Justice as fairness: we can do better than we are

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

Yeah and this. Slavery alive and rampant. When and where will it end. The world is NOT a better place now, there are no "good old days" when the world was safe.

Ummm, so may I ask why it is I am not enslaved since only the last few generations of my family have been free? I'm rather mystified by this. YOUR words are that the world is NOT a better place. I agree that there are no good old days when the world was safe. THESE are the good old days and I'm absolutely shocked that so many intelligent people draw no distinction between legal, sanctioned, open behavior and illegal, prohibited, hidden behavior.

So according to you, Snow, and Miss Tick the fact that slavery happens *anywhere* means that slavery is *legal* in the United States and Western Europe. Because that is the point of contention. I did not say that slavery was gone from the face of the Earth. I said that slavery was *illegal* in almost every single country. At least four people on this thread have now made this connection and not one of you have, as yet, offered an explanation for how you get to that conclusion. Again, if I had said that slavery was everywhere gone from the United States you could take me to task for not seeing sexual slavery but I didn't say that. I went back and checked to make certain I didn't say that and I didn't. I was talking about legality. So now, since we are having an argument that slavery anywhere means slavery is legal *everywhere* (or if not everywhere at least in the United States) then I think the burden of proof is on those of you making this argument to demonstrate that slavery is LEGAL--the key phrase here is LEGAL.

Again, the chain of logic looks like this:

Slavery is still practiced in the world-->The United States had slavery--->THEREFORE slavery is legal in the United States-->THEREFORE the United States still has slaves being held legally.

The substrate logic is this:

If X happens then X is legal and socially sanctioned. Because if that's not the argument being made then this whole thing is some kind of very strange derail. Since your logic is sexual slavery is still taking place, therefore chattel slavery is still legal in the United States you *must* be using the construction "that which is done is legal, regardless of what the law might say". So, since slavery is legal in the USA because sexual slavery happens *anywhere*, then murder must *also* be legal in the United States. So explain to me why you are not advocating for all convicted murderers and rapists to go free since the mere fact that someone goes out and murders means that it is both *legal* and *socially sanctioned*. If it applies to slavery (and if it doesn't what are you arguing) then it must also apply to rape, theft and murder. Since it manifestly does not, why the one and not the others?

As a rule, liberal democracies do not put people in prison for actions that are legal. If liberal democracies are putting murderers in prison but murder is illegal because people commit murder, then murder is not a *crime* and since we do not put people in prison if they have not been convicted of a *crime* every single murderer is being held illegally because their actions were neither illegal or socially proscribed.

Cheers
Aj

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Ummm, so may I ask why it is I am not enslaved since only the last few generations of my family have been free? I'm rather mystified by this. YOUR words are that the world is NOT a better place. I agree that there are no good old days when the world was safe. THESE are the good old days and I'm absolutely shocked that so many intelligent people draw no distinction between legal, sanctioned, open behavior and illegal, prohibited, hidden behavior.

So according to you, Snow, and Miss Tick the fact that slavery happens *anywhere* means that slavery is *legal* in the United States and Western Europe. Because that is the point of contention. I did not say that slavery was gone from the face of the Earth. I said that slavery was *illegal* in almost every single country. At least four people on this thread have now made this connection and not one of you have, as yet, offered an explanation for how you get to that conclusion. Again, if I had said that slavery was everywhere gone from the United States you could take me to task for not seeing sexual slavery but I didn't say that. I went back and checked to make certain I didn't say that and I didn't. I was talking about legality. So now, since we are having an argument that slavery anywhere means slavery is legal *everywhere* (or if not everywhere at least in the United States) then I think the burden of proof is on those of you making this argument to demonstrate that slavery is LEGAL--the key phrase here is LEGAL.

Again, the chain of logic looks like this:

Slavery is still practiced in the world-->The United States had slavery--->THEREFORE slavery is legal in the United States-->THEREFORE the United States still has slaves being held legally.

