Quote: Original post by rip-off
...

I believe that it was justice the first time when everyone tried to get Bush's documents. The second time around it would be just plain old revenge.

I mean, if you got into a fist fight with your boyfriend/girlfriend, and then charged them with assault, fine. However, if you go back to the justice system five years later and then try to tack on a surprise rape charge related to the same assault event, the judge will laugh in your face. That's because the motive for the surprise rape charge would obviously be revenge, not justice.

Justice != revenge, and perhaps this quote by DISRAELI from www.abovetopsecret.com might help some see my point of view:

Quote:
As far as the origin of the words is concerned;

"Revenge" comes ultimately from a Latin word meaning to "lay claim to". People "take" revenge; they believe it is their entitlement. So "revenge" is ultimately about their personal emotions.

"Justice" comes from a Latin word meaning "straight, fair, equitable". It's about getting things right. So it ought to be something objective, making sure that everybody gets treated as equally as possible, in the interests of society at large.

When society at large decides to have revengeful feelings, that's when you get lynchings.

Quote: Original post by Prune
I understand the problem but I think it is overblown. I was being a bit provocative, not pugilistic.

A bit provocative? I'd hate to see what you'd consider pugilistic.

Quote: Original post by Programmer One

Quote: Original post by Prune
I understand the problem but I think it is overblown. I was being a bit provocative, not pugilistic.

A bit provocative? I'd hate to see what you'd consider pugilistic.

Prune != Mike Tyson after his tiger gets abused. ;)

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by Prune

Quote: Your disgust with the people is obvious.

Not disgust, but disappointment. My disgust is at populist politics. As I've pointed out in a previous thread, I have low regard for democracy, both for the theoretical reasons brought on by the research of Arrow and so on that mean true democracy is not possible even theoretically, and for practical impossibilities of implementing even the pseudodemocracies that are theoretically possible, instead leading to forms of government that invariably result in more human suffering than should be warranted.

Kenneth Arrow? As referenced here: Does Economic Success Require Democracy? If so, Arrow puts the cart before the horse.

In my sight free economy works good in the times of peace,non-free (soviet type) economy-in the times of crysis(war etc.).In long-term perspective freedom always has advantage (if it stay alive after crysis).I don't know does Arrow take it into account in his Nobel work or not.
I heard that somebody made such conclusion that the most effective system of decision acceptance is dictator with the team of advisers.I.e. voting (government) vs. one man (dictator) analising opinions of several EXPERTS.
Here we return to war and peace- parliament can discuss about everything,but only president has a "nuclear case" with red button.

Democracy actually may be not possible even theoretically because any result of voting less than 100% . If the result of voting is close to 100% -it's not always democracy too.It may be so-called socialist "democracy" like in Soviet Union or North Korea.
There is no perfection in this world[smile]

[Edited by - Krokhin on September 11, 2010 2:24:12 AM]

Quote: Original post by PromitIf you cannot understand the problem here, get out of the Lounge before you're thrown out. If you can understand the problem, then my point of view should be clear.

LOL. Get thrown out of the Lounge unless you have a educated viewpoint? Hardly what the Lounge is for!

Quote: Original post by Rycross

Quote: Original post by Quasimojo
I would agree with you there, except replace the word "bad" with "grossly incompetent and heinously irresponsible". I'm sure he *has* done some good things. The trouble is that nothing in that regard is even remotely as good as the rest is bad. It's like saying Hitler wasn't all bad, because he never once cheated on his taxes.

A valid opinion (although the Godwin is quite a bit of hyperbole). My personal opinion is that we are making some progress but not enough and not fast enough, and part of that is due to the fact that Obama is being fairly weak politically. I'd probably rate him a 3.5-4 out of 10, while Bush Jr. was a 2. A lot of my opinion rests on whether his administration influence legislative policy enough to get the economy to turn around, but the outlook is not so good on that.

I voted for McCain (not that I was thrilled with that particular nominee), but agreed that the country needed some change. The problem is that the current administration has gone complete overboard with the "changes". They have blatantly slung their weight around to pass legislation that was clearly meant to satisfy some agenda other than that of the general public's interest. It's a travesty and borders on criminal.

Sorry, didn't mean any sort of derail. I'll leave it at that.

Quote: Original post by Krokhin
Democracy actually may be not possible even theoretically because any result of voting less than 100% . If the result of voting is close to 100% -it's not always democracy too.It may be so-called socialist "democracy" like in Soviet Union or North Korea.

This is not what Arrow's theorem is about. The theoretical flaw of democracy is much deeper and more fundamental than this. I really suggest you read up on it; you can start with wiki.

Quote: Original post by Prune

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Kenneth Arrow? As referenced here: Does Economic Success Require Democracy? If so, Arrow puts the cart before the horse.

I suggest you read the set of voting criteria Arrow considers and shows to form an inconsistent, self-contradictory system, rather than some news article, as well as about how transitivity of voting preferences is lost when one moves from an individual to a population (itself an indicator that the very concept of aggregation of preferences is meaningless). I object to the description of Arrow's theorem in the article, and the rest of the article really has nothing to do with Arrow's theorem at all.

I suggest that if you're not pleased with the description of this thesis in that article that you find one you are pleased with and share it with us rather than recommending we read the 100+ pages of his phd thesis. Seriously. Instead of tossing out names and relying on "arguments from authority" make an effort to educate us.

Quote: Original post by Krokhin
There is no perfection in this world[smile]

Bingo!

Efforts to perfectly rationalize the perfectly irrational are doomed to fail.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
...

The following quote is from "Personal Utilities and Public Judgements: Or What's Wrong With Welfare Economics" by Amartya Sen, The Economic Journal 89, pages 537-558...

Quote:
"... we do not need the full force of transitivity of social preference. Transitivity of social strict preference (but not necessarily of indifference) is enough; this is called quasi-transitivity."

I have very little idea what that means precisely, but it seems to imply that transitivity is not absolutely required for Arrow's theorem to apply. I'm sorry, but the very word economics makes my eyes glaze over, and then I start to drool a bit. I don't get it. :(

Actually... I get it a bit more now: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1998/sen-lecture.pdf

A warning though... Sen and Arrow seem to be buddies, or at least have co-edited a few books together.

[Edited by - taby on September 11, 2010 9:37:30 PM]