unstable environment. By the decision of someone else, you and your whole community will be at best turned out from your homes and at worst killed. That's not stable, that's built-in instability.

Phobos · 2002-07-27 10:45:22

If the authority you want in space is allowed, you will have an unstable environment. By the decision of someone else, you and your whole community will be at best turned out from your homes and at worst killed. That's not stable, that's built-in instability.

Good point A.J.. God forbid if we have to live under the eye of the Martian KGB whose ready to drag us off never to be seen again should we say the wrong words! Such authoritarian systems that deny individuals rights in the name of "societal good" are doomed to become at the very least unproductive. For christsakes, how many people would immigrate to such a draconian Martian colony in the first place? It would die just from attrition!

clark · 2002-07-29 08:38:30

I probably should have said "authoritarian", to be more accurate.

The definition of authoritarian: Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime.

Absolute obdience to authorioty. Hmmm. Sounds pretty bad. But what does that really mean? Does that mean we have to stop thinking? No. It means you follow the rules. I could very well say that america is an authoritarian regime since I am required to obey all of the laws. Are any of you that live in America exempt from obeying the laws? What happens if you don't? All governments are authoritarian- that's how they function. They are the "authority" which means we relinquish personal soverignty in exchange for equality and the maintenance of our liberty. If a government dosen't have authoirty, how does it function AJ? Your petty semantics betray your argument.

Oh yes he does. He's totalitarian to the bone. Pure USDA 100% Rousseauan grain-fed totalitarian, with Nazi sauce and a side of fried Communism, and a big glass of Reign of Terror to wash it all down.

Wow. I'm an advocate of Totalitarism, a communist, a nazi (aren't they opposed?), and the anti-christ. You forgot to disparage my lienage AJ. LOL. Does any of this may you feel better? Do you tell your friends (you do have friends, don't you?) how well you disparage others on the New Mars message board? Way to go man, make a difference.

By not acting like an animal, you "consent" to totalitarianism.

Not quite... I believe you do Rosseau a disservice by reducing his complex arguments so trivialy. It's not acting like an animal that allows "consent", it is the act of "consent" itself that moves you from acting like an animal.

Getting as many people on Mars as possible is exactly the thing that will bring those about. Especially the "good things in life".

More people means more liberty? The more people, the more interdependance, the greater the restrictions on personal liberty. The requirements for sevurity increase as population increases. Yes, more people allows for more specialization, but that only leads to greater innterdependance and less independance.

6 people on Mars can be pretty well trusted since everyone knows everyone. What happens at 1000? 10,000? What happens when people become anonymous? What happens is that people become disaccoiated- things like "crime" become possible since the probability of success increases (success measured as not being caught). The only way to reduce this is through surveliiance and/or other forms of regulation and restrictions upon our personal liberty.

He's talking about central control within the polity through the threat of mass destruction. More "efficient" than guillotines, but it's a bad idea to begin with, so efficiency makes it worse.

I am talking about the same instutions, the same methods for dealing with one another, the same ways we settle disputes for Mars. Nothing I have proposed is any different. We in America live under a central authoirty that can destroy individuals, or groups- at the push of a button or after a "judicial process". The only difference is that i have not delineated the checks and balances that would PREVENT the abuses that AJ keeps claiming exsist. I have yet to describe ANY of the process that would lead to the conclusion that abuse would result. AJ, stick to what has been posted, not what you imagine.

Since I'm the normal one and you're the whacked-out Jacobin with spare guillotine parts laying around the house, maybe you should explain why cooperating out of necessity isn't entirely different from a political authority based on the power to wipe out it's own cities.

Normal? LOL. Sure. You may be "normal", but you still didn't answer my question... scared or just unable to rise to the occasion?

However, as to the "cooperating out of neccessity"- look to the historical examples of instutions where people ONLY cooperate out of neccessity- Articles of Confederation...hmmm, I wonder why those were chucked...AJ? How about the League of Nations...not familiar with that group? Maybe the UN, a model for "cooperating out of neccessity"- becuase that is soooo effective, isn't it? Maybe we should take a page from the City States of the Greeks...oh wait, they were all divided and burnt to the ground.

The problem with dependance upon "neccessity" to keep groups together is that eventually, one groups, or persons neccessity will interfere with another groups self interest and then you have nothing but conflict to settle the dispute. Humanity didn't get as far as it did solely on "neccessity" based decisions- too short sighted.

You know, I haven't addressed this argument for a simple reason: it's too stupid for words.

LOL. A simple, I can't explain this, I don't know how would suffice. I'm sure you can learn...one day.

If you think killing people and killing cities is the same thing, you're hopeless.

Indiscriminate killing is wrong, however, I haven't suggested that people be killed indiscrimently. If a "city" refuses to abide by the "bill of rights", what should be done?

You know, I think you really are just as blinkered as you look.

Ouch, you got me! I'm "blinkered"! Most of us grow out of name calling by grade school, just thought you might like to know.

Hey, quit telling me you want "judicial review". I don't care. Really, I don't.

Oh, okay. So I guess you would prefer something other than "justice" or "rule of law" to settle disputes. Very egalitarian, very profound. Really AJ, you're being silly. Should everyone be left to settle their disputes between themselves, anyway they would prefer? Ah, the lure of anarchy. So sensible until a guy with a club hits you over the head and takes anything you might want or need.

The act itself is evil. Using "judicial review" for it is obscene.

I agree, the death penalty, in any form, is evil and any attempt to justify it is obscene. Is that what you have a problem with, the death penalty? Just tell me that and you will have made your point. Otherwise, tell me why it is okay for the USA government to kill people, but not a Martian one. Either you are a hypocrite, or you believe the death penalty is wrong.

We had to shut the life support off in order to protect it?