The substrate logic is this:

If X happens then X is legal and socially sanctioned. Because if that's not the argument being made then this whole thing is some kind of very strange derail. Since your logic is sexual slavery is still taking place, therefore chattel slavery is still legal in the United States you *must* be using the construction "that which is done is legal, regardless of what the law might say". So, since slavery is legal in the USA because sexual slavery happens *anywhere*, then murder must *also* be legal in the United States. So explain to me why you are not advocating for all convicted murderers and rapists to go free since the mere fact that someone goes out and murders means that it is both *legal* and *socially sanctioned*. If it applies to slavery (and if it doesn't what are you arguing) then it must also apply to rape, theft and murder. Since it manifestly does not, why the one and not the others?

As a rule, liberal democracies do not put people in prison for actions that are legal. If liberal democracies are putting murderers in prison but murder is illegal because people commit murder, then murder is not a *crime* and since we do not put people in prison if they have not been convicted of a *crime* every single murderer is being held illegally because their actions were neither illegal or socially proscribed.

Cheers
Aj

I never said it was legal. I get that slavery is a touchy subject, but we never said it was legal.

[Apocalipstic]

OK, so in moving forward.

Can we help make things better?

Do we really even want to if it means changing our minds?

[SoNotHer]

Well this thread has gone down quite a road. I think Apocalipstic has the right idea in circling back to the beginning.

Keeping in mind that folks can be justified in feeling as they feel and thinking as they think, even if we do not share those feelings or thoughts, how do we move forward?

If we cannot come to some consensus about some basic ideas in thread of a dozen or so people, how exactly to we have justice, equality, harmony and sustainability in a world of seven billion?

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

OK, so in moving forward.

Can we help make things better?

Do we really even want to if it means changing our minds?

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

Well this thread has gone down quite a road. I think Apocalipstic has the right idea in circling back to the beginning.

Keeping in mind that folks can be justified in feeling as they feel and thinking as they think, even if we do not share those feelings or thoughts, how do we move forward?

If we cannot come to some consensus about some basic ideas in thread of a dozen or so people, how exactly to we have justice, equality, harmony and sustainability in a world of seven billion?

Get attacked by another planet?

[SoNotHer]

Now that did make me laugh! :-) Yes, where's a "War of the Worlds" broadcast when you need one!

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

Get attacked by another planet?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

I never said it was legal. I get that slavery is a touchy subject, but we never said it was legal.

Then what are you arguing about, Apoc? Here's how this started from my perspective:

Me: Slavery is now illegal in just about every nation.
Ruffryder: Slavery still exists in the United States
Me: That may be the case but slavery is still *illegal*.
You and Snow: Yes, slavery still exists in the United States.
Me: Yes, but it is still *illegal* in every Western nation and most every other nation on the planet.
Chorus: But sexual slavery still exists!
Me: That is the case but I did not make an argument that slavery was non-existent, I made an argument that slavery was *illegal*. The existence of slavery may be legal, but for slavery to exist it need not be legal.
Chorus: Sexual slavery still exists!
Me: but it's not LEGAL!

Now, it is perfectly reasonable, given the opening premise that slavery is illegal for me to interpret the arguments of you, roughryder, et. al. as being that if slavery exists anywhere then slavery is still *legal* therefore nothing has changed. Because I wasn't saying a damn thing about whether or not sexual slavery exists--I'm nowhere near stupid enough to entertain that possibility. From my perspective, the illegality of slavery in the vast majority of nations is a *vast* improvement over human history. The argument y'all seem to be making is that it either isn't an improvement or it's still legal for no OTHER reason than that sexual slavery still exists.

I'm sorry Apoc, you know I have a great deal of respect for all of you but either I can't read, someone decided to derail the thread, or y'all are saying that because sexual slavery still exists nothing has changed vis a vis slavery even though it was perfectly legal throughout the world until the 19th century and now is illegal pretty much everywhere.

