The Fundamental Political Question

[gaffo]

In order for diplomacy to work, there must be the possibility of the use of force as a final resort.

uttelly hogwash!!!!


its the OPPOSITE!


1862, 1942, 1916 - when the balance of power is 50/50, 40/60, 60/40 - there is room to negociate. which is another word for compromize.

by the time its 10/90, 20/80, or even 30/70, there is no need to negociate, just concoure.


------look to history, and you know what you say above is utterly wrong.

......OK I'm going to make an exception here - due to history i know and so respect - but will say they did not need to negociate in order to win, they would have won eventually, but negoitated for their own ends - playing to the ego (Nixon in the instance) - and signing the Paris Peace Accords was a sham of course, and served most sides, North Vietnam ("we only want peace"), Nixon (thanks for signing, so i can be re-elected), not so much the South Veit, who know their time as limited and were sold out (sold out sort of - but they never fought worth a damn and had nothing to back via force - so went along with it to buy time....buy hope.....the last straw).


And so to ammend my above post a little, if all know the "party is over" and most of the parties are willing to go through a sham "negociation" in order to save face/s - that option is easier than collecting an army to make the same outcome


-- refer to the 38 Cheq "peace accords" for another reference

its all about cost benefit analiysis.

[gaffo]

never offend; always defend

never start a fight; always finish a fight

indeed, so you are not a bully. good.

always liked you, so glad i still can.

[gaffo]

Thanks for the warning. Thugs always resort to force when they've exhausted their limit ability to reason.

You seem to know much more about thuggery than me. First hand experience?

I resort to force when reason wastefully fails on the unreasonable.

It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. -Bill Murray

Great saying by Bill Murray! (whether he wrote it himself or performed this in a role)

We cannot live without 'force'. The difference in politics on the 'force' question by different political ideals revolves foremost around whether one believes the majority viewpoint should rule versus a privileged one, ...usually based upon inheritance of some form, whether recognized or not.

well, that is an excellent question/posit, and worth its own thread.

My Nation's Constitution's Bill of Rights (1/2 of them are related to your posit (mobs vs individual).

1st is agnostic - so affirms both the mob and the individual.

2nd is the same

3rd same - about no quartering of federal troops in your home without your concent.

4th is surely individualistic in view IMO.

5th same - as a person you cannot be forced to convict yourself via the gov/majority, so right to remain silent

6th - via torture - agnostic, no torture for mobs or individual

7th? what is the 7th? - welcome education

8th? same fully i am an ignoramous on it, educate me please.

9th - agnostic - all common law rights prior to and not spec mentioned in the Constitution are valid - for the mob/ and individuals.

10th - State's Rights/Federalism (another check and balence (similar to but outside of the one championed in the Constitution's main body - Legislature/Presidency/Courts) - and so i LOVE and AFFIRM - the more checks and balences against abuses of power the better! - so love my 10th (while knowing it was used by racist thugs in the 50's in the South to subvert the 9th))

11th? no clue.

nor the other one - I confess i am more ignorant than i should be,and welcome anyone here on the Bill of Rights Amendments i know nothing about to educate me.


---------

one (or two if you are a sexist i refer to the 19th in the same year) example of Mob Rule - within the Rule of American Law - would be the 20th amendment, then the same mob rules to overrule the prior mob rule 12 years earlier via the 21st.

[henry quirk]

never offend; always defend

never start a fight; always finish a fight

indeed, so you are not a bully. good.

always liked you, so glad i still can.

[gaffo]

never offend; always defend

never start a fight; always finish a fight

indeed, so you are not a bully. good.

always liked you, so glad i still can.

its cool.

lets talk about our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

documents we both love.

I love the DoI too BTW. we can talk about it too of course!

[RCSaunders]

[You must] resort to force when reason wastefully falls on the unreasonable.

I am not saying that this is right; only that it is necessary.

How can it ever be necessary to initiate force against someone else when they haven't used force or threatened to?

[RCSaunders]

Force is the only language that some people will heed, even if there are other known languages that are more congenial. Whatever is not forceful is easy to ignore. No political action can take place without some manner of power or force to induce cooperation.

I really cannot believe you mean what your words are saying. What you are saying is it is perfectly alright to use force to make other people do what you like, even if they have never done anything to harm or threaten someone else. If you have a certain social agenda it is OK to force others to support or conform to it. Do you also believe it is perfectly alright for those whose social agenda is different from yours to use force to make you conform to their?

What makes you think it is up to you (or anyone else) to make people listen to you and live the way you would like them to? If that is not what you mean, what would you ever have to use force for? Isn't using force to make anyone do, or not do, what they do not choose to do or not do a kind of slavery isn't it?

