Intergalactic Summit

(branched from here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6397869#post6397869)


Lady Liberty? But you have none. You have only your decadent fascist regime with greedy and coward presidents.

We don't have either, but we had Mr. Liberty. His name was Tibus Heth. He has liberated our homeworld from almost two hundred year gallentean occupation 10.07.YC110. And this has become one of greatest national holidays of Caldari people.

Glory to the State!

If freedom is a disease, we must develop the cure! I suggest a mental reconditioning program so we can provide gallentean hedonism immunity to the good citizens of the State!

Obviously this isn't a ploy to mind-control people to join the Guristas, so stop asking questions!

Pretty sure Sansha beat ya to that.

A universal right implies that the granter (the state) will fulfill it at almost any cost regardless of the circumstance. A universal right implies it is inaliable too.

This is not true. Civilisations are built upon an agreement between citizen and state. The citizen pledges to obey the laws and serve the state, whom in turn confers priviledges and a pledge they will do their best to protect the subject. At any time either side can go back on elements of this agreement, and often do (see freedom of speech and the Black Eagles for an example. Infact freedom from unlawful detention goes here too.)

A hypothetical situation:

A pirate group goes on a massive raid. They send a skirmish force to destroy a small colony that's out of the way, and a bigger one to a main trade hub. The defenders choose not to risk spreading themselves too thin, so they choose to protect the larger, and economically more important trade hub. The pirates are beaten back but the colony is killed to a man. They did not choose to sacrifice themselves, so was their so called universal and inalliable right to protection ignored? It was, as they were considered less important. Actions like these have occured many times through history, and rightly so.

There is no Universal and Inalliable Right.

Chaos(*) is not a disease, it is just a condition of things. Unorganized, inefficient, unprofitable. Bloom of criminality, lack of laws, bonds, morals, codes, friendship and love. Something gurista or federals would enjoy.

Probably disease is affinity to chaos, making it a national idea, or even becoming "Chaos fighters". These peoples are just mental.


[[* Translation warning. Napanii word 'vaajpa' can be translated as both 'chaos' and 'freedom']]

Then it sounds more like Rights are wishes and hopes under your explanation. If it can only be enforced so long as it's expedient to do so, then it doesn't sound very Universal to me. I agree there are certain priviledges confered as part of civilisation, but I find calling them Rights to be putting too much of a label on them. I agree they should be upheld where possible, but the fact they can't always be upheld means these are not Rights to me.

I guess we attach different sentiments to the word. Language is a devilish thing.

Putting seriousness aside, Mr Independance sounds like a fantastic addition to a roster of Napanii super heros. Teamed up with his loyal sidekick Ms Efficiency.

The fact there is still that narrow situation where it can be ignored means it cannot be a constant. In science this applies, almost everything is a theory. The theory of thermodynamics, the theory of relativity, evolution and so on. Science is built such that any constant is only assumed within a theory, and is not a be all and end all. If needed it can be scrapped for a new model on how a particular force of nature applies, at any time.

In death, that's an even more debatable subject. There is the feeling we die, and are replaced by copies that just happen to think they're us. Then there's the theory that while our minds and souls remain, our bodies still die, so death is still an element. These again are theories, not universal facts, please disagree at your leisure.

Finally, as for the Sabik there's a big difference. Imperials see the Social Contract of priviledges in exchange for responsibilities and accept it. There is room to advance while exercising guile, power, money or force within the framework of the law, and punishments for those that overstep that line. On the whole, most people accept it, including myself.

The Sabik on the other hand see the Social Contract and spit on it. They believe there is no priviledge in exchange for responsibility, and instead there is only might makes right and naked ambition.

I have no desire to climb to the top of the ladder surrounded by corpses, and I very much accept my duty. That I can criticise aspects of my Empire is because of my position as a Capsuleer, and comes at a cost of responsibility. I cannot overstep my mark, and I espouse changes only that I feel would benefit the whole, not my own individual self. While I won't turn down advancement, I won't be taking it up at a cost of my soul. I will earn my priviledges where I can, not pull them from cold, dead fingers.

At least in civilized society.
Barbarians, savages and primitives often claim otherwise.

If you don't know it yourself, how can you be sure hes lieing? Saying something without a direct citation makes it a lie to you right?