Cheers
Aj

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Then what are you arguing about, Apoc? Here's how this started from my perspective:

Me: Slavery is now illegal in just about every nation.
Ruffryder: Slavery still exists in the United States
Me: That may be the case but slavery is still *illegal*.
You and Snow: Yes, slavery still exists in the United States.
Me: Yes, but it is still *illegal* in every Western nation and most every other nation on the planet.
Chorus: But sexual slavery still exists!
Me: That is the case but I did not make an argument that slavery was non-existent, I made an argument that slavery was *illegal*. The existence of slavery may be legal, but for slavery to exist it need not be legal.
Chorus: Sexual slavery still exists!
Me: but it's not LEGAL!

Now, it is perfectly reasonable, given the opening premise that slavery is illegal for me to interpret the arguments of you, roughryder, et. al. as being that if slavery exists anywhere then slavery is still *legal* therefore nothing has changed. Because I wasn't saying a damn thing about whether or not sexual slavery exists--I'm nowhere near stupid enough to entertain that possibility. From my perspective, the illegality of slavery in the vast majority of nations is a *vast* improvement over human history. The argument y'all seem to be making is that it either isn't an improvement or it's still legal for no OTHER reason than that sexual slavery still exists.

I'm sorry Apoc, you know I have a great deal of respect for all of you but either I can't read, someone decided to derail the thread, or y'all are saying that because sexual slavery still exists nothing has changed vis a vis slavery even though it was perfectly legal throughout the world until the 19th century and now is illegal pretty much everywhere.

Cheers
Aj

OK, so we misunderstood each other. I agree that slavery (as it existed earlier in US history) is no longer legal in the US nor in most places in the world and this is a vast improvement over government sanctioned slave trade.

I don't think it is a derail however, in a thread about to justice, to point out that slavery does exist worldwide and is not given enough attention. It preys on the weakest among us and should be taken very seriously.

Because the slave trade today is subrosa, it almost makes it more difficult to go after. Denial and all.

I don't want this to be about who is suffering more or who has suffered more, but the US in effect does have legally sanctioned "workers" and "political prisoners" in our country and overseas than in my mind are slaves of the US gvt. I dream of a US and world that is better than this. I think justice demands it.

[Apocalipstic]

What I really do want to argue about is the comment about Latin American countries killing each other if they united.

I kind of need a logical explanation on how that was OK for Ruffrider to even say, much less for AJ to agree with.

Its sitting on my heart and I hope I am misunderstanding what y'all mean by this.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

What I really do want to argue about is the comment about Latin American countries killing each other if they united.

I kind of need a logical explanation on how that was OK for Ruffrider to even say, much less for AJ to agree with.

Its sitting on my heart and I hope I am misunderstanding what y'all mean by this.

What I meant by this is that if the Latin American nations were to attempt to unite and one nation were a hold out, then the Latin American nations that *were* in on unification would do what any other group of nations, surrounded by a nation that was standing in their way would do--they would invade that nation, conquer it and create a Pax Latin Americana. I'm not saying--nor would I say--that Latin Americans are violent who will slaughter each other if the sun rises. I'm saying that the people living in Latin America are, for better or worse, the same species living in Western Africa and Asia and North America etc. If Canada *ever* got it into its head that there was some compelling reason to conquer the United States and if they could get enough nations to go along with it, Canada would invade and conquer the United States in a heart beat. Does that mean that I think Canadians are violent? No! It means I think that Canada, as a nation, will do what it perceives to be in its strategic interest. Right now, it pleases Canada to be about as dovish a nation can be. At present there is no reason to believe that this will change. However, if there ever *is* a reason for it to change it *will* change because that is how nations--ALL nations behave.

My agreement with roughryder was merely the acknowledgement that border disputes *happen*. Despite the image that people seem to have that only Europe and the United States are uniquely territorial and war-like that is not the case. At present Venezuela is providing aid to rebels in Colombia. They are doing so because it is either in their strategic interest to do so or it is in their ideological interest to do so or both. I'm not--let me be clear--NOT--saying that Venezuelans are a uniquely violent people nor am I saying that Colombians are a uniquely violent people. I am saying that there is internal strife *inside* Colombia. For reasons known to the Venezuelan chain of command they are providing material aid, technical assistance, troops on the ground or all three to those rebels. Chances are, the Venezuelans are doing so because they perceive it in their interest to do so.

