Intergalactic Summit

Cpt. Amith,

The way you speak here about rights implies that they must exist even though not enforced, otherwise rights can never exist at all or it's not meaningful to talk about rights:

I think you see that an enforcer needs to know what to enforce prior to being able to enforce it. Now if your claim is true that rights exist only if someone is able to enforce them, then it follows that rights either would need to be established before they are established, which cannot be as nothing can be before it is, or rights are established by enforcing something, which would mean that everything that is enforced is a right.

So, I think it'd be better to speak about rights as those kind of things that establish that enforcement is in certain cases justifed.

So, if you're on the island with Cpt. Drengist alone with no penal system or government body, the question is not what right would you have that would prevent him from attacking you, murdering you, robbing from you or even eating you, but rather what right do you have that would justify you or anyone else in stopping him from doing so.

P.S.:
Thanks for your kind words, I was busy to respond to your prior post, so I didn't see your response to mine. I think we agree on this:

I think it's distinct from the question if rights are established by enforcement or not, though.

You are arguing something that is fundamentally wrong about the human societies Mr Amith either because you havent been extensively educated on the matter or because you fail to understand human societies throughout their histories.

Humans need organisation and are not by default a blood seeking species. With that said in your example you and I living an island would only turn into becoming bloody if:

1) Either one of us felt threaten from the presence of the other
2) Either one of us had mistreated the other.
However, i dont think that if you put me and you or anyone else in an island an immediate bloodshed will begin. Some kind of organisational system will be given birth because humans inherently work that way, from the caveman to the most sophisticated civilization and society humans have built so far.

What you fail to understand is that the penal system and the government of ANY faction throughout the history of mankind is not there to prevent anyone from doing anything. It is there to punish and even maybe try to discourage someone from doing something that is considered dangerous by the society, but that is that.

What you argue is wrong not because I claim it to be wrong but because human history and psychology proves you wrong. Humans begun as a specie which the only penal system that existed was the survival of the fittest system. Something that holds even for nowadays. However, human history and psychology have extended and went into something much more secure. Why? because inherently humans seek security and the only thing that grants security is the type of government and penal system that the Gallenteans and the Republic holds nowadays.

In other words Mr Amith, inherently humans did seek out for these rights, and you have no proof for otherwise.

A person in the Empire is always in the mercy of the Holder, the Theology Council, the Emperor and so forth. Equally a person in the State is at the mercy of what the board of the corporation he/she is into will think of the work that that person has given. If it is good enough to help the State and the corporation or not.

In the Federation and the Republic there is simply more leniency and leniency grants more security by default.

So my question still stands....



Can you argue otherwise?

And allow me to add that if you truly can argue otherwise then you are arguing against not only the Federation and the Republic but against the Empire and the State as well.

I apologize on not seeing the clarification made by you, i didnt mean to ''attack'' you in that one since i havent seen it . I hope you ll accept my apologies.

However, my question still hasnt been answered Mr Amith. Can you argue otherwise that the Gallente ideal set of rights to humanity are not the ideal of rights in general to humans?

Mr Amith

You are proving my point right there. Leniency gives the security to people to become more free. Take the antithesis of leniency and try to be free, to experiment, to try new stuff. From your daily small things to corporate and research levels. You will never be free if you dont have leniency, what you can argue is how much leniency one can have, but the levels of leniency is something that the Federation has never been against to. There are some companies within the Federation that are more liberals that the word liberal is not enough, and there are companies within the Federation that are more strict than some within the State.

If i the government, parent or whatever else am not lenient in the first place to secure your freedom to try new stuff then freedom will never come, will it?

And my question still stands Mr Amith

Ms Mithra, I thank you for your response to my question but i think that :

1) You cant argue otherwise
2) You are missing the point of the Federation as an entity.

The Federation as an entity is not one where it says that their rights and their way of doing things should and must (double emphasis on purpose) be taken from other factions no matter what.

What the Federation is saying is that humans throughout the universe as much as they want to prove otherwise belong within the Federation because the Federation is appealing to the element of security(security as in security to express oneself and his/her beliefs) within the universe.

With other words the Federation is claiming that inevitably the people of the universe and the faction inside the universe will end up to be like the Federation. And the proof for that is the ongoing number of immigrants that the Federation receives daily, weekly, monthly however you wish to measure it. The Federation when it comes to matters of expressing individualism and beliefs is the most secure without a counterargument to be made and that is not only something that appeals the basic human instinct, its something that everybody does it daily.

I believe that the reason why you justify my question as a hard one Ms Mithra is because the answer to my question is '' No '' You cant argue otherwise.

