Now that the trial is over, I suppose we should have another open forum. For those who didn't attend, the defendant was found not guilty
( Read more... )
no worries :)horus_nefertiMarch 9 2009, 17:43:46 UTC
The majority of this city's residents claim to be law abiding citizens. How do you know for sure? And by whose law? By the laws of my father's city, the women here should be stoned for walking in the sun and speaking. By the laws of my father's city, I would have been impaled had they known my secrets. It was the majority rule. Should the women in such conditions or the those who desired nothing but the freedom to choose their lives wait patient to be given their freedom and rights? Does majority make right? Are laws just? Thankfully your imposed laws seem to be slightly more advanced than those, but all laws seek to control through outside force
( ... )
Faith in the people, I suppose. The ratio of people to the amount of crimes committed makes it fairly obvious that most people simply want to live in peace, with little desire or no desire to inflict harm on others
( ... )
arggg, I need to sleep and I can't until I reply to this XD (and not make typos!)horus_nefertiMarch 9 2009, 18:41:53 UTC
Your faith in people would be enviable if it weren't foolish and childlike. Because you see no evidence of wrong doing you assume it isn't there? As for laws, again I have no approval of personal rights being infringed upon by another, but to impose a force to monitor and punish those who infringe on the laws is exactly the same as the CIA or any government organization of which the police and the law system are an extension of. "Protect the people" forever the battle cry of politicians who would strip the individual of their personal freedom and invade their life. What happens when the people 'just trying to live' start to behave according to their old lifestyles of greed and capitalism and property? The few resources and foods are collected by groups and sold leaving some with nothing and no choice but for violence? Where do you decide to end the laws and ensure that the abuses which are natural to these institutes--power corrupts afterall--will end? When do you take away a man's right to arm himself and protect himself
( ... )
I don't assume it's not there. To be frank, it's always rather obvious when I a crime occurs in the city. The communication devices pick up quite a few things that occur. I understand that you're wary of our intent, which is something I can understand. However, our intent is not to take away anyone's freedom or invade their privacy. There's little chance of more of the aforementioned things happening - at least, not at any point in the near future. This is merely the beginnings of rebuilding a fallen city
( ... )
So to rebuild we are using a system that in the future may yield to and even cause corruption. It is easy to see those who have ambitions larger than the greater good and yet you persist in defending a system historically corrupt by saying it hasn't happened yet? Because the abuses of power haven't occurred yet they shouldn't be changed before the inevitable happens?
You have the opportunity to rebuild a city and yet you cling to old fashioned ideals with all of the old vices of humanity.
Humanity will be humanity, regardless of time or place. Ergo, no matter what it is we do, there will be at least one individual who finds a way to corrupt whatever system is implements. The fact of the matter is, this system is not identical to any one system that's been used before. It takes elements of a number of systems.
I'm afraid you've arrived three months too late for this argument.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
You have the opportunity to rebuild a city and yet you cling to old fashioned ideals with all of the old vices of humanity.
Reply
I'm afraid you've arrived three months too late for this argument.
Reply
Pray there is no corruption within your ranks.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment