On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 12:19:29 +1200, "tonycook" <tonycook@no-spam>
wrote:
>>> >Individual values have never - nor will ever be possible within any
>> >society on their own - only collective values.
>>
>> Why the hell not?
>
>Oh jeeze - you've got to be joking.
>How the hell can you have 2.5 million laws for one issue?
>Try to keep up.
Listen to yourself!
You think someone can not hold a value without a law?
What about a small group of laws that give a man the right to his
land?
>> You ignore who actually owns the right to control the matter
>> concerned.
>
>Ownership provides no other rights other than ownership.
>Deciding other issues is everybody's right.
Fascism: Where individuals own land in name, but not in reality.
>Society doesn't constitute millions of little kingdoms.
>It's one collective of individuals living, working and cooperating
>together for the benefit of all.
And if one does not wish to be a sacrificial animal to this
"collective," you make them?
>> If I think I should live, and you think I should die, one DOES have to
>> give way to the other, but that doesn't mean it is something that
>> should be voted on.
>
>Well you could flip a coin I guess -
>but *some* acceptable criteria for decision making *has* to be
>established that's both fair and equitable.
I am at a loss for words to describe the disgust I have at that
sentence.
You, a majority or anyone else will NEVER own my life.
>> >Democracy/Superdemocracy recognises this and allows for the best
>> >and fairest *compromise* that satisfies most people most of the time.
>>
>> Completely ignoring all individual rights.
>
>Individuals do not have rights over and above what the majority
>decides.
Tell that to the jews.
Yes, yes, whine on about how the Nazi party didn't quite have the
majority.
What would you think if they did? Would that make it ok? If there was
a Televote to kill all jews?
Are all morals simply dependant on who has the biggest mob?
>If they did - it would mean that minorities/individuals could
>dictate to majorities.
No it wouldn't!
Can't you bloody understand. There is no dictating involved! You can
control what happens on your property, unless you initiate force or
fraud.
>That's dictatorship.
>So instead - minorities/individuals concede to majorities.
>That's democracy/Superdemocracy.
>
>But it's impossible to have it both ways.
Can't you understand! You have the right to control things that you
have earned or traded.
>> Regardless of whose blood, sweat and tears have gone into any private
>> property, you think it's FAIR to redistribute it because it satisfies
>> most people?
>
>No.
>Never claimed it was.
>Property owners only have a responsibility not to use their land
>in such a way as to be a danger or impediment to anyone else.
Unless the majority votes otherwise?
>(snipped)
>> Deciding things about property regardless of who owns it is not fair.
>
>If its use threatens or disadvantages others - then it's very fair.
What if it doesn't threaten someone? You've made no provision that
individuals have right over their land unless they threaten others.
>You seem to have this extraordinary idea that owning something
>automatically means you can expect all other people to accept
>all and anything you wish to do regardless of its effect on others.
No, i don't. Learn about libertarianism.
If you initiate force or fraud against a person with your property,
others do not have to accept it.
>> It is disgusting! It is claiming that "society" has a right to your
>> life,
>
>Correct.
And why the hell should that be?
Do you have no self esteem? How can you live with yourself, thinking
that you are someone elses property?
>Care to explain to me how you on your own little Pat Molloy
>could ever stop them?
So might is right?
>But don't worry.
>Society has wisely chosen to protect your life.
But they day they choose to end it, they are being perfectly moral,
Tony?
>(snipped)
>> >One cannot - I repeat - cannot - satisfy everyone at all times.
>> >Why can't you understand this very simple fact of life?
>>
>> I DO UNDERSTAND IT.
>> I simply think that satisfying everyone should not be your end,
>
>Oh jeeze mate - what the hell else do you think a political system
>is for - or can provide?
Justice. To let individuals live peacefully as they wish, and simply
to protect them from acts of force or fraud.
You just admitted that you think a political system is simply for a
certain groups satisfaction, not to be just, not to be fair.
>Satisfaction is what we all want.
>We all want to have our preferences.
But when it comes to others lives, we shouldn't be able to force or
preferences onto them.
>(snipped)
>> >What you are expecting is simply *not possible* !!!!!!
>> >What is it about "not possible" that you don't understand?
>>
>> Why the hell not?
>
>You can't have 2.5 million laws for one issue.
>There *has to be* *one* law for all.
Why can't you let people interact voluntarily.
I don't need a law telling me to go shopping every week.
>> Why can't a country where every person deals with every other person
>> with voluntary mutual consent work?
>
>Because it requires everybody to be nigh on perfect and reasonable -
>and we're not.
No, it doesn't. Because when people are fraudulent or violent, the
government is there to sort things out.
>(snipped)
>> It's either voluntary, or someone uses force.
>
>Democracy/Superdemocracy is voluntary
>and adresses all issues.
Bullshit.
You claim that no-one has a right to their life, over whatever the
majority decides to do with them, and then you dare to suggest that it
is voluntary?
