Quote:
Originally Posted by slayda
On the discussion of socialism, two things bother me - the term "fair" and the term "State".
Who or what is the State? When you get down to the final analysis, isn't there some person or persons that really make the decision? If so, are those persons just "more equal" or have special status?
|
Yes, they're "elected". I'm not sure what you're implying otherwise, though. Majority rules? Why do you think who runs a of "state" relevant?
Quote:
|
I think different ideas of fairness is really the underlying cause of much of the disagreement on the thread.
|
Nah. Fairness is a secondary consideration that becomes relevant when first-order problems (ie. equal access to food/health/water/housing/blabla) have been resolved. What's at issue is what we put in that first category, mostly. And how that is decided.
For example, "we" think that equal access for all to medical care/services is not an unrealistic goal to try to realise, whereas "you" do.
"Fairness" only comes in when you try to finetune how much tax rich vs. poor people should pay, how much of the burden can any group can be expected to carry, or if you should give people with no income free cosmetic surgery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slayda
Neko, I have to agree with Sir Edward on this. I would maintain that there can be no justice without freedom.
|
And yet, isn't "freedom under the law" (or whatever you want to call it) the
just thing to try to realise in a society?
It's far harder to go from "everyone is free" to "everyone should be treated justly" than it is to go from "everyone should be treated justly/the same" to "everyone should be free.(i.e., have equal rights)"
How can you defend "Freedom" if you have nothing to say except "we're born that way"? How will you argue against people who point out that you're born as the property of your parents (through your being wholly dependent on them), or from "we're all free [to do what we want], so I'm also free to bash your head in and take your shiny bauble". OTOH, it's fairly easy to argue "it's just to reward people for achievement".