[RCSaunders]

never offend; always defend

never start a fight; always finish a fight

I agree, with the exception of always finish a fight. With rare exception one can defend one's self against a threat of force without getting into, "fight," which costs the defender more than any fight is worth. I would only, "fight," if it were a last resort, in which case there is no limit to what is right. Winning a fight never proves or gains anything, especially if the opponent is still alive. George Bernard Shaw said, "if you're going injure your neighbor you better not do it by halves."

But I think you are a little inconsistent, here. From what you have said in other places you believe a government is needed, which is an agency that operates by the threat and initiation of coercive force. How is it right to use force to take people's money away form them (taxes), force them to surrender their children to government indoctrination several hours every day, and force people to get government permission to do almost everything they choose to do. Is it wrong to offend only when one does it personally but perfectly OK if someone gets some agency to do it for him like every government employee and ricipient of government aid?

[RCSaunders]

We cannot live without 'force'. The difference in politics on the 'force' question by different political ideals revolves foremost around whether one believes the majority viewpoint should rule versus a privileged one, ...usually based upon inheritance of some form, whether recognized or not.

That's exactly what I said. Every political ideology assumes, as you do, that the use of force can ever right or is inevitable, that someone is going have to be forced to live as someone else decides they ought to which reduces politics to nothing more than arguments about who should get to force their will on others and who will be repressed. It is that false premise that force is right, and worse, inevitable, that explains why there is perpetual war, oppression, and social upheaval in the world and until that premise if resolved political horrors will only continue to become worse.

[Skepdick]

How can it ever be necessary to initiate force against someone else when they haven't used force or threatened to?

How can you continue to be this stupid even though you clearly understand the limitations of language?

The objections against the non-aggression principle are the same damn objections against ANY linguistic definition.
You can't provide a definition for any X such that it includes all X and excludes all non-X.

Where do you delineate force/threat? Does somebody need to force/threaten you in order to harm you? Do object to force against non-threatening/non-violent harm when reason fails to prevent it?

Would you use force against a person who has a known infectious disease, but refuses to quarantine themselves and roams about in public spreading the disease?

Would you use force against a person who is not threatening you, but drives a motor vehicle drunk on public roads?

Would you use force against free-loaders who refuse to pay taxes, but continue to use public services paid-for by taxes such as roads, public schools and hospitals etc?

[Skepdick]

1862, 1942, 1916 - when the balance of power is 50/50, 40/60, 60/40 - there is room to negociate. which is another word for compromize.

by the time its 10/90, 20/80, or even 30/70, there is no need to negociate, just concoure.

Why do you need to negotiate with somebody who never initiates force? You can just ignore them.

Non-forceful people don't have any power. Their balance is 0.

[RCSaunders]

How can it ever be necessary to initiate force against someone else when they haven't used force or threatened to?

How can you continue to be this stupid even though you clearly understand the limitations of language?

The objections against the non-aggression principle are the same damn objections against ANY linguistic definition.
You can't provide a definition for any X such that it includes all X and excludes all non-X.

Where do you delineate force/threat? Does somebody need to force/threaten you in order to harm you? Do object to force against non-threatening/non-violent harm when reason fails to prevent it?

Would you use force against a person who has a known infectious disease, but refuses to quarantine themselves and roams about in public spreading the disease?

Would you use force against a person who is not threatening you, but drives a motor vehicle drunk on public roads?

Would you use force against free-loaders who refuse to pay taxes, but continue to use public services paid-for by taxes such as roads, public schools and hospitals etc?

No one can possibly harm me or be a threat to me without the use or threat of coercive force, and anyone who threatens others with force has exempted himself from being treated rationally. It is impossible to reason with anyone who would choose to use force.

[Skepdick]

No one can possibly harm me or be a threat to me without the use or threat of coercive force.

It sounds like you think you are immune to Ebola, Bubonic plague and Smallpox.

and anyone who threatens others with force has exempted himself from being treated rationally

If I am threatening you with force, it's because you have exempted yourself from rationality.

[commonsense]

never offend; always defend

never start a fight; always finish a fight

indeed, so you are not a bully. good.

always liked you, so glad i still can.

Thanks, Henry. That’s an appropriate way to use force.

[commonsense]

Force is the only language that some people will heed, even if there are other known languages that are more congenial. Whatever is not forceful is easy to ignore. No political action can take place without some manner of power or force to induce cooperation.

I really cannot believe you mean what your words are saying. What you are saying is it is perfectly alright to use force to make other people do what you like, even if they have never done anything to harm or threaten someone else. If you have a certain social agenda it is OK to force others to support or conform to it. Do you also believe it is perfectly alright for those whose social agenda is different from yours to use force to make you conform to their?

What makes you think it is up to you (or anyone else) to make people listen to you and live the way you would like them to? If that is not what you mean, what would you ever have to use force for? Isn't using force to make anyone do, or not do, what they do not choose to do or not do a kind of slavery isn't it?

Again, I never said this is alright.