Should the day come that Brazil should decide that a Pax Brazilia is in their national interest they will take whatever steps to conquer or otherwise influence the nations of South America to do their bidding. Those that refuse will be subjugated if the Brazilians can get away with it.

ALL of that can be true without making ANY comment about the relative levels of violence of Brazilians specifically, South Americans generally, or any other group other than two: human beings and that same species grouped together in a nation-state. If human beings can get what they want by trade instead of trade, they will do so. If they perceive that the only way they can get what they wish is through violence they will use violence. Nations behave the same way. As long as it is more profitable for Brazil to trade with Bolivia, that is what will happen. Should it become more profitable for Brazil to conquer Bolivia *that* is what will happen.

The whole idea behind mutual defense blocs (NATO, Warsaw pact, etc.) is to raise the stakes of attacking any member nation that signs on to the pact. If Brazil wants to conquer Bolivia and knows no one will come to the aid of the Bolivians, Brazil will conquer Bolivia. But what if Bolivia and Peru, Argentina and Venezuela have a mutual defense pact? Well now, what was an easy job of conquering one country suddenly becomes a much more difficult job of taking Chile while having to worry about your flanks. What was simply a strike to the Brazilians west suddenly becomes being vulnerable from attacks on their Northern and Southern flanks PLUS their coast. Well, now that's going to give the Brazilian high command a moment of pause. This logic--and it is logical--is why WW III never happened. If Russia *could* have invaded Western Europe, driven all the way to the English channel, rested and jumped the channel to take England without *ever* having to worry about the USA getting involved they would have done just that. They never even tried (although they trained for it) *because* they knew that the USA would get involved.

Again, all of that can be true without saying anything about the war-like tendencies of the Russian people.

So, again, my point is that if Latin American nations decided to create a Pax Latin Americana and there was a holdout, for whatever reason, the members of the coalition would simply do the easy thing and conquer the holdout if for no other reason than to not have non-contiguous borders. My comments were about geopolitics, not about race.


Cheers
Aj

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

What I meant by this is that if the Latin American nations were to attempt to unite and one nation were a hold out, then the Latin American nations that *were* in on unification would do what any other group of nations, surrounded by a nation that was standing in their way would do--they would invade that nation, conquer it and create a Pax Latin Americana. I'm not saying--nor would I say--that Latin Americans are violent who will slaughter each other if the sun rises. I'm saying that the people living in Latin America are, for better or worse, the same species living in Western Africa and Asia and North America etc. If Canada *ever* got it into its head that there was some compelling reason to conquer the United States and if they could get enough nations to go along with it, Canada would invade and conquer the United States in a heart beat. Does that mean that I think Canadians are violent? No! It means I think that Canada, as a nation, will do what it perceives to be in its strategic interest. Right now, it pleases Canada to be about as dovish a nation can be. At present there is no reason to believe that this will change. However, if there ever *is* a reason for it to change it *will* change because that is how nations--ALL nations behave.

My agreement with roughryder was merely the acknowledgement that border disputes *happen*. Despite the image that people seem to have that only Europe and the United States are uniquely territorial and war-like that is not the case. At present Venezuela is providing aid to rebels in Colombia. They are doing so because it is either in their strategic interest to do so or it is in their ideological interest to do so or both. I'm not--let me be clear--NOT--saying that Venezuelans are a uniquely violent people nor am I saying that Colombians are a uniquely violent people. I am saying that there is internal strife *inside* Colombia. For reasons known to the Venezuelan chain of command they are providing material aid, technical assistance, troops on the ground or all three to those rebels. Chances are, the Venezuelans are doing so because they perceive it in their interest to do so.

Should the day come that Brazil should decide that a Pax Brazilia is in their national interest they will take whatever steps to conquer or otherwise influence the nations of South America to do their bidding. Those that refuse will be subjugated if the Brazilians can get away with it.

