sams on May 10, 2010, 02:09:56 am
It looks like there is a little bit to much people listening to Rhabia conversation, will I'm a sufficient Libertarian Junkie to know that they can oust all the customers, but if she is a fugitive of the UW she could be a little bit more careful since once any of those people listen something they can sell the information to the UW.

Would be justified to use force to stop someone to transmit an information that might put your life in jeopardy ? If one of the customers was to leak Rhabia location to the UW could she use deadly force to prevent it ? just out of curiosity.

I also loved how Emily is such an innocent gal ...or are all the boys in the neighbourhood scare to death of her  ;D
But in all serious I really enjoy how EFT show such a wide range of cultural and moral personalities, such has the sisters in muslim vail, Emily kind of innocence, Guy old school french manners and so on, since for some Anarchist/Libertarian being a dope smoking, hedonistic, libertine depraved drunk womaniser seems to be the  default position into a libertarian society.

And now the Orwellian Comical Relief ! A jerk posted this stuff in another forum I take place in :

Quote
So this is something that I've been giving a lot of thought recently: is it justified to force people via an authoritarian government to do what is ultimately best for the species? Hypothetically speaking, let's say that you need two generations to change the norms of a society to get people to naturally do things like work together, and help each other. Assuming that you don't have to kill anyone, torture anyone, abuse anyone, etc, would the ends justify the means of eliminating personal freedom for a few decades, if it meant that the world became a significantly better place afterward?

Remark that they will first abrige all freedom and enslave you to make you Free ... are you already feeling that little warm orwellian stuff in your hearth ?

It gets even more creepier...

Quote
How would those go about ensuring the greater good? Remember, this is autocracy with a purpose - I'm talking about things like getting rid of currency and making everyone work directly to survive. For example, let's say that there's a definitive amount of things that people need to live; we set a minimum and a maximum of, say, 2x what you need. Your performance at work dictates what level you get between that. If you're not doing your job and are trying to mooch off the system, you get nothing.

The best part is that it will be non violent see :

Quote
Assuming that you don't have to kill anyone, torture anyone, abuse anyone, etc, would the ends justify the means of eliminating personal freedom for a few decades,

When I tell the dude that this is an oxymoron he says :

Quote
It isn't an oxymoron. You don't have to use violence to remove personal freedoms, and removing personal freedoms is not violent.

Quote
Throwing someone in jail is not violent.

This remenber me of Orwell : ''War is peace, peace is War'' & ''In the end, your submission to us must be the fruit of your own will''
« Last Edit: May 10, 2010, 11:20:45 am by sams »

Brugle on May 10, 2010, 11:53:34 am
I'm a sufficient Libertarian Junkie to know that they can oust all the customers,
Better get some more junk.  Customers purchase not only food and drink, but also an environment (chair, table, etc) to use for some time.  Libertarians honor contracts (including implied contracts).

(I assume you are asking whether they are justified in ousting the customers, not whether they are physically capable of doing it.)

If one of the customers was to leak Rhabia location to the UW could she use deadly force to prevent it ?
I don't think so, for 2 reasons.  First, there is no danger.  What could the UW do?  Second, she released that information to the public, so she can have no expectation of secrecy.

(I assume you are asking whether she would be justified in killing to prevent information from reaching the UW, not whether she is physically capable of doing it.)

However, it might be interesting to consider whether a person (A) might be justified in killing someone (B) to prevent B from passing information (that B legitimately acquired) to prevent harm to A.  I can think of situations where the answer is clearly no.  I can think of situations where yes feels like the right answer.  Fortunately, such situations are rare.

sams on May 10, 2010, 12:17:10 pm
(I assume you are asking whether they are justified in ousting the customers, not whether they are physically capable of doing it.)

(I assume you are asking whether she would be justified in killing to prevent information from reaching the UW, not whether she is physically capable of doing it.)

Yes it is a matter of principle ;)

However, it might be interesting to consider whether a person (A) might be justified in killing someone (B) to prevent B from passing information (that B legitimately acquired) to prevent harm to A.  I can think of situations where the answer is clearly no.  I can think of situations where yes feels like the right answer.  Fortunately, such situations are rare.

Yes this is exactly the case I was thinking about

terry_freeman on May 11, 2010, 01:47:51 pm
The "greater good" arguments are used to justify all manner of tyranny. If what you propose is truly for the greater good, then use honest means to implement it: voluntary, moral suasion.

How can anyone accept the blatant contradiction inherent in the "we will force you to be free" argument?

Government schools were sold under the very same brand, as a means of forcing people to think like free people should. The result, rather, has been to raise up generations of people who blindly go wherever their Great Leaders wish. This is convenient for those who would be Great Leaders, but it is in no sense a "public good" or benefit to those who are being led.

quadibloc on May 12, 2010, 07:38:25 am
I didn't expect the issue of them knowing too much to arise, but that they might have had to have been killed for being ungentlemanly was something I had considered within the realm of possibility.

Scott on May 14, 2010, 03:21:12 pm
Robyn can speak freely because she and Sajjan have been declared "missing and presumed dead." Sajjan is safe in [WHOOPS -- I wrote a spoiler in here, forgetting how large a buffer we have. Ya'll will just have to read along and find out why Sajjan is safe by the time Robyn is on Ceres.]

Robyn herself is safe from UW on Ceres because UW has no power on Ceres and thus no practical way to claim her. She's not worth sending another task force, especially after what happened to the last task force. To the UW she's just another juvenile delinquent, not important enough to bother with so long as she stays away from any place where the UW holds practical jurisdiction. The only people still vulnerable are Sajjan and Robyn's parents, still on Terra, and that's only if the parents are caught making contact with their kids.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 12:48:01 pm by Scott »

quadibloc on May 15, 2010, 12:56:07 pm
The best part is that it will be non violent see :
Some people use different meanings for "force" and "violence".

Thus, they reserve "violence" for acts that are bloody and dramatic, and that kill innocent people at random. By that standard, locking someone up for the rest of his life, which required dragging him off at gunpoint, isn't "violent".

I agree that this is a confusing usage.

Sajjan is safe in Canton Luna because of the tacit truce between CL and the UW.
My guess, and this, of course, is based on assuming that this story will not entirely manage to avoid a common cliche found in many other stories with similar situations, is that Sajjan will be safe from harm for the simple reason that he is "now", as Robyn tells her story in the diner, beyond all harm.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2010, 06:12:41 am by quadibloc »

quadibloc on June 21, 2010, 07:03:29 am
My guess as to Sajjan's fate is, at this point, very likely wrong. However, today's comic raises the issue of eavesdropping to a more serious level.