What makes a country free?

[Chiki]

I'm not sure what the big deal is if they do win. According to a democracy, an elected party is by definition justified. So if they do win I don't really see why it's morally impermissible when the concept of a democracy by definition makes a Neo Nazi party morally permissible.

[Anouleth]

Why is everyone so concerned about nazis coming into power? Pretty much no one likes nazis and even in places where nazism is more tolerated, it still has a very weak (at best) effect on politics. I know it's an example but c'mon you guys.

If it's so unlikely that they'll actually win any kind of election, then surely it doesn't matter if we rig the election so they can't win?

Obviously Neo Nazis have the legal right to run for office.

Of course I think they have the legal right to run. That's why my compromise solution is so good. They can run for any office they like! They're just not allowed to win.

honestly, i think that you feel this way out of fear that such a party could actually win. parties containing blatant racists and neo-nazis won't win in a developed nation, probably ever. let them spend their money on failed campaigns.

Great! So you have no problem with rigging the election so they can't win, because you don't think it's possible anyway. Glad to see I have someone on my side.

[Phoenix Wright]

well, no. what you propose is a morally questionable solution to a problem that doesn't exist. there's no reason to prevent them from winning in a democracy when the democracy dictates they won't win anyway.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Espinosa]

I'm not sure what the big deal is if they do win. According to a democracy, an elected party is by definition justified. So if they do win I don't really see why it's morally impermissible when the concept of a democracy by definition makes a Neo Nazi party morally permissible.

If they won, they'd alter the legislation to make the immoral things seem moral yet again, so yeah, with the spreading of good enough propoganda (not surprising at this point; just needs to take a different direction) you're right - you wouldn't find it morally repugnant.

Just goes to show morality and law aren't the best friends.

[Chiki]

If they won, they'd alter the legislation to make the immoral things seem moral yet again, so yeah, with the spreading of good enough propoganda (not surprising at this point; just needs to take a different direction) you're right - you wouldn't find it morally repugnant.

Just goes to show morality and law aren't the best friends.

I find it morally repugnant, but that's only because I personally don't believe in a democracy.

But the people who do believe in a democracy--morally believe in it, not just legally--have to deal with this moral dilemma. What if a Neo Nazi president is elected? A democracy by definition justifies a Neo Nazi president so the action of legally electing a Neo Nazi president per se is not morally impermissible.

[Phoenix Wright]

what the hell are you talking about? just because a person believes in a democracy doesn't mean they have to agree with the person or group in power. yeah, ok, so a neo-nazz came into power--that means i'll do the things that i can to get them out.

out of curiosity, what do you believe in?

Edited August 14, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Nobody]

I find it morally repugnant, but that's only because I personally don't believe in a democracy..

What's the ideal system for you then?

By the way, most democracies (I don't know about the USA) have laws that prevent the government from stopping the country from being a democracy.

honestly, i think that you feel this way out of fear that such a party could actually win. parties containing blatant racists and neo-nazis won't win in a developed nation, probably ever. let them spend their money on failed campaigns.

There's a neo nazi party getting big in Greece and several eastern european countries are the same way. They are not exactly developed countries, but if I only cared about those, I wouldn't care about my own country.

BTW, Hitler was elect to the german government democratically

Edit: Quoted the wrong post.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Nobody

[Chiki]

what the hell are you talking about? just because a person believes in a democracy doesn't mean they have to agree with the person or group in power. yeah, ok, so a neo-nazz came into power--that means i'll do things that i can to get them out.

out of curiosity, what do you believe in?

That'd be completely against the purpose of a democracy. If a majority elected a Neo Nazi, you don't have the right to do that, period.

This.

Given his chosen profession, it is not a surprise that Plato made the Philosopher class the highest on his societal totem pole.

I think only philosophers and educated people should be allowed to decide how a state is run, because the average person is generally selfish and the average person doesn't care about what is morally right or wrong.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Chiki

[Espinosa]

I find it morally repugnant, but that's only because I personally don't believe in a democracy.

But the people who do believe in a democracy--morally believe in it, not just legally--have to deal with this moral dilemma. What if a Neo Nazi president is elected? A democracy by definition justifies a Neo Nazi president so the action of legally electing a Neo Nazi president per se is not morally impermissible.

Nor do I (I was using 'you' to denote 'anyone').