Again, lets put this in context. The life support would be shut off (in the example disccused) when a city willfuly violates the martian bill of rights- akin to a US State creating a law that violates the Constution. So yes, in order to protect the rule of law for the bill of rights, the life support would have to be shut off.

I mean, giving more people the power to kill everyone kinda defeats the purpose.

Well, when you put people in space, each one of them has the power to kill everyone else- each person in effect becomes a nuclear weapon. Wouldn't you want some kind of control over these ticking time bombs? It only takes one.

By the decision of someone else, you and your whole community will be at best turned out from your homes and at worst killed. That's not stable, that's built-in instability.

Hmmm. Again, how is this any different from the world we live in now? The Chinese, Russians, Isreali's, Americans, French, Indian, Pakistani, British all have the capability to kill you and your whole community by the SINGLE decision of someone else. It's been like this for years, yet seems to be working (more or less).

The reason I and whole communities are not killed outright is that our governments, our CENTRAL AUTHORITY, the INDIVIDUALS that get to make these decisions are beholden to other people. There are checks and abalances- most of which have not been discussed (the one I have discussed you have thrown out and ignored without any justification) but you continue to make up in your head.

Surly you can do better AJ, can't you?

A.J.Armitage · 2002-07-31 10:34:58

Logic obviously isn't your strong point.

Not quite... I believe you do Rosseau a disservice by reducing his complex arguments so trivialy. It's not acting like an animal that allows "consent", it is the act of "consent" itself that moves you from acting like an animal.

He's still saying it's a choice of either acting like an animal, or consent to totalitarianism. As admitted by an admirer.

The amazing thing is, people take such a stupid false dichotomy seriously.

More people means more liberty? The more people, the more interdependance, the greater the restrictions on personal liberty.

Of course you think more people should mean less liberty, but then yoiu think everything should mean less liberty. Your argument fails when you assert that more interdependance means less liberty. That's just false. Go read some good economists.

6 people on Mars can be pretty well trusted since everyone knows everyone. What happens at 1000? 10,000?

Each person becomes less essential.

What happens when people become anonymous? What happens is that people become disaccoiated- things like "crime" become possible since the probability of success increases (success measured as not being caught). The only way to reduce this is through surveliiance and/or other forms of regulation and restrictions upon our personal liberty.

Well, we've got plenty of that here on Earth. I suppose if you really wanted to eliminate crime, you'd have 24-hour surveliance in private homes and everywhere else.

But there are other goals just as worthy as stopping crime.

I am talking about the same instutions, the same methods for dealing with one another, the same ways we settle disputes for Mars. Nothing I have proposed is any different. We in America live under a central authoirty that can destroy individuals, or groups- at the push of a button or after a "judicial process".

You continue to assert that the death penalty is no different from what you've proposed.

That's because you've got a weak mind.

The only difference is that i have not delineated the checks and balances that would PREVENT the abuses that AJ keeps claiming exsist. I have yet to describe ANY of the process that would lead to the conclusion that abuse would result.

I have yet to care what process you'd like to see. Like I said, the act itself is evil.

Normal? LOL. Sure. You may be "normal", but you still didn't answer my question... scared or just unable to rise to the occasion?

This is followed by an irrelivant rant about cooperating pout of necessity, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the kind of cooperation we've been talking about.

We're not talking about political necessity, but necessities for life. Of course Martians will have to cooperate to survive. We have to cooperate to survive here. We don't have the sort of thing you're talking about (and spare the death penalty crap, it makes you look like a retard). So my claim is so obvious as to require no explaination.

If you've got some sort of argument that we've been missing something essential since the argricultural revolution, I'd love to see it. I expect it'll take the form of a false dichotomy.

Indiscriminate killing is wrong, however, I haven't suggested that people be killed indiscrimently. If a "city" refuses to abide by the "bill of rights", what should be done?

I don't know, something that doesn't kill or displace everyone, maybe?

You know, the slave laborers at the top would be the ones least likely to escape. But you don't care about that: the whole point for you is unlimited control.

Oh, okay. So I guess you would prefer something other than "justice" or "rule of law" to settle disputes.

"Justice" means more than a court involved. Even if it didn't, this would still be a worthless point, since it depends on what follows.

Should everyone be left to settle their disputes between themselves, anyway they would prefer? Ah, the lure of anarchy. So sensible until a guy with a club hits you over the head and takes anything you might want or need.

Here again we see your typical false dichotomy. Either we have a "judicial process" for destroying a whole settlement, or we have no courts at all.

Of course, that means the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't exist, since there's no "process" for telling the people of, say, Milwaukee to be out by next Tuesday or the troopers will go through and kill every man, woman, and child. Better go tell the Justices they've just been play-acting all these years.

Again, lets put this in context. The life support would be shut off (in the example disccused) when a city willfuly violates the martian bill of rights- akin to a US State creating a law that violates the Constution. So yes, in order to protect the rule of law for the bill of rights, the life support would have to be shut off.

The context is, you were talking about "protecting" the life support by giving people the power to shut it off. Which is insane.

And any bill of rights worth having would proclude the sort of thing you have in mind, just as ours protects against "cruel and unusual punishments". Yeah, I know, not having a judical process for cruel and unusual punishments means no courts at all, anarchy, ect. Better get going to tell the Justices to clear out.

I agree, the death penalty, in any form, is evil and any attempt to justify it is obscene. Is that what you have a problem with, the death penalty? Just tell me that and you will have made your point. Otherwise, tell me why it is okay for the USA government to kill people, but not a Martian one. Either you are a hypocrite, or you believe the death penalty is wrong.

Yeah, either the government can kill whole settlements, or it can't kill individual murderers.

You continue to demonstrate your need for Remedial Logic 101.

Well, when you put people in space, each one of them has the power to kill everyone else- each person in effect becomes a nuclear weapon. Wouldn't you want some kind of control over these ticking time bombs? It only takes one.

