(July 14, 2013 at 8:15 am)LostLocke Wrote:

(July 13, 2013 at 8:06 pm)genkaus Wrote: Was that his point? Because the way I saw it, Locke didn't say that there won't be a workable system but that since any such system won't be enforceable, the casualties would be much higher. Either you misunderstood him or I did - either way, Locke would've to clear that up.

That part is basically what I was saying.

Just as an example, if the US adopted Koolaid's system right now, the majority of people would drive on the right side of the road the majority of the time.
Simply because the cars are designed for right side driving, the street signs are on the right side, the lanes and traffic signals are designed for the right side, etc etc.
I'd guess for most people most of the time it would be driving as usual.
Those aren't the people I'm worried about.

What about the people who decide that driving on the right side isn't convenient for them because they're in a hurry, or they want to turn "here" despite the sign saying you can't, or they want to pass the slow drivers in front and on-coming traffic be damned, they need to get out of "my" way because where "I'm" going is more important than where you're going.
Or, last and in the vast minority, but still existent, those one's who want to drive on the left side of the road for no other reason than it's the wrong side of the road to drive on.

All those people listed do exist, there is no doubt of that.
The quantity I'm sure varies form place to place, but I live in Chicgaoland, and I see these people all day every day. Some of them I'm sure try their stunts because they feel at that point they can get away with it, IE there's no police nearby. How more often would it happen if they all knew they could get away with because no one can stop them at all?

Anyone who thinks anarchy is good should visit Seoul. I've seen lots of that kind of thing, even with the supposed rule of law. Without it, traffic would just never go anywhere, ever. Period.

People don't really understand what this thread is about. This is philosophy, I.e, this is a discussion on principles and logic.

The fact that the vast majority of people are speaking about government goods and services, political parties, me personally, clearly shows many of you simply do not get philosophy on a fundamental level.

I don't really care what you think maximises good, or what your opinions are. Is the Government a logically and morally consistent entity? I won't discuss anything other than that.

(July 14, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Koolay Wrote: I don't really care what you think maximises good, or what your opinions are. Is the Government a logically and morally consistent entity? I won't discuss anything other than that.

Translation: I don't care what your philosophies are - you have to discuss mine, or my panties get in a wad.

(July 14, 2013 at 5:25 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote:

(July 14, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Koolay Wrote: I don't really care what you think maximises good, or what your opinions are. Is the Government a logically and morally consistent entity? I won't discuss anything other than that.

Translation: I don't care what your philosophies are - you have to discuss mine, or my panties get in a wad.

There is only one philosophy. The same way there is only one science, only one math, only one logic.

2+2=4 "Well that's your math. You need to be more open minded to other people's math." That would be a completely ridiculous thing to say, as is saying that philosophy is subjective as you have just now.

That is not how logic works, either something is correct or not, which is what we are discussing here.

No, there isn't only one philosophy.

So much fail, Koolay. Google "Is there only one philosophy?" And then cry.

(July 14, 2013 at 5:22 pm)Koolay Wrote: I don't really care what you think maximises good, or what your opinions are. Is the Government a logically and morally consistent entity? I won't discuss anything other than that.

Does anyone here besides Kool Aid think the question of whether government is a logically and morally consistent entity is at all interesting? Perhaps, to give you a chance, you could tell us why you think it matters whether the government is logically or morally consistent. It might help also if you gave us an example of an institution you do think is logically or morally consistent.

Frankly, my dear whateverist, I don't. Because gov't isn't "an entity". It is made up of human beings, who are not logically and morally consistent. This is why we have checks and balances.

(July 14, 2013 at 5:35 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: No, there isn't only one philosophy.

So you are absolutely telling me that philosophy is subjective? Doesn't that make philosophy absolute then?

Yes. It is mental wanking, nothing more. And no, philosophies being subjective make nothing absolute. Where do you get your half-baked ideas - your last acid trip?