Anyway, that's just how the mechanism works. Democracy in the most simplified sense means 'people get to choose' and if the people choose to get rid of their freedom, then that puts an end to democracy, and we move on from one system to the next.

Appeal to democracy was exploited to release the Western civilisation from its older chains, but it's not really an appeal to anything that actually exists. If the nazi find themselves in power, a democrat will naturally protest and thus stop being a democrat (meaning they will have actual ontological significance that they stubbornly denied - ironic and interesting).

If people believe in democracy; welp, tough luck trusting a simulacrum.

out of curiosity, what do you believe in?

Japanese metal lolis.

[dondon151]

But the people who do believe in a democracy--morally believe in it, not just legally--have to deal with this moral dilemma. What if a Neo Nazi president is elected? A democracy by definition justifies a Neo Nazi president so the action of legally electing a Neo Nazi president per se is not morally impermissible.

just do what the egyptians did.

[Phoenix Wright]

That'd be completely against the purpose of a democracy. If a majority elected a Neo Nazi, you don't have the right to do that, period.

This.

I think only philosophers and educated people should be allowed to decide how a state is run, because the average person is generally selfish and the average person doesn't care about what is morally right or wrong.

says who? revolution ftw

hello there alexander hamilton. nice to see ya.

does everyone have the right to education? how much education? what type of education? also, what-the-fuck-philosophers-seriously?

There's a neo nazi party getting big in Greece and several eastern european countries are the same way. They are not exactly developed countries, but if I only cared about those, I wouldn't care about my own country.

BTW, Hitler was elect to the german government democratically

Edit: Quoted the wrong post.

i think it's much more fascinating to study those nations in order to understand why they'd turn to fascism rather than attempt to wipe fascism out with silly laws. let's say there was a law in greece outlawing neo-nazism. what good would that have done? the people will get what they want, eventually.

Japanese metal lolis.

not my cup of tea but sure

Edited August 14, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Chiki]

does everyone have the right to education? how much education? what type of education? also, what-the-fuck-philosophers-seriously?

Education per se is not what matters, but generally you'll find that more educated people--professors, etc.--tend to care more about the well being of others. Academicians being more often towards the left of the political spectrum is clear evidence of this: when one has political beliefs towards the left of the spectrum it means that they care more about issues such as poverty, taxing the rich, etc. and rightfully so.

I can imagine a completely uneducated person being a very wise and kind person who cares about the well being of others. Such a person should be allowed to rule over others.

And philosophers are definitely the best choice to lead people. Most philosophers study what is right and what is wrong and focus on good reasoning. As a result, a philosopher is, to me, the most well equipped person to lead people. A philosopher cares about what's right and wrong instead of going ahead and launching drone attacks or starting needless wars (I'm looking at you, George Bush).

If you have any time, take a look at this website. You can see how deeply they think about these issues and how they try to solve them. Philosophers think they have to serve the general public because they're more knowledgeable than others, and therefore more capable of helping others with their problems. And as people who spend their lives studying what is morally right or wrong, I think they're the best people to rule nations. People who serve others because they think they're morally obliged to will do a far better job than power-hungry scum like Newt Gingrich.

How can a nation be ruled by simpletons who don't give a damn about what's right or wrong and only care about there being no new taxes?

Edited August 14, 2013 by Chiki

[Redwall]

Right-leaning people don't necessarily overlook poverty, they just think the government is relatively ineffective at eliminating it.

[Chiki]

Right-leaning people don't necessarily overlook poverty, they just think the government is relatively ineffective at eliminating it.

I agree, but I still think that morality would tend to lean toward the left than the right.

[Phoenix Wright]

TL;DR: Wow what bullshit. No one's better than anyone else.

Wow, how arrogant. A society isn't about helping those in need indefinitely, it's about helping those in need help themselves, thus raising the society as a whole. Having predefined castes with no social mobility is, as bluntly as I can possibly put it, fucking stupid. Having an educated elite rule the nation as parents of a small child is degrading, unbalanced, and unfair. I mean, what does an uneducated farmer's life mean to you? What sort of importance does that McDonald's worker have in your kind of world? Those who are educated are not beings of higher importance, nor are they generally a body of people more capable of power. And besides, who gets educated, who does the educating, and what are they taught? "Everything"?