And you do it by ADDING to the number of people who can kill everyone, by giving people outside the settlement itself an off switch?

clark · 2002-07-31 12:14:43

He's still saying it's a choice of either acting like an animal, or consent to totalitarianism

You obviously do not understand. What are you as an individual without Society? You are soverign entity unto yourself. You have as much force with which to express your personal will as you as individual have available. In small words: Your liberty, and the protection of that liberty extends as far as you are able to secure it personaly. Which is exactly the reason we as intelligent individuals enter into an agreement with Society (or everyone else)- it provides greater force, therby ensuring our liberty.

Please explain how there is any false dichtomy. The only one I see is the one you keep making by reducing Rosseau complex arguments into gross overgeneralizations. The only choice is either ruling yourself, thereby maintaining your liberty for yourself, or relying upon Society (i.e- the group) to maintain your liberty. How is submitting to Society submitting to totalitarism?

Of course you think more people should mean less liberty, but then yoiu think everything should mean less liberty. Your argument fails when you assert that more interdependance means less liberty. That's just false. Go read some good economists.

You know, I might be impressed if you actually tried to refute my arguments with logic instead of meaningless statements regarding their absurdity.Please explain how interdependance can lead to more liberty.

6 people on Mars can be pretty well trusted since everyone knows everyone. What happens at 1000? 10,000?
Each person becomes less essential.

And each additional person in space also becomes a liability (the point of the previous post btw).

Well, we've got plenty of that here on Earth. I suppose if you really wanted to eliminate crime, you'd have 24-hour surveliance in private homes and everywhere else.
But there are other goals just as worthy as stopping crime.

Your reply avoids dealing with the issue. It is not just the mundane crime that is the problem- it is the ability of one individual being able to effect catastrophic damage to many people. If individuals on Earth could wipe out whole towns by themselves, we would see more surveillance- look at security precautions around infrastructure that could lead to large scale deaths- the same prcautions would be neccessary everywhere on Mars.

You continue to assert that the death penalty is no different from what you've proposed.
That's because you've got a weak mind.

Well, if you say so. You have yet to demonstrate how it is different.

I have yet to care what process you'd like to see. Like I said, the act itself is evil.

I have yet to see anything meaningful in your posts, you waste bandwith.

We have to cooperate to survive here. We don't have the sort of thing you're talking about (and spare the death penalty crap, it makes you look like a retard). So my claim is so obvious as to require no explaination.

Very artful way to avoid answering a direct question. How many times has that tricked saved your ass in a debate?

If you've got some sort of argument that we've been missing something essential since the argricultural revolution, I'd love to see it.

I'd love to see some actual responses instead of the personal insults disguised as answers.

Indiscriminate killing is wrong, however, I haven't suggested that people be killed indiscrimently. If a "city" refuses to abide by the "bill of rights", what should be done?
I don't know, something that doesn't kill or displace everyone, maybe?

Okay, you have now provided what shouldn't be done, and that you also are not sure what should be done. You offer no legitimate rationale (other than your continued claims of how sensible your argument is, so you spare us from actually hearing it and evaluating it) for why you think what you think, and you also avoid answering the question yet again.

You know, the slave laborers at the top would be the ones least likely to escape. But you don't care about that: the whole point for you is unlimited control.

What else is it about for me?

Really, trying to characterize me or the arguments like this is childish and diversionary. Get on with saying something, or just shut up.

"Justice" means more than a court involved. Even if it didn't, this would still be a worthless point, since it depends on what follows.

Justice means more than a court involved...profound... really, I mean it. Justice is a concept. A court (in this sense) is the physical manifestation of the application of the rule of law to provide for equality and justice. Yeah, justice is much more than a court, but the court is the tangible instrument with which we can legitimatly apply justice.

More tap dancing from AJ...

Here again we see your typical false dichotomy. Either we have a "judicial process" for destroying a whole settlement, or we have no courts at all.

Umm, I didn't set up that false dichatomy... you just did. Please don't put words into my mouth. I will try to make it easier for you to use these lame tricks.

Of course, that means the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't exist, since there's no "process" for telling the people of, say, Milwaukee to be out by next Tuesday or the troopers will go through and kill every man, woman, and child.

There is a process for doing exactly that. Please refer to WW2 and the internment of Japanese Americans. Are you this naieve or just that incompetent?

AJ, I've argued with better and smarter people than you. Maybe this stuff still works with the 12 year olds, but you'll seriously have to better than this.

It's truly amazing the way some can talk so much, yet say very very little.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-07-31 13:57:58

You can't deal with my arguments, so you dodge them with the accusation that I dodged your arguments. I suppose you think this is clever.

The only choice is either ruling yourself, thereby maintaining your liberty for yourself, or relying upon Society (i.e- the group) to maintain your liberty. How is submitting to Society submitting to totalitarism?

Because "submitting to Society" is, for you, a total committment to follow every law passed by the government.

You know, I might be impressed if you actually tried to refute my arguments with logic instead of meaningless statements regarding their absurdity.Please explain how interdependance can lead to more liberty.

Why should I try to refute your retarded argument with logic when I can refute it with FACT?

The fact, whether you like it or not, is that we are interdependant now and the interdependance does not reduce our liberty (nor does it increase it, but I never said that it does ~ I see you like staw men as much as false dichotomies). I need food, the farmer needs tools. I make tools for the farmer and he makes food for me. There's no need for someone to order us to do these things (but no shortage of people who'd like to anyway), because we both do it voluntarily, because we both see we get what we need that way better than some other way. Add a medium of exchange and many more people, and you get free-market capitalism. Except for some interference, that's how we live now. That's not speculation, buddy-boy, it's FACT.