The small truth that Ms Jenneth and most people against the Federation are missing is that these universal rights they are speaking about are indeed universal rights. They exist from the corners of the Empire to the corners of the State. Every person within this Universe will exercise the rights that the Federation claims, even if the exercise is long enough or short enough and they are getting oppressed more and more while people live outside the Federation, and if you argue otherwise then you argue against human nature itself.

That is the argument of the Federation and the small truth about the Federation. Not that the rights are a lie as Ms Jenneth claims to be.

I apologize beforehand to Ms Jenneth if she feels i have ''ruined'' her post, i will gladly take my responses away from this IGS post if she asks me to. I am simply expressing my opinion on the matter she published publicly.

Calling your bluff here, Drengist. The Federation has in the past, and continues to, hold other governments and nations accountable to its own ideals and attempted to conquer through cultural warfare to force others to comply with their ideal of human rights and freedoms.

Since you seem to enjoy arguing history, I'd suggest you read up on the history of the Caldari and Gallente hostilities. For a more recent example, look up the Intaki people and their conflict with the Federation. The Federation is every bit as expansionist as the Amarr Empire, they're just less honest about it.



They can claim that everyone will end up like the Federation all they want, it's a false claim. The Caldari State exists solely because we chose to separate ourselves from the establishment of the Federation and we will continue to do so. You're very vocal about what everyone wants and everyone seeks, it's a trait you and the Gallente share. Stop telling us what we want, if you're so big on freedom then let us be free to be different from you. The fact of the matter is that not everyone wants the same governance and expectations the Federation holds to and we won't all end up like the Federation.



You believe they are universal rights because you've accepted them. The Federation itself doesn't even practice and uphold the rights it claims to espouse, I point you again to the Caldari/Gallente conflict, the Intaki Separatist movement and more recently the attacks on individual rights and freedoms in Vlillirier by Federal agencies and corporations. The fact is that humans have the universal right to life. Limited freedoms and governmental control exist to protect that right but taking that right to the extreme and claiming absolute freedom is the ideal structure for all of humanity is not only a fallacy, it's a lie. It's anarchy in its infant stage and, at some point, all freedom must be limited in order to maintain security and stability while guaranteeing the human universal right to life.


I'm sure you'll argue against me because you feel you must but frankly I've stopped listening to you. You are espousing the same things that Gallente politicians have espoused for generations and people are still resisting them and will continue to do so because we choose to.

First, she classified them as both a truth and a lie. You will also notice she gave very specific reasons as to why they exist as both simultaneously - the latter part (them being a lie) is because of the politics behind them and how the Gallente have structured their society because of it.

Second, of course I'm arguing politics, so have you been this entire time. Why? Because the Gallente Federation's politics are built around this idea of universal human rights that you are espousing and because the point you are arguing against is a political point. The emphasis of her point that you need to focus on is the words "to them." The reference to the political structure of the Gallente Federation that wraps around their understanding and implementation of these universal human rights.



I never said you did, lad. I said that you've made broad statements regarding what humans desire and how we inherently behave, which you have.



I didn't state that I don't care, I stated that I've ceased listening to you. It's a natural reaction when someone responds to arguments by repeating the same things over and over again and then stating after every opposing thought that no argument has been presented and so their argument still stands.

Mithra was showing you significant respect by engaging your question thoroughly and carefully and you responded by telling her that it was difficult to respond to because she can't argue against it, then told her that she was wrong because she misunderstood the Federation entirely. I responded by showing you that your assessment of the Federation is historically wrong. The Federation does, in fact, conquer and expand; it does, in fact, limit freedoms and rights in the name of politics and power and it does, in fact, impress its own ideals upon others.

The reason I stated that I had no interest in arguing with you is because you're not presenting an argument. You're stating that it's truth simply because it's truth and that no one can argue against it because it's truth. It's circular and I learned a long time ago not to argue with circular reasoning because a circle, by definition, has no destination and no end.

The only thing even remotely similar to an argument that you've presented is the innate human need for structure and stability, which is not a matter of rights, but a matter of security and not security as you define it (because security is not found in freedom, security is found in stability and structure), but security in the truest since. You are espousing anarchy by trying to point to the human need for freedom and calling it security, it's an "argument" that I've no interest in engaging beyond what I have already done so. It's also already been engaged by at least three different angles already, each of which you discounted as being irrelevant or argued around by simply taking a different angle to your original argument.

Ah, pilots. I wander off for 24 hours, and....

A lot has been written, some of which I agree with, mostly, some of which I don't. Rather than trying to respond in detail to what has already been said, I hope you will forgive me for starting anew.



Easily.