Philosophers aren't the moral gods of our lands, brah. No one's ethics is superior to another's. Is this not like, what, the first lesson in basic ethics courses (if not it should be)? This isn't to say they shouldn't be included in these discussions, because they absolutely should be, but that doesn't mean what they say is correct. Morals and ethics are fundamentally different for every person. One philosopher could prefer order, another freedom. How is this dilemma solved? There exists imbalance and opposition to every position or opinion you could possibly have. No one body of people is more qualified to solve that issue. It's an issue we deal with, as a species.

What makes philosophers the wisest set of people? They aren't problem solvers, an integral component to wisdom, they're abstract thinkers. Thinkers don't solve my problems. What sort of solutions have they tested that work? Or is it all speculation on what could work? It's like calling a theoretical physicist the most practical scientist. They're the farthest from it!

In my experience, people in academia are just as power-hungry, selfish, and greedy as anybody else. Especially the selfish bit. Sure, philosophically speaking they're left-leaning, but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone in academia that does something not directly related to academia.

[Chiki]

No one's ethics is superior to another's.

Then why were you advocating the removal of the Neo Nazi president? Seems like you're being hypocritical here.

Having an educated elite rule the nation as parents of a small child is degrading, unbalanced, and unfair.

When you have children, will you be making decisions for him or her? Probably because the child is incapable of reasoning, right?

That's exactly what I think of most people. I consider the average person to be generally incapable of proper reasoning and ignorant. I don't think they have the right to decide who rules over others.

I mean, what does an uneducated farmer's life mean to you?

Straw man.

I can imagine a completely uneducated person being a very wise and kind person who cares about the well being of others. Such a person should be allowed to rule over others.

Philosophers don't have to be people who are educated. They can be, as you put it, "uneducated farmers."

I think a person with the following qualities should be able to lead over others, i.e. a philosopher:

1. A person who genuinely cares for the rights and well-being of others, regardless of class

2. A person knowledgeable in ethics

3. A person who can actually reason well

Anyone can be a "ruler" as long as they decide to become a philosopher.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Chiki

[Phoenix Wright]

Then why were you advocating the removal of the Neo Nazi president? Seems like you're being hypocritical here.

Excuse me, allow me to retract that instead for the phrase, "inherently better." No ethical code is intrinsically, logically superior to another, but I am free to think my moral code is better (or at least better for me).

It's possible to disagree with someone ethically and not think you're better than them, by the way. It's happening right now.

When you have children, will you be making decisions for him or her? Probably because the child is incapable of reasoning, right?

Scientists say this all the time; it's the job of a parent to teach reasoning. Yes, I will make decisions for them, like keeping them away from electrical sockets. But they're children, not adults.

That's exactly what I think of most people. I consider the average person to be generally incapable of proper reasoning and ignorant. I don't think they have the right to decide who rules over others.

Incapable of proper reasoning? What is "proper" reasoning and how is the average person incapable of it? It's the staple trait of the homo sapien. The ability to reason and think. We're the best problem solvers the world has ever known.

And really, it's comical that you think you're better than 50+% of the population because you're somewhat educated. Really, it is.

Straw man.

for the love of god would you stop --incorrectly-- pointing out logical fallacies in your posts. this isn't one of your college tests.

I fail to see how a legitimate question is a misrepresentation of what you're arguing. Not to mention the link you posted about your belief is what made the question arise in the first place.

Philosophers don't have to be people who are educated. They can be, as you put it, "uneducated farmers."

I think a person with the following qualities should be able to lead over others, i.e. a philosopher:

1. A person who genuinely cares for the rights and well-being of others, regardless of class

2. A person knowledgeable in ethics

3. A person who can actually reason well

1. Who determines this? The "philosophers"? What a grand circlejerk that is, huh??

2. what does this even mean.

3. Who determines this? The "philosophers"? What a grand circlejerk that is, huh??

Anyone can be a "ruler" as long as they decide to become a philosopher.

my sides. they hurt

Edited August 15, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Chiki]

I fail to see how a legitimate question is a misrepresentation of what you're arguing. Not to mention the link you posted about your belief is what made the question arise in the first place.

Your entire argument is a giant straw man, almost a stupid one.

I mean, what does an uneducated farmer's life mean to you?

You're arguing that I don't care for the rights of an uneducated farmer, when I'm arguing that anyone can gain power over others simply by being more knowledgeable. I'm giving them rights by doing that. That's a beautiful misrepresentation of my argument.