Your reply avoids dealing with the issue. It is not just the mundane crime that is the problem- it is the ability of one individual being able to effect catastrophic damage to many people. If individuals on Earth could wipe out whole towns by themselves, we would see more surveillance- look at security precautions around infrastructure that could lead to large scale deaths- the same prcautions would be neccessary everywhere on Mars.

And your "solution" is to give MORE people, outside the settlement itself, the power to kill everyone. Are you really so stupid you can't see how counterproductive, nay, insane that is?

Well, if you say so. You have yet to demonstrate how it is different.

I have yet to demonstrate how killing a murderer and wiping out a city are different. To a person who isn't either insane or on drugs, that's obvious. But I'll explain the difference anyway.

One is a MURDERER.

The other is a CITY.

A murderer contains zero (0) innocent people. A city contains many.

Now that I've pointed out the obvious, you'll still tapdance around about how killing off numerous innocent people really isn't any different from an execution.

I have yet to see anything meaningful in your posts, you waste bandwith.

Boy, that's a great argument. It'll make all the kids fleeing their homes feel warm and fuzzy.

Very artful way to avoid answering a direct question. How many times has that tricked saved your ass in a debate?

Except, of course, that I didn't "dodge" anything. I simply pointed out that you're wrong as a matter of everyday experience. The need for cooperation has never required the sort of government you have in mind. There've been some bad ones, but the sort of thing you've been spouting only goes back to the French Revolution, and had some real charmers like Adolf Hitler and Joe Stalin trying it out in the 20th century (it failed, of course) and now only exists in hellholes like North Korea and Cuba. Real life is a bitch, ain't it? Thousands of years of emperical evidence is not a dodge.

I'd love to see some actual responses instead of the personal insults disguised as answers.

Let me get this straight. I say that depending on others out of necessity doesn't require totalitarianism. You act shocked, as if I'd said somerthing unusual. I point out the fact that for thousands of years people cooperated out of necessity, without the "benefit" of a state that wipes out cities at will. Seems pretty damn conclusive.

But you say it's not an actual response. I think maybe you've decided to call a non-response something which is, in fact, a response you don't know how to deal with.

Really, trying to characterize me or the arguments like this is childish and diversionary. Get on with saying something, or just shut up.

This from the guy who spent most of the very post he said this in "trying to characterize me or the arguments". In a risible fashion, I might add.

Clark: condemned out of his own mouth.

Yeah, justice is much more than a court, but the court is the tangible instrument with which we can legitimatly apply justice.

A car is the tangible instrument of transportation, but that doesn't mean that a car will always get you from point A to point B, nor does it mean that only a car can get you from point A to point B, nor yet does it mean than only transportation can happen in a car. How many people do you suppose are here because their parents used cars for something other than transportation?

So after sarcastically talking about how profound my point was, you go on about the fact that courts are used as a means to the end of justice. Wow, I bet that one took a team of Ph.Ds to come up with. And tell me, do you think the fact that courts are used as a means to the end of justice means that if I don't want the courts abused to provide cover for a manifest injustice I must oppose a government based on justice?

Umm, I didn't set up that false dichatomy... you just did. Please don't put words into my mouth. I will try to make it easier for you to use these lame tricks.

You were the one jumping up and down about how I don't support the existence of courts because I'd rather not see them abused to cover for crimes against humanity. It's like saying that if you don't support drunk driving, you must be opposed to cars.

Now, mind you, it most certainly is a false dichotomy. If those who don't support a particular misuse of the courts don't support courts at all, then those must be the only choices. If there are other options (as indeed there are) your "argument" falls in a heap of idiocy.

There is a process for doing exactly that. Please refer to WW2 and the internment of Japanese Americans. Are you this naieve or just that incompetent?

First, it isn't the same thing. We're talking about destroying cities, not rounding up the unpopular minority of the moment. I suppose you'll demand I explain the difference.

Here it goes:

One is DESTROYING CITIES.

The other is ROUNDING UP UNPOPULAR MINORITIES.

I won't bother to ask: I know you're that incompetant. It's a wonder you can get the computer on.

Second, if this had any point to it at all, it and Waco fit into a pattern: find the worst things Americans have ever done on Earth, and demand we do more of it in space. Let's bring some Negro manservants with us while we're at it.

AJ, I've argued with better and smarter people than you.

I've argued with Nazis who were better and smarter people than you.

Maybe this stuff still works with the 12 year olds, but you'll seriously have to better than this.

This is what we call a bluff. If you talk about how I'll "have to do better than this", maybe people won't notice that I beat the stuffing out of you and your "lame tricks".

clark · 2002-08-01 08:34:13

You can't deal with my arguments, so you dodge them with the accusation that I dodged your arguments. I suppose you think this is clever.

I point out that you dodge my questions, to which you respond by accusing me of dodging. Very original, very clever. You are such a clever boy. You see, you get to continue avoiding the argument, and then try to put me on the defensive by making a baseless claim. Look at your posts, they are riddled with statements like "I could answer, but it is so obvious" or "I could answer, but you're not worth the time"... it goes on. I bet you write your papers in 14 font then brag about how many pages you wrote.

Because "submitting to Society" is, for you, a total committment to follow every law passed by the government.

Is it? If you say so, then it must be. Well, I'm glad you set me straight, I was so confused. Of course I am left wondering what YOU believe. Arte we to take it that you don't believe you have to submit to Society? Do you feel that you don't have to follow all the laws passed by your government? I've never actually met someone who thought they were above the law, this is a first for me!

You know what, you probably shopuldn't answer me, every time you actually say something, you weaken your case.

So please, for the class, AJ, do you feel you do not have to abide by the laws of your government?

Why should I try to refute your retarded argument with logic when I can refute it with FACT?

Yeah, play to your strong suit... I'm surprised though that you have any facts since you seem pretty lost on history.