>Dictatorships always use force and oppress the majority.
>
>> >(snipped)
>> >> > And as long as those rights and values are within the law,
>> >> > that's fine with me.
>> >>
>> >> Yeap that was just fine and dandy with 6 million Jews too.
>> >
>> >Irrelevant.
>> >The jews were murdered by a military dictator
>> >and not by any democratic means.
>>
>> Hmm, that's funny.
>
>I don't think the Jews thought so.
>
>> While the SA were running around terrorising jews, and while the Nazi
>> party OPENLY stated their anti-semetic views, the Nazi party kept
>> getting more seats.
>
>Many Germans were taken in by utopian promises just
>as Loony Libz is trying to create.
>
>> But that's ok, because it's what society wants, isn't it?
>
>We all know it's not ok and current human rights acknowledge it
>worldwide.
>I have never claimed history has no mistakes.
>But because mistakes have been made - it doesn't
>prove they would be repeated.
But you just said, no individuals have rights over what the majority
decide to do to them. So obviously, the murder of 6 million jews would
have been ok, if they had voted for it. Correct?
>> It doesn't matter that while Hitler was telling people that jews were
>> a disease that needed to be wiped out, they still voted for him.
>
>It's irrevelent now.
I think it's very relevant.
>Superdemocracy did not exist then,
>so there is no comparison available.
>Remember even the so called democracy we currently have
>is nothing more than an elected dictatorship.
>The NZSDP does not accept that that's sufficient democracy -
>and that's why the NZSDP advocates Superdemocracy.
>
>> >> The "law"
>> >> is supposed to be about justice, not about the "whims" of mobs.
>> >
>> >Well - if the whims of the mob are of no account to you -
>> >what makes your whims and/or the whims of Loony Libz
>> >any better or fairer?
>>
>> The libz would not decide anything about other's property.
>
>Then who would? Just the owner?
>That'll be the day.
>It assumes there are no idiots.
No it doesn't. It lets people learn from their mistakes.
It says that people have a right to their life and thier property, not
that they are some slave to society.
>How do I prevent an idiot building a hydrogen bomb next door to me?
To build a hydrogen bomb could well be a threat of force
>Give him lollies?
>There have to be *some* property laws for the protection of all.
You don't suggest *some* property laws.
You suggest that the majority should be able to do whatever they wish
with any property.
>> The whims of the OWNER or the land, or the rights to control, would be
>> what mattered.
>
>Why?
>It's not a separate kingdom.
>All lands affect everyone.
So therefore, the majority makes all the decisions.
>> >Why and on what basis are the whims of a minority/individual
>> >more important than the majority's?
>>
>> Oh my god. What a statement of inconcievable evil.
>
>Dictatorship (as in Hitler's) is what's evil sushine.
>Try to be realistic - it can help quite a bit.
>
>(snipped)
>> What right does a majority have to claim control over a man's life?
>
>Protection of life is everyone's right.
According to you it isn't. You said earlier that no individuals have
rights.
>We probably all support it.
Oh, whoopee.
>Yes it is.
>But you have to consider others rights and considerations -
>that's all.
>Not such a big ask really.
It is a big ask when you tell me that My body, my mind, my house, my
time and all my possesions are no longer mine.
>> I can't decide whether you are innocently ignorant of the kinds of
>> people your system would destroy,
>
>Superdemocracy will never destroy anyone.
>The worst that can happen is that a few issues might not
>go your way at some time or other.
>Not so bad really.
" Craig: If I think I should live, and you think I should die, one
DOES have to give way to the other, but that doesn't mean it is
something that
should be voted on."
"Tony: Well you could flip a coin I guess -
but *some* acceptable criteria for decision making *has* to be
established that's both fair and equitable."
"It is disgusting! It is claiming that "society" has a right to your
life,
Correct."
When you tell me that i have no rights at all, bar a vote, that i
exist as a slave, that my entire life is only allowed if a majority
wants it to be, that is a big deal.
I won't bother to look through and see what you've snipped out, as you
always do. The things you say give so little importance to each of our
lives that i can't imagine that anyone would feel anything but disgust
for your system.
Craig
Remove * to email.
On usenet I speak only for myself.
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 11:41:36 +1200, "tonycook" <tonycook@no-spam>
wrote:
>Fortunately 99.97% of the electorate are not gullible and
>recognise a fraud/impossible dream when they see one -
>and I'm confident that you and Craig will too - eventually.
Tony, I will never believe that my only right to my life is if a
majority agrees to it.
I will never believe that the majority should do as it damn pleases,
simply because it has more people.
I will never believe that society owns me, nor that I have accepted
some unchosen obligation from birth to hand my life over to it.
I will never reduce myself to such a little sub-human that you want to
make people into, with not even the right to their own life without
mob consent.
I will never believe that force is right, that someone's land is not
theirs, that a man can put years of their life into something, just to
hold title, when society has complete control over it.
Remove * to email.
On usenet I speak only for myself.