Let's be clear about this, pilot: I can't prove that you don't have any inherent rights, any more than I can disprove the existence of Mr. Amith's god (the core "small truth" of the Amarr). Disproof of either is out of reach, for identical reasons: they're matters of faith. However, as a cheerful heathen, I can and do disbelieve in and argue against both.

What you seem to recognize in the human species (which I will recognize as nearly inherent) is a certain set of moral sensibilities. Humans in general are well-designed for getting along in a small to mid-sized group, about the size (not coincidentally) of a modest village. That is not the same thing as "rights," however.

A "right" is a boundary with respect to one person or entity that other people or entities will not cross (or, alternatively, must cross). Some rights are negative (the right not to be killed without cause); others are affirmative (the right to receive payment for services rendered). Either can be defined as the other; I just note this here to avoid semantic arguments. It's not something you have when you're alone (unlike breathing)-- it is something that is given to you by others. This can be given as part of a system of law or custom, but at the basic level it could come out of an implied social contract.

I liked your island. Let's start there. However, dropping groups there introduces complex dynamics from the start; let's simplify.

Let's posit a few things about this island. To start with, it is in a truly remote place, where rescue within the foreseeable future is improbable. It is capable of sustaining life (human and otherwise) indefinitely. The atmosphere, of course, is breathable.

For a start, let's posit that you are there alone. What rights do you have? None: there's no one else there to decide that you have any. Likewise, there's no one there for you to apply rights to, unless you want to start applying your morals to decide that such-and-such a tree, which kindly shaded you on your first day, shall henceforth be exempt from being chopped for firewood.

Next, let's say that you lucklessly land there with Rui Shi, my slaver dog. What rights do you have? None: Rui Shi doesn't know you, he doesn't like you, and you are chewy on the outside and crunchy in the middle. You have no rights, including, certainly, the basic right not to be dropped on from a tree and eaten.

Now, let's say that I am the one who lands there with Rui Shi. Since my pet and I have a long-standing acquaintance and a solid dominance structure, Rui Shi grants me rights: I not only have the right not to be eaten, but also the right not to be disobeyed. Rui Shi also has rights, involving praise, provision of skritchies, and such, as well as the right of freedom from undeserved punishment. I grant these rights because I want him to keep granting me mine. If food runs short, those rights may be open to renegotiation on either side.

Switching over to a human basis: supposing you land on this island with a psychopath. This person, though human (and breathing), has no more regard for you than Rui Shi does. He grants you no rights at all, although, treacherously, you might assume otherwise. You might think he has granted you rights not to be sexually attacked or not to be murdered in your sleep, but you would be direly mistaken: in practice, he has granted no such right and will do precisely as he pleases.

So: now we come to it. Let's say that you and I are the ones who land on this island. In the base case, you're probably right that immediate violence is unlikely. If that's true, our first meeting will likely be cautious, each of us trying to get a read on the other and tacitly granting each other rights.

"Okay, he's making no sudden moves; I guess I won't kill him unless he attacks me. He seems trustworthy enough; I guess I won't steal his medical suppies." That sort of thing.

Our common Caldari background will help; each of us is apt to assume that the other is playing from a "Caldari" cultural base and grant such rights as "right not to have merit ignored," to be extended to "right to claim leadership if demonstrated to be more capable in present circumstances" at the appropriate time. Explicit rules ("laws" in a community of two) might follow. Similarly, we might fall into certain habits, which might grant "rights," as well-- I might have the "right" to expect you to gather certain nuts, since you always gather them.

Until I really get to know you, I'm likely to sleep in a tree, just to be on the safe side, but we've at least tentatively formed a community.

All good, right?

Now, let's say that I noticed upon landing that the island has only resources to support one person. I knew this before I saw you. What happens next depends on which is stronger: my moral sensibilities or my instinct for survival. I might decide to grant you a right to live, and sacrifice myself in recognition of that right, especially if I were crippled, elderly, desperately depressed, etc..

In all likelihood, however, one of the most basic rights, your right not to be murdered in your sleep, is one I will never have granted you, though if you become aware of my presence I might lead you to believe otherwise: we're back in psychopath-ville, only without the psychopath.

[cont'd]

Miss Jenneth,

It would appear I partially understood the message you were portraying but I must beg forgiveness for presuming to speak for you, for I did not grasp it entirely.

I would prefer to issue a minor correction to one of your statements, however.



This is not entirely accurate. No one may be brought into the Kingdom of God involuntarily, only those whom choose to become a part of the Kingdom of God are brought into it. What the Amarr seek to do is to bring each people, each person, to a position where they are faced with the reality of God and can be shown the righteousness demanded of them. Sadly, to do this often requires that a people's resistance and defiance be broken first (what has been called here "invasion") because a people will resist the message that they are beholden to a supreme being as it infringes upon many of our natural viewpoints of self. (That we are dominant creatures responsible for our own fate and destiny, for example).