The fact, whether you like it or not, is that we are interdependant now and the interdependance does not reduce our liberty

This is a fact to you? I get it now. When you say FACT, you mean that anything you state is automaticaly a fact.... rrriiigght. You show no evidence that supports your assertion. It is nothing more than an unsupported opinion. You CLAIM that interdependance does not reduce our liberty by claiming that our interdependance NOW has not lead to a loss of independance. You claim, but show no reasoning in how you came to your final conclusion.

But, to humor you and show how silly your "facts" are. USA is interdependant upon the middle east for a major source of oil. The middle east is interdependant upon the USA for hard money and other commodities. This interdependance limits our liberty (action). It means we cannot act unilateraly, and neither can the middle east, we cannot act as we see fit becuase of the interdependance. If we didn't rely on the Middle east, we wouldn't have to take them into account when we want to do "something".

Add a medium of exchange and many more people, and you get free-market capitalism. Except for some interference, that's how we live now. That's not speculation, buddy-boy, it's FACT.

Good job on describing economics- now back to the sibject at hand...

We are discussing politcal ideology, not economic ideology. America is a republic. America has a free-market (sort of) capitalism economic system. You once again purposely confuse this discussion, or apparently do not understand what you are talking about. Which is it AJ?

Now that I've pointed out the obvious, you'll still tapdance around about how killing off numerous innocent people really isn't any different from an execution.

Where did I say killing innocent people is okay? Where did I say it was no different from a regular execution? You say that AJ, not I.

I simply pointed out that you're wrong as a matter of everyday experience.

If you say so.

The need for cooperation has never required the sort of government you have in mind.

True.... on Earth that is. However, as you might notice, we are discussing Mars. The level of cooperation neccessary for space, and for mars, has never before been experienced before. Does earth need what i am talking about, no, but then again, Earth has a remarkably different environment, dosen't it?

real charmers like Adolf Hitler and Joe Stalin trying it out in the 20th century
(it failed, of course) and now only exists in hellholes like North Korea and Cuba. Real life is a bitch, ain't it? Thousands of years of emperical evidence is not a dodge.

Your FACTS only point out one thing, that DESPOTISM as a form of government is generally bad. Rosseau says the same thing, wow, agreeing with Rosseau AJ? Your facts prove nothing and only detract from the real discussion.

All governments are totalitarian. Democracy, Republics, Monarchies, Communism- you see, the people agree to follow the government. Now, there are different types of governments- despotism being but only one. Do you understand this?

I point out the fact that for thousands of years people cooperated out of necessity, without the "benefit" of a state that wipes out cities at will.

And I will point out that we have exsisted with the benefit of a state for a few thousand years and we seem to be doing much better. After all, we're talking on a computer, not hunting a buffalo with spears. But if that's what you want, more power to you.

I think maybe you've decided to call a non-response something which is, in fact, a response you don't know how to deal with.

More of your supposed thinking, more of your supposed facts...

I don't know how to deal with an argument you make for me. You have continually put words into my mouth with the expectation that I defend them as part of my argument. I reject that.

This from the guy who spent most of the very post he said this in "trying to characterize me or the arguments". In a risible fashion, I might add.

I have to chacterize your argument becuase there is no substance. You don't say anything, so I am left to put some form to the formless. I get tired of it, so I lash out. I'm sorry AJ, I will try to be more sensitive to your feelings. You are after all, a human being, right?

So after sarcastically talking about how profound my point was, you go on about the fact that courts are used as a means to the end of justice. Wow, I bet that one took a team of Ph.Ds to come up with.

No, just little ol' me. Thanks for the compliement! I was actually surprised I had to explain how a court is a means to justice, but it seems you just hadn't quite grasped the subject. I hope I helped you understand.

And tell me, do you think the fact that courts are used as a means to the end of
justice means that if I don't want the courts abused to provide cover for a manifest injustice I must oppose a government based on justice?

You want me to tell you what you think? Try thinking for yourself, much more rewarding. I believe you need to add a fe punctuation marks to clarify your question, try again and I will listen.

You were the one jumping up and down about how I don't support the existence of courts because I'd rather not see them abused to cover for crimes against humanity.

You rejected the idea of "judical process". You rejected the entire process (your words, not mine). What's left? Are you aware of another form of maintaing justice other than the judical process? I would love to hear the alternative, since thousands of years of human history have shown us nothing else.

If those who don't support a particular misuse of the courts don't support courts at all,
then those must be the only choices.

No, I never stated those were the only choices- you did. You are the one creating the false dichtomies, not me. I have stated a judical process- I have not defined how it would work, what the checks and balances on it, how abuse would be prevented, mitigated, overisight, etc.

You claim there is abuse when nothing has been defined.

I won't bother to ask: I know you're that incompetant. It's a wonder you can get the computer on

Hmm, if I recall, you're the one that has the computer problems that prevent you from posting enlightening comments that are really a waste...

This is what we call a bluff. If you talk about how I'll "have to do better than this", maybe people won't notice that I beat the stuffing out of you and your "lame tricks".

Who is we? Do you have a team helping you, telling you what to think? LOL.

If you actually took the time and tried to deal with what I post, I'm sure you would have no problem in finding some flaw in my logic. However, you will never do it if you continue with these petty debating tactics.

First rule of debating is to define the argument for your opponent, which you continue to try, and fail at.

Beat the stuffing out of me? That'll be the day.

Palomar · 2002-08-01 09:04:31

*"The Will of Society."

I don't believe there is such a thing, simply because it's always the rich, and hence POWERFUL, who ultimately call the shots...and who don't have to abide by the rules because they can buy judges, lawyers, politicians, etc., whereas the "little guy" cannot. If we accept that there is such thing as "The Will of Society" then we accept the contradiction that U.S. society of 1776 advocated "all men are created equal and are endowed with certain rights by their Creator...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" while at the same time the "Will of Society" dictated this excluded non-whites, i.e. black slaves and Native Americans.