The reason why I advocate these views is because I care too much, when you instead think I care too little. I care too much about the rights of the uneducated farmer; I care about the homeless people I see on the streets when I walk outside; I care about the innocent victims of the Iraq War and the drone strikes done by Obama; I care about people living in poverty because the government doesn't tax the rich enough. I care, far more than you do, about the rights of those people, hence why I want this extreme solution. I want people who care about morality to make decisions that our current rulers can't--because I consider them far more well-equipped to do so.

1. Who determines this? The "philosophers"? What a grand circlejerk that is, huh??

2. what does this even mean.

3. Who determines this? The "philosophers"? What a grand circlejerk that is, huh??

All I know so far is that having a PhD in philosophy (look here) satisfies pretty much all of those requirements. I do want everyone to have the ability to run for a public office, but I understand the importance of knowledge for that. I think oral interviews and such may serve well for this purpose, but I haven't figured out a solution for that issue yet.

Excuse me, allow me to retract that instead for the phrase, "inherently better." No ethical code is intrinsically, logically superior to another, but I am free to think my moral code is better (or at least better for me).

It's possible to disagree with someone ethically and not think you're better than them, by the way. It's happening right now.

Then why on earth are you using force to remove Neo Nazis from power? Seems to me like you think you're better than them, no?

Incapable of proper reasoning? What is "proper" reasoning and how is the average person incapable of it? It's the staple trait of the homo sapien. The ability to reason and think. We're the best problem solvers the world has ever known.

And really, it's comical that you think you're better than 50+% of the population because you're somewhat educated. Really, it is.

It was clear to Plato that the average man, who could not explain to himself or to others why the rules of morality should be obeyed in a given situation, would certainly follow the dictates of his self-interest rather than any external moral standard. To Plato, this was a dangerous state of affairs, which leads to moral chaos.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Chiki

[Baldrick]

That makes sense. Most people can't understand why theft, assault, murder etc. are bad, so they go out and do whatever they want without regard to others in order to improve their own lot. The obvious solution to this Mad-Max world of violence and self-preservation we live in is to get a bunch of smart people to explain morality to the majority, who will doubtlessly say "oh, so that's why laws exist like that" and will gladly allow themselves to be ruled by said smart people.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Huck Finn

[Phoenix Wright]

You're arguing that I don't care for the rights of an uneducated farmer, when I'm arguing that anyone can gain power over others simply by being more knowledgeable. I'm giving them rights by doing that. That's a beautiful misrepresentation of my argument.

Twas a question, not an argument. Even still, the very link you posted pretty much said there'd be no social mobility, and you've dodged my three questions (who teaches, who gets taught, what do they learn?) several times. I think you're mistaking your poor articulation for straw mans on my end.

The reason why I advocate these views is because I care too much, when you instead think I care too little. I care too much about the rights of the uneducated farmer; I care about the homeless people I see on the streets when I walk outside; I care about the innocent victims of the Iraq War and the drone strikes done by Obama; I care about people living in poverty because the government doesn't tax the rich enough. I care, far more than you do, about the rights of those people, hence why I want this extreme solution. I want people who care about morality to make decisions that our current rulers can't--because I consider them far more well-equipped to do so.

yes i'm sure in between posts you're busy feeding kids in africa and protesting the drone strikes while i sit at home on my ass eating the fattiest foods i can find just to spite the hungry.

You and I have a very different perspective on what it means to care for people. Bullshit if you think that means you care more. Absolute cow manure, I say.

All I know so far is that having a PhD in philosophy (look here) satisfies pretty much all of those requirements. I do want everyone to have the ability to run for a public office, but I understand the importance of knowledge for that. I think oral interviews and such may serve well for this purpose, but I haven't figured out a solution for that issue yet.

okay, buddy. alright.

Then why on earth are you using force to remove Neo Nazis from power? Seems to me like you think you're better than them, no?

ethically, sure, why not? i wouldn't try to force them out of power because i agreed with them, would i? as people, no, i can't say i find myself to be an intrinsically better person than they.

It was clear to Plato that the average man, who could not explain to himself or to others why the rules of morality should be obeyed in a given situation, would certainly follow the dictates of his self-interest rather than any external moral standard. To Plato, this was a dangerous state of affairs, which leads to moral chaos.

whoop-de-fucking-do for plato. ever hear of the golden rule? yeah? something christopher hitchens talked about all the time? that's why people obey a moral code.

this is what i mean about you philosophers being abstract thinkers and not practical thinkers. you perceive that you have the knowledge to solve all of humanity's problems, but whatever you come up with is so far out in left-field no one ever takes you seriously.

