www.ditl.org

Rochey wrote:How is there a high probability of this happening?

Because people are greedy, and greedy people always want more.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Those are all things everyone should know are wrong. Less tangible crimes can be proscecuted wrongly if the law is flawed.

This all started when you asked:

What about your spouse? If someone decided taking them from you is for the "greater good", you'd shrug and agree?

Rochey responded with the point about whether the spouse in quesion was a criminal. You responded to that with something about immoral laws, got called on it, and have been backpedalling ever since.

What do you call a group of select, elite individuals making decisions for everyone else? A "shared dictatorship"?

A group selected by the population by a free and fair vote, in a democracy. The alternative - having each and every individual decide on their own course with no high coordinating authority - is anarchy. If you think that's a good thing, feel free to emigrate to Somalia.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Because people are greedy, and greedy people always want more.

Which you've said already, and which Rochey countered with the point about checks and balances. Kindly respond to that point.

Captain Seafort wrote: *snip*

Who called me on anything? I never stated anything in absolute terms, Seafort. I left it vague on purpose, as he did when he said "criminal". That term is a matter of perspective, period.

I never said squat about anarchy. People in power (at least in America) can vote to give themselves more power and money without any input from the populace. How is that a free and fair vote? When the only candidates you have to vote for are in on the shell game? Checks and balances can be worked around with amendments and emergency powers.

*EDIT*

I also never said "immoral" laws, merely unjust ones, which is also a matter of perspective.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Who called me on anything? I never stated anything in absolute terms, Seafort. I left it vague on purpose, as he did when he said "criminal". That term is a matter of perspective, period.

Rochey was clearly talking about the sort of crimes you agree should be crimes. You started talking about whether the specific crimes were just or unjust, which both myself and Rochey pointed out was tangential to the original point.

I never said squat about anarchy. People in power (at least in America) can vote to give themselves more power and money without any input from the populace. How is that a free and fair vote? When the only candidates you have to vote for are in on the shell game? Checks and balances can be worked around with amendments and emergency powers.

You referred to "a group of select, elite individuals making decisions for everyone else" as a "shared dictatorship". I pointed out a) that said group is democratically elected, and b) that the alternative to placing decision-making power in the hands of a few is anarchy. A flawed democracy (which is the only sort we're ever going to get) is distinct from, and preferable to, both anarchy and dictatorship.

Captain Seafort wrote:Rochey was clearly talking about the sort of crimes you agree should be crimes. You started talking about whether the specific crimes were just or unjust, which both myself and Rochey pointed out was tangential to the original point.

He only said: ...if they were a criminal. I'm saying that the term is a matter of perspective. How is it divergent from the point when your definition of a "criminal" might be different than mine?

You referred to "a group of select, elite individuals making decisions for everyone else" as a "shared dictatorship". I pointed out a) that said group is democratically elected, and b) that the alternative to placing decision-making power in the hands of a few is anarchy. A flawed democracy (which is the only sort we're ever going to get) is distinct from, and preferable to, both anarchy and dictatorship.

The American government is indirectly elected, and, as I pointed out, the government can grant itself power without any direct vote from the people. It may be preferable to worse examples, but it still has a high potential for oppression to occur, especially if said changes increase the level of control the government has over the populace. There's a lot of room between freedom and anarchy.

He only said: ...if they were a criminal. I'm saying that the term is a matter of perspective. How is it divergent from the point when your definition of a "criminal" might be different than mine?

A criminal is someone who commits a crime. How can this be a matter of perspective?

The American government is indirectly elected, and, as I pointed out, the government can grant itself power without any direct vote from the people.

Really? Who the hell thought up that idea?

Tsukiyumi wrote:The American government is indirectly elected, and, as I pointed out, the government can grant itself power without any direct vote from the people. It may be preferable to worse examples, but it still has a high potential for oppression to occur, especially if said changes increase the level of control the government has over the populace. There's a lot of room between freedom and anarchy.

This applies to any government - it's inherent in the requirement that the government must have the ability to exercise power on behalf of the nation. It's power is, however, limited by the requirement that individual members of the legislative and executive must periodically stand for reelection.

Rochey wrote:A criminal is someone who commits a crime. How can this be a matter of perspective?

According to a lot of muslim-controlled governments, it's a crime for a woman to go without a burqa. It's a death penalty offense to possess marijuana, and if you don't worship Allah, you have to pay a "head tax" to keep from being beheaded. According to them, you and I would be "criminals" for not following their laws. Do you not see how that is purely a matter of perspective? Rosa Parks was a "criminal" over here. As was Crazy Horse for defending his people. The founding fathers of the US were considered "criminals" by the British. Perspective is everything.

Really? Who the hell thought up that idea?

I'd love to know.

Rochey wrote:
Really? Who the hell thought up that idea?

The Supreme Court can reverse these decisions provided they are brought to their attention.

Captain Seafort wrote:...It's power is, however, limited by the requirement that individual members of the legislative and executive must periodically stand for reelection.

During their elective period, each can do their part to ensure more power for the next group, in exchange for "compensation". Most people over here are resigned to the fact that most politicians are on the take. We've started giving up, and that is the first step toward a populace enslaved without any resistance. Transparency in government affairs is quite limited over here, as is civilian oversight.

Cpl Kendall wrote:The Supreme Court can reverse these decisions provided they are brought to their attention.

You forgot: "provided they actually care, and are not also on the take".

Tsu wrote:According to a lot of muslim-controlled governments, it's a crime for a woman to go without a burqa. It's a death penalty offense to possess marijuana, and if you don't worship Allah, you have to pay a "head tax" to keep from being beheaded. According to them, you and I would be "criminals" for not following those laws. Do you not see how that is purely a matter of perspective? Rosa Parks was a "criminal" over here. As was Crazy Horse for defending his people. The founding fathers of the US were considered "criminals" by the British. Perspective is everything.

Okay, let's make an analogy here.
Say I invite you to a part in my house. Now, I have a rule that no one can come into my house without wearing a top-hat. If you don't wear a top-hat, you don't get in. Is it a stupid, and pointless rule? Yep, it sure is. But that's the thing; it's my house, so I make the rules.
How does this apply to countries? Well, the majority of the population may agree with these stupid rules. So you have an option; obey the rules, or go elsewhere. It's that simple.

Tsukiyumi wrote:
You forgot: "provided they actually care, and are not also on the take".

Someone piss in your cheerios? Supreme Court judges often turn out to be more impartial than intially thought. And there has to be a consitutional basis for their smackdown.

Of course the US polittical systems is an epic goatrope. Hence the importance of careful voting.

Rochey wrote:Okay, let's make an analogy here.
Say I invite you to a part in my house. Now, I have a rule that no one can come into my house without wearing a top-hat. If you don't wear a top-hat, you don't get in. Is it a stupid, and pointless rule? Yep, it sure is. But that's the thing; it's my house, so I make the rules.
How does this apply to countries? Well, the majority of the population may agree with these stupid rules. So you have an option; obey the rules, or go elsewhere. It's that simple.

You left out the third option: revolution.