Many "common people" don't care about the workings or "Will" of society; they are too busy trying to make ends meet, trying to raise their kids in a violent society, and many more just don't care or are willfully ignorant/intellectually lazy with a "who gives a damn" attitude...which, of course, plays right into the hands of the powerful and connected who call the shots.

The "Will of Society" is a fallacy. Did all those "witches" of the 15th through 18th century Europe consent to being accused of heresy and burned to death by the Inquisition, i.e. they were going along with "The Will of Society"? Did the Jews of Germany consent to the "Will of Society" while being rounded up like cattle and sent to the ovens of Auschwitz? The Germans did consent to Hitler's domination and assumed authority...and got the living daylights bombed out of them as a result. Not very nice consequences.

Most societies are varying forms of fascism, wherein only an elite minority call the shots, make the rules, and give marching orders [which they don't and won't submit to themselves], and the onus is on "the little guy" to either submit or resist.

The more government and societal reinforcement, the less individual liberties and freedoms one has. The less government and societal reinforcement, the more individual liberties and freedoms one has.

Rousseau was a man of profound contradictions. In his personal life he was anti-social and decried society as the corrupter of mankind...yet he penned some very strong and, IMO, potentially dangerous pro-societal concepts.

That's the way I see it. End of report; not interested in getting into a debate at this time [time and responsibility constraints].

"The man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap." - Ayn Rand

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-01 09:41:10

Not debating, just pointing out some fallacies:

I don't believe there is such a thing, simply because it's always the rich, and hence POWERFUL, who ultimately call the shots...and who don't have to abide by the rules because they can buy judges, lawyers, politicians, etc., whereas the "little guy" cannot.

So then you believe that you have no power over the laws which govern you?

If we accept that there is such thing as "The Will of Society" then we accept the contradiction that U.S. society of 1776 advocated "all men are created equal and are endowed with certain rights by their Creator...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" while at the same time the "Will of Society" dictated this excluded non-whites, i.e. black slaves and Native Americans.

No, it was not an accepted contradiction, it was imple hypocrisy. One, Rosseau states in the Social Contract that slavery cannot exsist in a true Society, in any form. Two, the establishment of criteria for who is and isn't a "citizen" was flawed, yet later corrected. We can see the flaw becuase of our current value systems- they couldn't as well becuase of their own value system.

Many "common people" don't care about the workings or "Will" of society; they are too busy trying to make ends meet, trying to raise their kids in a violent society, and many more just don't care or are willfully ignorant/intellectually lazy with a "who gives a damn" attitude...which, of course, plays right into the hands of the powerful and connected who call the shots.

Which is why leaders must represent the will of society, as well as shape society for its own betterment when neccessary (becuase they are too ignorant to realize). The problem I see with most people regarding Rosseau is that he left out too many details- which makes people add their own details. He laid out a framework- he described the ideals, without defining how to really achieve those ideals in concrete terms- this leads people to infer things from Rosseau, which is just a reflection of yourself, not what Rosseau is arguing. It really is artful.

The "Will of Society" is a fallacy. Did all those "witches" of the 15th through 18th century Europe consent to being accused of heresy and burned to death by the Inquisition, i.e. they were going along with "The Will of Society"?

No, but the Will of Society was not being exercised in this case. It was a decree becuase the will of society must be applied to all equally, and must represent the will of everyone equally. Obviously targeting a minority for oppresion within society does not mean the defintion of equality. Same for your german example.

Rosseau deals with these issues directly in the Social Contract.

Most societies are varying forms of fascism, wherein only an elite minority call the shots, make the rules, and give marching orders [which they don't and won't submit to themselves], and the onus is on "the little guy" to either submit or resist.

True, and that is true for any system of government- either submit or resist. Rosseau states that individuals are well within their right to resist the will of society if it has been corrupted. He states individuals only need follow legitimate laws- if a law is illigitimate, then it is merely a decree and has no power over us. We all know a good law becuase we usually follow them, we all know a bad law becuase we generally complain/revolt about them.

In his personal life he was anti-social and decried society as the corrupter of mankind...yet he penned some very strong and, IMO, potentially dangerous pro-societal concepts.

That's the funny thing, I don't think he penned a pro-societal, or an anti-individual, whatever in Social Contract- he merely defined the parameters by which mankind creates a society.

Did Darwin pen pro-evolutionary concepts? No. He merely described what he saw.

Rosseau dosen't call for one form of government over another (other than the one that includes the views of as many people as possible as being the most stable and long lasting). He dosen't state people should be sheep. He merely points out reality, some people need to be lead becuase they simply don't know any better. He also point out that most people already know what they need, so just let them express that. That's it.

Palomar · 2002-08-01 10:03:33

the will of society must be applied to all equally, and must represent the will of everyone equally.

*Which --given the way human nature operates -- will probably never, ever happen anywhere. It's a pipe dream. Lions don't lie down with sheep and sharks don't swim complacently with guppies.

Gotta get back to work...

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-01 11:09:28

Which --given the way human nature operates -- will probably never, ever happen anywhere.

Not with that attitude we won't!

Seriously though, if you are willing to shrug your shoulders declaring that human nature prevents any hope of progress, why bother with half the things we have discussed?

Utopia is immpossible, what does it hurt for us to at least strive for it? If we at least strive for it, then there is nothing wrong with identifying where we want to be at the end.

Palomar · 2002-08-01 11:59:36

Which --given the way human nature operates -- will probably never, ever happen anywhere.
Not with that attitude we won't!
Seriously though, if you are willing to shrug your shoulders declaring that human nature prevents any hope of progress, why bother with half the things we have discussed?

*Note I used the word "probably" in my statement. I didn't make a rigidly absolute proclamation.