ALL of that can be true without making ANY comment about the relative levels of violence of Brazilians specifically, South Americans generally, or any other group other than two: human beings and that same species grouped together in a nation-state. If human beings can get what they want by trade instead of trade, they will do so. If they perceive that the only way they can get what they wish is through violence they will use violence. Nations behave the same way. As long as it is more profitable for Brazil to trade with Bolivia, that is what will happen. Should it become more profitable for Brazil to conquer Bolivia *that* is what will happen.

The whole idea behind mutual defense blocs (NATO, Warsaw pact, etc.) is to raise the stakes of attacking any member nation that signs on to the pact. If Brazil wants to conquer Bolivia and knows no one will come to the aid of the Bolivians, Brazil will conquer Bolivia. But what if Bolivia and Peru, Argentina and Venezuela have a mutual defense pact? Well now, what was an easy job of conquering one country suddenly becomes a much more difficult job of taking Chile while having to worry about your flanks. What was simply a strike to the Brazilians west suddenly becomes being vulnerable from attacks on their Northern and Southern flanks PLUS their coast. Well, now that's going to give the Brazilian high command a moment of pause. This logic--and it is logical--is why WW III never happened. If Russia *could* have invaded Western Europe, driven all the way to the English channel, rested and jumped the channel to take England without *ever* having to worry about the USA getting involved they would have done just that. They never even tried (although they trained for it) *because* they knew that the USA would get involved.

Again, all of that can be true without saying anything about the war-like tendencies of the Russian people.

So, again, my point is that if Latin American nations decided to create a Pax Latin Americana and there was a holdout, for whatever reason, the members of the coalition would simply do the easy thing and conquer the holdout if for no other reason than to not have non-contiguous borders. My comments were about geopolitics, not about race.


Cheers
Aj

Thank you for explaining what you meant AJ. I think its an important distinction.

[ruffryder]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Then what are you arguing about, Apoc? Here's how this started from my perspective:

Me: Slavery is now illegal in just about every nation.
Ruffryder: Slavery still exists in the United States
Me: That may be the case but slavery is still *illegal*.
You and Snow: Yes, slavery still exists in the United States.
Me: Yes, but it is still *illegal* in every Western nation and most every other nation on the planet.
Chorus: But sexual slavery still exists!
Me: That is the case but I did not make an argument that slavery was non-existent, I made an argument that slavery was *illegal*. The existence of slavery may be legal, but for slavery to exist it need not be legal.
Chorus: Sexual slavery still exists!
Me: but it's not LEGAL!

Now, it is perfectly reasonable, given the opening premise that slavery is illegal for me to interpret the arguments of you, roughryder, et. al. as being that if slavery exists anywhere then slavery is still *legal* therefore nothing has changed. Because I wasn't saying a damn thing about whether or not sexual slavery exists--I'm nowhere near stupid enough to entertain that possibility. From my perspective, the illegality of slavery in the vast majority of nations is a *vast* improvement over human history. The argument y'all seem to be making is that it either isn't an improvement or it's still legal for no OTHER reason than that sexual slavery still exists.

I'm sorry Apoc, you know I have a great deal of respect for all of you but either I can't read, someone decided to derail the thread, or y'all are saying that because sexual slavery still exists nothing has changed vis a vis slavery even though it was perfectly legal throughout the world until the 19th century and now is illegal pretty much everywhere.

Cheers
Aj

Wow this is what I said copied and pasted from my first post here .. this is the derailment. Not sure what anyone said after me but this is what I said:

"The world and the U.S. still has slavery." That's all. Nothing to do with legal or illegal. Your last post is talking about the U.S. forgive me, but that was my post about slavery. Whether you are only talking about the U.S. or not I mentioned it because their has been talk about countries joining together and my point was made about slavery existing still whether it's legal or illegal. Some places it is legal! .. and if you consider joining some of these countries with the U.S. then who is to say it will stay illegal in the U.S? It was just an observation by everyone that "slavery still exists." If you only want to talk about illegal slavery, then ok. In the U.S. slavery is illegal. We all agree.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by betenoire

How would that end the war on drugs? You think the citizens of what is currently the US are going to suddenly not be obsessed with the drug trade? It'll never happen.