Your entire argument is a giant straw man, almost a stupid one.

How has it not hit you yet that you just might be absolutely awful at articulation? In just about every single serious discussion topic I've ever seen you in, somehow this stupid fucking topic between you and someone else (this time me, sometimes Esau, sometimes someone else unfortunate) arises where your posts amount to you picking out "straw mans" from another's post. Then you post about how you got a degree in logic and everyone claps for you then tells you to sit back down we get the point.

We get the point. You know words. Logic words. Cool, calculating words.

[Samias]

Then why on earth are you using force to remove Neo Nazis from power? Seems to me like you think you're better than them, no?

In the US at least, even if a Neo Nazi were to be voted into power, anything they did that would limit the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights including free speech, right to petition, and equal rights under the law for people of colour and women could be grounds for removal. If they ever tried to enact white supremacist legislation that specifically targeted any of the groups protected by the Bill of Rights (read: everyone), I'd probably see that as grounds for impeachment. And if they can't be recalled or impeached by having some insane level of control of both the government and the judiciary, I'd hardly call that a free country. The US government represents its voters, but it also has a mandate to uphold the law. Theoretically, the people elected to office are not above the law and can't change conditions willy-nilly. If a president can nearly be impeached for sexual misconduct, I think it's within reason to assume you can impeach someone for hate crimes too.

[Chiki]

this is what i mean about you philosophers being abstract thinkers and not practical thinkers. you perceive that you have the knowledge to solve all of humanity's problems, but whatever you come up with is so far out in left-field no one ever takes you seriously.

The website I gave you is pretty much all about philosophers dealing with practical problems.

Other than that, your entire post is basically just an immature ad hominem attack, so I'm gonna go ahead and ignore it. I do far more on "feeding kids in Africa" than you think. Your question on the uneducated farmer was a rhetorical one, and not an innocent curious one.

And I didn't really word myself badly at all. I believe everything I told you just now, and I've studied on it and discussed it with others. It's very carefully worded.

That makes sense. Most people can't understand why theft, assault, murder etc. are bad, so they go out and do whatever they want without regard to others in order to improve their own lot. The obvious solution to this Mad-Max world of violence and self-preservation we live in is to get a bunch of smart people to explain morality to the majority, who will doubtlessly say "oh, so that's why laws exist like that" and will gladly allow themselves to be ruled by said smart people.

No. It's more that people should want to be taxed more, more money should be taken from the rich, and so on. It's these finer things that people don't really understand but philosophers and professors mostly agree on.

There's a very important and non-coincidental correlation between knowledge and liberal beliefs.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Chiki

[Phoenix Wright]

oh, i forgot about the part where you also claim ad hominem so you just ignore the post. see, every time!

this is, of course, ignoring the fact that you basically called me stupid in your last post.

edit: reggie, by the time you get here it'll be too late, but i'll say it anyway: it's not worth it to read those last few posts.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Constable Reggie]

Okay, but there's still some people who think Neo Nazis shouldn't be allowed to run for public office. Why not? If they get elected then it's by majority rule, so it's by definition justified to a democracy. I'm not really sure why you would want to ban it in that case.

what the fucking fuck

that is exactly what I was arguing for

*I haven't read anything past this post so gimme a sec

Edited August 15, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Nobody]

The website I gave you is pretty much all about philosophers dealing with practical problems.

Other than that, your entire post is basically just an immature ad hominem attack, so I'm gonna go ahead and ignore it. I do far more on "feeding kids in Africa" than you think. Your question on the uneducated farmer was a rhetorical one, and not an innocent curious one.

And I didn't really word myself badly at all. I believe everything I told you just now.

No. It's more that people should want to be taxed more, more money should be taken from the rich, and so on. It's these finer things that people don't really understand but philosophers and professors mostly agree on.

There's a very important and non-coincidental correlation between knowledge and liberal beliefs.

Most rich people are very educated, but many of them don't want to be taxed. What would determinate who is able to vote or who is not? No human being is perfect, what ensures the "smart ones" wouldn't use the power only to themselves while ignoring the "ignorant" ones? This have happened in every government controlled by a small minority, even the ones supposed to be for the people (i.e. every communist government in the story of the world)

Edited August 15, 2013 by Nobody