There have been examples of people that have not resisted the message presented to them and so they were, in effect, not conquered but simply absorbed into the Amarr Empire to become part of those living toward God's righteousness. We do not and cannot bring someone involuntarily into the Kingdom of God, we may only bring them involuntarily to the threshing floor.

Khross-haan:

No apology needed, sir. Really. My observations are apolitical to the degree that they are descriptive rather than prescriptive. They are political to the degree that those who swallow a small truth whole (and are consequently ill-prepared to pull it out and watch it wiggle) are virtually guaranteed to hate them.

It's not a partisan attack, exactly, but that doesn't mean I lack an agenda.

Everything is political in some way.


Mr. Amith:

Thank you for the clarification. I hope you can understand how we heathen might have to squint a bit to see the difference.


Ms. Scherezad:

Succinctly and accurately summarized. Thank you.


Ms. Mithra, Ikiryo-haani:

Ah ... yes. Pator. Well, let me think.

All right. Engaging in wild speculation.... (If anyone knows someone in the history department at the University of Caille, I'd appreciate a referral; they don't seem to want to talk to me for some reason.) My guess is that the Gallente (perhaps due to the somewhat more limited resources you mentioned, Ms. Mithra) have historically been harder on each other than the Matari.

When the Gallente first made contact with the Caldari, it didn't take them long to figure out what the Caldari were in relation to themselves: backward. To this day, Gallentean propaganda plays off the image of the Caldari as savages. The first major "mission" of the Gallente to Caldari Prime was by a organization called the "CDS."

That's "Cultural Deliverance Society."

It arrived on Caldari Prime 114 years after first contact. I should maybe give them credit for taking them over a hundred years to get around to proactively trying to save the Caldari from themselves on a large scale, but there may have been other reasons for that.

Please note that I'm not saying it didn't do a pile of good, but the Gallentean attitude was pretty clear from the get-go. They knew the Caldari needed to be "delivered," and what they needed "delivering" from was not technological (though that was no doubt part of it), but cultural.

A people usually develops a powerful aversion to something, such as, say, heavy-duty hierachy, only after trying it, and trying it a lot. So, I'm taking back the bit about not having to fear your fellow humans very much.

Supposing you're a feudal lord or similar autocrat on pre-spaceflight Gallente Prime. You've got plenty of manpower, and resources enough to feed them reasonably, but your neighbor's got that iron mine, and, ah, it would be so very nice to have something like that. All that extra land would be nice, too....

And riches, and titles, and ooo his wife's cute. If only something would happen to her husband.

He's got stuff you want. You've got manpower. Manpower is a renewable resource, and you've got more than you need to tend the fields. Reason not to expend some of your population: negligible. Now you just need to persuade those stinking peasants to fight like they mean it....

Spend a few hundred years with the aristocracy, by turns, taking the peasants for granted and talking them into slaughtering the neighbors (and being slaughtered) on pretenses ranging across the full spectrum of ethnic, religious, linguistic (it's easier to hate someone you can't talk to), cultural, and geographical rivalries, and somebody's going to figure out that the "real" problem is an entrenched, entitled, and decadent aristocracy. Presumably what follows is a few hundred years of experimenting with plutocracies, dictatorships, and so on (and finding that they mostly suffer from just the same problems as the old aristocracy), maybe even a couple aristocratic resurgences, before concluding that any system that keeps subdividing you into groups and establishing rigid hierarchies just leads to trouble. Anarchy's happened in a few places, and it just busts out murderous autocrats all over the place, so the obvious solution is to dignify the individual and let those individuals select temporary leaders.

Having come up with something that actually works for them, the Gallente are naturally very pleased with their enlightenment and most likely struck with pity upon encountering another civilization that's not been so fortunate as to have worked out that the individual is king and rigid hierarchies are just a bad idea. Sadly, said poor backward souls are so lost that they just can't accept the obvious....

Bing. The Gallente as we know them.

To restate the obvious: this is an extremely rough sketch, and through a pair of Achur (hence hierarchy-loving, hence critical) eyes. Still: does that sound about right?

Meanwhile, the Matari tribal leaders, blessed with seriously abundant resources, more or less content themselves with keeping the peace. As far as I can tell, the primary modification that the Matari made to their own system of government, even after the Amarr, was, "Don't leave the leading to the Nefantar."

(Well-- that and a period of experimenting with democracy. It doesn't seem to have taken, though I might misunderstand.)

This may, of course, have something to do with how much was lost during a thousand years of Amarrian occupation. It might be hard to know what's really the same.