Here's what will happen if North and South America become one huge cumbersome impossible to travel from one end to the other because it's just too giant of a land mass to be reasonable as a country country: The US will bowl over the rest of us. They will not compromise. The rest of us will be absorbed into the US life and the US mission and the US whim. It's not like merging is going to make everybody more like Canada. Merging all of North and South America isn't going to get equal marriage rights for all - it'll probably LOSE the rights that we Canadians currently enjoy. You know why? Because the US has the most fire power and the most money. So they'll get whatever they want.

I'm not sure why anybody would wish that on the rest of us. If the US is as awful and obnoxious as everybody says it is (and, you know, there are a lot of things I don't like about the US and I very clearly prefer Canada times a zillion) why would you expect that they would play nice if the countries were to amalgamate? It'll never happen.

I get what you are saying. Hell, if it was not so damn cold, I would have moved to Canada years ago! If I were Canadian I would not want to be part of the US either...

I think the war on drugs has created the drug trade as it stands. If drugs became decriminalized and there were not international borders to traffic across I think the violence would stop or at least way lessen.

I do get your point that the US would try to take over everything instead of being a collaborative union and I think that's a fair accesement. There are pros and cons of a union with many of the countries, but not with all.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

So according to you, Snow, and Miss Tick the fact that slavery happens *anywhere* means that slavery is *legal* in the United States and Western Europe. Because that is the point of contention. I did not say that slavery was gone from the face of the Earth. I said that slavery was *illegal* in almost every single country.

I think people got it from when ruffryder said:
"The world and the U.S. still has slavery."

And you said;
"Okay, here you have gone way too far, ruffryder"

I guess we don't think he went way too far.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I think people got it from when ruffryder said:
"The world and the U.S. still has slavery."

And you said;
"Okay, here you have gone way too far, ruffryder"

I guess we don't think he went way too far.

But the point is that degree matters. The whole point that I was making (since I'm not willing to speak for Aj what with her being a grown woman and all) was that the fact that what was once legal is now illegal IS EVIDENCE that the world is a changing place.

It just seems to me that people are tackling this with an "all or nothing" approach. Like some people seem to believe that the only signifier of progress or improvement is if ALL evil is drained from the world. Like maybe some people here believe that nothing has changed until everything is ALL better.

But degree does matter.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

I think people got it from when ruffryder said:
"The world and the U.S. still has slavery."

And you said;
"Okay, here you have gone way too far, ruffryder"

I guess we don't think he went way too far.

Okay, so let's work on some definitions. When *I* use the term slavery, at least vis a vis the United States I mean this:

the LEGAL system where people of group X were forcibly removed from their homes, put on ships, brought to another country, and held in a lifetime of servitude which was--and this is the important bit--sanctioned by both law and society. So when roughryder said "the world and the U.S. still has slavery" what was being said--given the definition above--is "the United States still has LEGALIZED slavery". Legalized, Miss Tick. Anything outside of that definition may be slavery but it is not *legal* slavery. The society is not set up to *preserve* slavery. I was talking--and I thought I had made myself clear that this was what I was talking about--the system of chattel slavery that existed in the United States from the 17th to the 19th centuries. Roughryder was saying that this system still exists.

Every single one of you arguing that slavery still exists in the United States is saying "legalized slavery in the USA is still in force and the society still is arranged by both law and custom to maintain that system". I never said that illegal slavery was gone, I was talking about the legal system of slavery.

The fact of sexual slavery in the world is something we should all be concerned about but it is *ancillary* to the point I was making. Yet, people are arguing this ancillary point and since I was talking about legality, not existence, and since I see the fact that a system that plagued humanity since *at least* the time of agriculture (so 12000 years) became ubiquitously illegal over 99% of the globe is an improvement. That is the point I was making. That is the point that you, roughryder, Apoc and Snow all disagree with.


Cheers
Aj