I'm all for progress...REALISTIC progress. The extremely well-documented history of human nature can't be ignored or overlooked, can it?

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-01 12:04:31

I'm all for progress...REALISTIC progress. The extremely well-documented history of human nature can't be ignored or overlooked, can it?

No, it shouldn't. But should it be an exscuse?

Human nature shows us to be destructive, should we forget about doing anything to mitigate this behavior?

Just becuase Rosseau discussed ideals that are currently beyond our reach does not mean it isn't worthwhile. After all, impossible is only something that hasn't been doen yet.

Palomar · 2002-08-01 12:44:30

Clark: No, it shouldn't. But should it be an exscuse?

*No, it shouldn't be an excuse. In no way, shape, or form did I even remotely imply it should be an excuse. Human nature shouldn't be overlooked or ignored -- that was the gist of my statement.

Clark: Human nature shows us to be destructive,

*Human nature shows us to be MANY things, not just destructive.

Clark: should we forget about doing anything to mitigate this behavior?

*No, and I didn't even remotely imply in any way, shape, or form that we should.

If there's to be any true, continuing progress [as there has been in the past], it must be predicated on facing human nature -- all aspects of it, not just the destructive ones -- squarely and unflinchingly.

--Cindy

A.J.Armitage · 2002-08-02 13:26:21

Clark;

I see you're continuing to accuse me of the very things you're doing. As far as I can see, your whole post is a dodge, without even the attempt to address what I said. It's just tricks and rhetoric.

A few examples:

Where did I say killing innocent people is okay? Where did I say it was no different from a regular execution? You say that AJ, not I.

Now, this whole thread is about how you want to kill every man, woman, and child who doesn't flee from cities your "judicial process" has condemned. If you're advocating it, you obviously think it's more than okay.

(Watch, you'll demand an explaination for how killing children unlucky enough to be in a condemned city is killing innocent people.)

Then you have the nerve to say that I think it's okay to kill inocent people. Which is really a statement about your basic honesty. You haven't got any. You'll say anything. But then you have to: cheap debate tricks is all you have.

I point out the fact that for thousands of years people cooperated out of necessity, without the "benefit" of a state that wipes out cities at will.

And I will point out that we have exsisted with the benefit of a state for a few thousand years and we seem to be doing much better. After all, we're talking on a computer, not hunting a buffalo with spears. But if that's what you want, more power to you.

Here is another dishonest debate trick. Accuse the other guy of wanting anarchy because he doesn't want a state that can wipe out its own cities. You'll deny setting up a false dichotomy, of course.

I was actually surprised I had to explain how a court is a means to justice, but it seems you just hadn't quite grasped the subject.

An insult to cover over what an incompetent thinker you are.

If you can't understand the distinction between ends and means (and the fact that the means may not always reach the end and may even be counterproductive), there's not much to say. I'd assumed enough minimal intelligence on your part to understand something so simple, but I guess that was a mistake. (Unless you understand perfectly well and this is simply dishonesty.)

In any event, you exposed yourself, and insulting me isn't going to help it.

You rejected the idea of "judical process". You rejected the entire process (your words, not mine). What's left? Are you aware of another form of maintaing justice other than the judical process? I would love to hear the alternative, since thousands of years of human history have shown us nothing else.

A dishonest characterization, but what else is new?

This is where your inadequacy is most exposed. You've been trying to simultaneously accuse me of opposing courts altogether because I oppose letting courts rule that cities should be destroyed, and accuse me of falsely attributing to you the very false dichotomy-based accusation in the quote above. I'm insult you think you'll get that past me.

Of course, as any honest person would note, I oppose using courts for a manifest injustice. All your sputtering to the contrary is nothing but political rhetoric, based, as is often the case, on logic that cannot withstand scrutiny. So when the logic is attacked, you repeat the spurious rhetoric and at the same time deny you actually believe what the rhetoric is based on.

Not to mention flat-out lying: "You rejected the entire process (your words, not mine)." Of course, anyone who cares to can see for himself that I rejected any process with shutting off life support as it's end. That's because my objection is substantive, not procedural.

I have stated a judical process- I have not defined how it would work, what the checks and balances on it, how abuse would be prevented, mitigated, overisight, etc.
You claim there is abuse when nothing has been defined.

This is your magic talisman for warding off criticism.

Now the question is, is it just a pathetic trick, or are you genuinely so limited you just can't concieve how someone could object to the thing itself, the substence, and not the process or form?

If you actually took the time and tried to deal with what I post, I'm sure you would have no problem in finding some flaw in my logic.

If you'd post something resembling logic, and not the internet eqivalent of pounding the table, there might be a point to looking for ordinary flaws instead of the wholesale illogic you've been using.

Maybe if you would follow your own advice and deal with what I said, instead of rhetorical table-pounding (What? you don't want courts to destroy cities? That means no courts at all, you, you, anarchist you! ), you might get there, assuming your brain is built so that it can handle logic in the first place.

clark · 2002-08-02 14:07:54

I see you're continuing to accuse me of the very things you're doing.

more of the same, eh?

never once did I state that I support killing innocent life, to which you keep stating I do. Please, here and now, site the direct quote where I say that. You will find that I do not state that, yet you continue your meaningless chacterization of me in this regard. Why?

Now, you infer that I would support the killing of innocent people, which is of course just your attempt to discredit me as a loon. You suggest that I obviously must support this inference on your part since it is the logical conclusion that you come to. Now, lets see, YOU infer that i support something based on YOUR logic- not mine. At no time do you limit yourself to the text of my posts, instead you create your haphazrd claims based on twisting the context of my meaning.

Your complaints are wholly meaningless. I point to contemporary examples of how our system of governemnt works- and then make the same comparison to Mars. You jump up and down about "totalitarism", twisting the defintion to meet your needs and trying to accuse me as being some monster when in reality all I am proposing is the same system of government that we have here on Earth, for Mars.

