Intergalactic Summit

Liberation involves freedom (Gallente, Minmatar). Conquest involves oppression (fascism, religious autocracy). The fact that you are confused about the difference between freedom and oppression does not surprise me.

In this particular case we are talking about Placid, a region of the Federation.

I was wondering when we would hear from our favorite psychotic sociopath.

He that would trade his autonomy for peace of mind deserves neither.

What in all the ancestors' names would make you think this true, Sir? I trade away my autonomous right to sleep until noon every day for the peace of mind of a secure paycheque. Does this make me unworthy of rest or reward?

Logical fallacy by weak analogy for both of you.

Yes, yes, I surrender a small amount of autonomy when I work a job. I also can leave the job or get fired. Every person that makes a living in capitalist markets experiences this. That is not the same type of autonomy as say being able to vote for what one believes in, to be able to choose one's leaders or whatever one wishes to do for a living, to believe and say and do and love whatever and whoever one wants without being subject to punishment under some Corporate or State bylaw.

Saying that "everybody surrenders some autonomy for some reward" is like saying "everyone has to have faith." Well, I may have faith in the theory of gravity, but that's substantially different from faith in a God. One chooses to enter a contract. Although there is some sense of obligation, it is still an exercise in autonomy; one may violate the contract or abandon it. This is wholly unlike, for example having nanites and cybernetic implants implanted into one's neocortex that synchronize one's brainwaves and subjugate the will so that one obeys every command of Sansha Kuvakei.

Oho, Sir. If you wish to be formal in your descriptions of logical argument, then I shall most happily provide. The security of rigorous definitions provide clear direction and a level playing field.

First, note that I did not posit a position, I asked a question, and illuminated this question with an example. Thus your accusation of fallacy is misplaced, as I had no prepositions from which to draw a conclusion. I was asking for clarification.

Secondly, I notice in your reply that you have not answered my question. Instead you have chosen to expand on your definition of "autonomy" and how it is sacrificied, postulating that some sacrifices perserve autonomy while others do not. This is the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi, the irrelevant conclusion. It is true that some bargains made are irreversible, but it does not answer the question.

I do apologize, though, I was brief and vague in my asking earlier, no doubt leading you down this path. I will try again.

Why do you believe it such that an individual who trades autonomy for peace of mind deserves neither? Why do you feel that the sacrifice of ones' self-direction in order to purchase happiness deserves subjugation and misery?

Why is it that everybody seems to assume that Sansha Kuvakei has nothing better to do than to sit around all day micromanaging every single citizen of his Nation?

Daily life in the ranks of the Nation isn't all that different from daily life in the service of any other major power - and I've worked for most of them, so I should know.

The main differences are that the corridors are cleaner, the crew are never late, drunk or otherwise delinquent in duty, you can walk without a bodyguard without fear of getting kidnapped or mugged, and there's virtually no infighting loyalists inbetween.

I absolutely believe you. I bet that after-work parties have really lively conversation, too.

By "lively," I mean engaging and complex, with a variety of viewpoints and approaches to discussion, replete with witty repartee.

I think you'd be surprised.