Staredit Network

I wasn't stating that's how it should be. I was stating that's how it is right now.



It allows the government not to determine what is right or wrong based on abstract values. But it allows them to determine what is right or wrong based on concrete values.

If it became morally wrong to play starcraft because of what ever reasons. The government would not be allowed to arrest people because they play starcraft.

Now if there was a guy breaking into people's houses, destroying starcraft cds because he thinks starcraft is evil. Then that guy can be arrested. Because he physically destroyed property, as well as some other things.

lol. a good example of using starcrafts. but let me ask you guys a question. How did this topic, "the philosophical meanings behind our government" turn into a morality talk.

You got me there.

I think it had something to do with the federal and state powers.

think about it if federal and the state had no powers at all. The first thing i'd do is saw off my shotgun and go rob walmarts. Yep. total chaos. I'am well aware that the government you guys have way too much power. But in truth, if citizens get any more power then they have right now; it will be a disaster. People aren't ready for it. Maybe in a thousand years, when most people are rational or if people were like people in Swiss.

Actually, our government does not have THAT much power. America is a capitalist country, and one of the key fundamentals of capitalism is limited government.

But ya, if the state and federal governments lost their power. People would go through that phase for a while until a new government steps in. Like a real toltarian government that tells you what clothes you're gonna wear, what religion you're gonna worship or not worship, what job you're gonna work at, what food you're gonna eat, what television channels you can watch, what internet privledges you may have. etc.

And the philosophical meaning behind your government is still followed as it was meant to be. The government doesn't control citizen's actions.
School - It's your choice whether to skip school or not. It's just the consequence you have to face in not going to school.
1. Getting a record on absence, rejection to school.
2. Long-term, jobs won't accept you because you weren't educated.
Taxes - Taxes go to your schools and local communities like churches, and things that defend your country and mostlikely keep your country on the top. It's your choice to not pay any taxes. But consequences follow.
- You won't have the right to use any commutant buildings including school, police, your local court, firefighters or any other national properties. Thats what you're paying for anyways, and protection from police too.
Freedom - It's the truth. You're getting good rights. You have all the rights you have in internet. You have the right to speak freely of any discussion, except for any irrational behavior towards people and showing verbal aggression. Everything you do is free. It's just that some behaviors follow... consequences.

The former is therefore a case of law not reflecting morality. Just because laws should reflect morality doesn't mean they necessarily do.

That is correct. However, it is important to note that this does not mean we have to have a government with legal power. All it means is that we have to have a government with legal power for as long as people would otherwise do immoral things. A completely moral society has no need for laws. Sadly, it seems as if it will be a long time before we ever see such a society (and when we do it will almost certainly not be composed of humans).

.

If your under 16 you have to go to school. If you don't go to school they will probably take you away from your parents if you don't listen to them after the warning they will probably give you. We have to pay taxes or will get thrown in jail. We have to sign up for conscription when we turn 18. Besides laws those are the only things people in the USA have to do.

Either I'm reading you wrong, or you're reading me wrong. Can you please reword that?

Actually. You would be thanking the laws on having to be educated. Otherwise, you'd be working in factories by the age of 5, and would be finding yourself being killed before the age of 16. That was the truth in the industrial revolution. The idea is pretty moral.

- Why you get taken to the jail if you do not pay taxes - The nation is a huge community, supposedly to work together. If one does not work, many will follow that path. The easy one too. Which will make the nation fail and eventually bring chaos to all others. The idea is actually moral.


Such government is impossible. These ideas are communist ideas. You've seen it fail through out the history. If such thing was possible. We need not governments.

No, he's talking about anarchy. It's a politicial theory that people are able to govern themselves with out a government. I don't support it, because the national gdp would be almost non existent, corruption and power would still exist, and the chance of a toltarian government stepping in to take over, is very high.

But I do agree with him that it may not ever be acheived by humans.

I can see you getting this mixed up with communism, because in communism, the "people" are the government. In anarchy, the "people" govern themselves. Hence, don't need a government.

I can't see how much simpler I can make it.

Laws are supposed to benefit society by preventing certain people from doing certain immoral things. However, this is just what laws are supposed to do. It is possible, and actually quite easy, to create a law which prevents people from doing even moral things, or allows people to do immoral things. Rules that do not reflect morality still fit under the definition of the word 'law'. Such laws are bad, because they cause immoral things to be done rather than moral things.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you trying to say that all laws are necessarily good because without a certain law against child labor we'd have kids working in factories all over the place? That is anything but logical, so I'm hoping your post doesn't mean that.

And 500 years ago, people would have thought airplanes and nuclear bombs and computers are impossible. If there's one thing history can teach us, it's to never underestimate the power of science and technology.

Do you know how to read? Laws are supposed benefit society. And by society, it doesnt necessarily have to mean each person's blinded ideas of its own benefit.

READ POSTS ABOVE CAREFULLY. WHAT YOU ARE ON IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE.

Laws and governments are a way of making people who disagree with something to comply and abide. A government is the same thing as a mafia... except its rule is accepted.

Well, I'm not claiming morality means giving everyone what they want, or complying with everyone's wishes. We are forced to make choices between the lesser of two evils on a regular basis. Laws would have to take this into account too.

The supreme court inside of the judicial branch, decides cases based apoun the constitution. And if you look through the constitution, you'll see the only major morals in it, are universal morals. Such as freedom of speech. Because the supreme court knows that it is arrogant to say what is wrong and what is not, based soley apoun personal point of view.

Laws are a very simple concept to grasp. They're just policies enforced by an authoritative power.

Many Communist ideas would work if they were applied righty. In the talk of having a perfectly moral society its impossible. By making someone perfectly moral it is to me like taking away what makes a person human and what makes life worth living and to me would be like taking away some of my freedom. You can't make someone perfectly moral, but we have laws that try to make people more moral.

Welcome to the light side my brother... I have been chanting this for a long time. The best line you said out of that whole essay was "Democracy is obsolete." Its gone, and as far as neo-cons are concerned.. just a tool of war.

USA isn't democracy or a republic. Its a fedral government with a barrier that blocks citizen's ideas to some extent. But what I see democracy is somewhat obsolete by itself. By all due means "this topic is obsolete too" By vaguely stating WHAT country it is talking about. Assumably the US which is a fedral government with its principle mixed with democracy and republic to some extent.

Also Zero, How would you applie the commutant ideas correctly into the society?

And green meklar. We vaguely know what "lesser two evils on daily basis" are.