Can the judical process here in the USA be used for manifest injustice, yes, it can. Can what i propose for Mars be used for manifest injustice, yes it can. However, I have NOT definied the judical process- it is an unknown. I am discussing powers of the State- the same powers that the State has now in the USA. The checks and balances that exsist prevent, or mitigate the manifest injustice you keep complaining about- however, I haven't discussed ANy checks and balances for the judical process, so I am left wondering how you assume that the injustice is so inherent.

I haven't said anything, thats why your posts are so funny.

I haven't detailed when, and where, and why, and who, or any of the other details that end up defingin justice or injustice- just the powers. You make all of this up in your head. I delineate powers, not the justification for the use of those powers.

The President of the US can destroy us all- ONE person has this power. IS this right? Well, on the face of it, no, but then we explain why it might be neccessary for this one individual to have this power- and suddenly the injustice is rendered moot.

The same with a judical process for termination of life support for an entire city.

That is what i said. that's it. Could there be a situation where this might be neccessary? If so, then shouldn't the State have the power to do this? I highly doubt that any court would allow for the destruction of innocent life- yet it may be neccessary for any number of reasons. You see, it's the reasons, the justification- the rationale. None of which has been discussed, so your complaints are worthless.

You can rant all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is YOU have been had.

And, regardless of what you say, I do answer your questions directly. You however, do not reciprocate. Oh well, I am enjoying watching you argue with yourself. Have a nice day!

A.J.Armitage · 2002-08-02 20:34:23

never once did I state that I support killing innocent life, to which you keep stating I do. Please, here and now, site the direct quote where I say that. You will find that I do not state that, yet you continue your meaningless chacterization of me in this regard. Why?

This is an interesting comment. Kind of goes well with the idea I should "limit yourself to the text of my posts". You apparently think that if you don't mention it, we aren't allowed to notice that what you're talking about necessarily involves killing innocent people.

Now, you infer that I would support the killing of innocent people, which is of course just your attempt to discredit me as a loon.

Well, you are a loon, and you do support killing innocent people whether you come right out and say it, or for that matter whether you realize it, or not.

Let's look at the obvious fact, shall me? After an order to leave the settlement in a week's time, everyone leaves except one lonely orphan shivering and crying out for his dead mother (yes, I know I'm laying it on thick). So, when the big day arrives, do you turn off the oxygen? Not turning it off means, not just violating a court order, but admitting the whole thing is a bluff. If it isn't a bluff, you flip the switch and kill the orphan. And I haven't seen you post anything about bluffing.

Now, lets see, YOU infer that i support something based on YOUR logic- not mine. At no time do you limit yourself to the text of my posts, instead you create your haphazrd claims based on twisting the context of my meaning.

I suppose the paragraph before the one here is the sort of thing you're talking about. Following the consequences of a proposal through -- BAD! Just follow exactly what your text says. Don't do anything thinking on your own.

This, mind you, is from the guy who reads that I don't want courts to order the destruction of whole settlements, and starts pounding the table about how I don't want any courts. This is what we call hypocrisy.

I point to contemporary examples of how our system of governemnt works- and then make the same comparison to Mars. You jump up and down about "totalitarism", twisting the defintion to meet your needs and trying to accuse me as being some monster when in reality all I am proposing is the same system of government that we have here on Earth, for Mars.

1. The same system of government? Oh, I know, you're talking about the time the Supreme Court ordered that Boston be nuked in two weeks' time!

Seriously, are we actually in two different alternative realities talking somehow wired together at a point that happens to have a computer wire running through it? That would explain how often you say things so unconnected to the real world. Or maybe you're just insane.

2. I posted the dictionary definition. If you don't like it, tough.

Can what i propose for Mars be used for manifest injustice, yes it can.

It would be a manifest injustice.

However, I have NOT definied the judical process- it is an unknown.

Out comes the magic talisman.

Since something that, by it's nature, involves killing innocents or at least dispossessing them cannot be justified as domestic policy and can only be justified in warfare if the alternative is suffering the same thing yourself, it doesn't matter what process you use.

The magic talisman is irrelevant. My objection has never been to the procedure but to the substance. Even for you, this is a remarkable run of thick-headedness -- and you seem proud of keeping it out so long, since you waved the magic talisman and did your procedure dance for the next several paragraphs. Do you really think the argument goes anywhere or answers anything?

You can rant all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is YOU have been had.

Unless this is an oblique admission that you've been making all this up to get a reaction (there's no shame in it, Peter Singer's made a whole career out of it), you've got nothing to boast about. You'll notice that, your delusions aside, I haven't fallen for your petty tricks and illogical spasms.

Have a nice day!

Run out of oxygen and die alone.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-07-24 15:18:21

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#27 2002-07-24 15:44:55

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#28 2002-07-24 20:42:09

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#29 2002-07-25 06:03:04

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#30 2002-07-25 07:17:17

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#31 2002-07-25 09:04:40

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#32 2002-07-25 09:36:10

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#33 2002-07-25 18:22:51

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#34 2002-07-25 19:04:03

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#35 2002-07-27 10:45:22

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#36 2002-07-29 08:38:30

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#37 2002-07-31 10:34:58

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#38 2002-07-31 12:14:43

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#39 2002-07-31 13:57:58

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#40 2002-08-01 08:34:13

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#41 2002-08-01 09:04:31

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#42 2002-08-01 09:41:10

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#43 2002-08-01 10:03:33

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#44 2002-08-01 11:09:28

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#45 2002-08-01 11:59:36

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#46 2002-08-01 12:04:31

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#47 2002-08-01 12:44:30

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#48 2002-08-02 13:26:21

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#49 2002-08-02 14:07:54

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

#50 2002-08-02 20:34:23

Re: It's all so very nice, BUT

Board footer