Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[John Edward Mercier]

lildog was explaining that voters determine the rules. So it the pro-freedom group is a super-majority but never votes - it is ruled by the minority.

TJames pointed out that as false, unless the 90% believe in the religion of Statism.  Without that mystique to back them up, the 10% can't rule anything, because the 90% would just say, "screw you, we ain't doing what you say, and you can't make us because we outnumber you nine to one."

Most likely they would then bother to vote. Most believe in the religion of not being bothered - either to vote or worry about the guy next door going down for the reason that you opposed, but couldn't find the incentive to vote against.

[JasonPSorens]

Yes - it's not the same as saying that no regulation is justified. But taking away people's freedom is a real cost.

It is all justified. People can justify anything.

Justification isn't the same as rationalization.

Actually, they are pretty close. It really seems to be a matter of majority.

We can stipulate definitions however we want, but the generally accepted meaning of "X is justified in doing Y" is "X has sufficiently good reason to do Y." Reasons are generally independent of opinions. In some cases, that a majority believes doing Y is justified is itself all the justification needed (a good enough reason to do Y), such as when the leader of a legislative body enforces an otherwise-arbitrary rule of order that exists because it has the support of the majority in the body, but more often, a majority's belief doesn't give reasons.

[lildog]

It doesn't matter if the majority believe in it or not, if the 10% control the power (military and police) they can enforce their rules regardless of whether the majority support them or not.

No, even if that 10% included all of the military and police, they could not possibly enforce their will upon the other 90%.  It might be a bloody conflict, but they'd lose.

Only if they can convince most of that 90% to comply without overt use of force, is it even vaguely possible to maintain control.  If not, they'd be overwhelmed and destroyed in short order.

The only reason it works, is because the overwhelming majority of the population worship the State as a god, and will not deny its power, because that's blasphemous.  If they actually looked, they'd see that "the State" is just a bunch of humans in silly costumes, and they'd realize that they are more powerful and don't have to comply with the edicts of those costumed fools.

I would disagree with you but I heard a news story this morning that makes me think you are correct.

Friday facebook went down for 19 minutes.  Across the country the 911 system was overrun with calls from people in a panic because facebook was down.

[John Edward Mercier]

Yes - it's not the same as saying that no regulation is justified. But taking away people's freedom is a real cost.

It is all justified. People can justify anything.

Justification isn't the same as rationalization.

Actually, they are pretty close. It really seems to be a matter of majority.

We can stipulate definitions however we want, but the generally accepted meaning of "X is justified in doing Y" is "X has sufficiently good reason to do Y." Reasons are generally independent of opinions. In some cases, that a majority believes doing Y is justified is itself all the justification needed (a good enough reason to do Y), such as when the leader of a legislative body enforces an otherwise-arbitrary rule of order that exists because it has the support of the majority in the body, but more often, a majority's belief doesn't give reasons.

What are the justifiable reasons for something like the Renewable Portfolio Standard?

[JasonPSorens]

I don't think that is justified, whatever one thinks about the science and economics of global warming. NH carbon emissions cuts will do precisely zero to benefit the climate & environment of NH.

[John Edward Mercier]

Then you have shown about every member of the NH Legislature to support unjustifiable legislation.
That would include the members claiming an FSP connection that refuse to enter any legislation to repeal it.

[JasonPSorens]

Then you have shown about every member of the NH Legislature to support unjustifiable legislation.
That would include the members claiming an FSP connection that refuse to enter any legislation to repeal it.

Deciding not to act to stop an injustice or a wrong isn't itself an injustice, or even necessarily wrong. We can't solve all the problems of the world. There are opportunity costs of each, and of our time.