Might = Right

[pjdude1219]

You seem to think that "might" necessarily means armed conflict or military war. No, it's not. "Might" could very well be a large, orderly group of protestors who intimidate the leader or leaders into changing some policy. The leader could very well kill all the protestors, but he can easily see that giving in to a few demands might be far more advantageous than mass murder.

Gandhi used "might" to help India gain independence from Britian. "Might" in the form of millions of "peaceful" marchers and supporters.

Baron Max

a populist movement is hardly the use of might. that is people coming behind a stance based on philosophy and law. Might is the uses of force or the threat of force.

 

[WillNever]

I tend to follow Ralph Waldo Emerson's approach myself. That distilled down, the meaning of good or bad is helping people or hurting people.

 

[Baron Max]

a populist movement is hardly the use of might. that is people coming behind a stance based on philosophy and law. Might is the uses of force or the threat of force.

A large number of citizens could easily disrupt the economy of an entire nation in just a few days. That's far more powerful than a few guns and bombs.

Have you never heard of a mob? Is that a threat?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

I tend to follow Ralph Waldo Emerson's approach myself. That distilled down, the meaning of good or bad is helping people or hurting people.

So murderers and vicious rapists have the same value to you as regular, ordinary, law-abiding citizens?

"...helping people or hurting people" .......how 'bout people who do neither of those deeds?

Idealisms are always easy to state or claim, but they're virtually impossible to actually live by in modern society. You can keep making the claim, but you can never convince many people that it's realistic. Of course, that's why they call them "ideals", ain't it.

Baron Max

 

[WillNever]

So murderers and vicious rapists have the same value to you as regular, ordinary, law-abiding citizens?

Where was that stated?

 

[Baron Max]

Where was that stated?

Ahh, so you have a value system for humans????? So now how does your "killing ideal" work in the real world?

If we take your ideal, then there can't be a different value placed on humans ....they must all be of equal value. Else it allows for a variation in degree of killing.

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

Ahh, so you have a value system for humans????? So now how does your "killing ideal" work in the real world?

It's an interesting question, Max, but whence comes it?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

You seem to think that "might" necessarily means armed conflict or military war. No, it's not. "Might" could very well be a large, orderly group of protestors who intimidate the leader or leaders into changing some policy. The leader could very well kill all the protestors, but he can easily see that giving in to a few demands might be far more advantageous than mass murder.

Baron Max

Hmm. True. Like the Velvet Revolution.

 

[quadraphonics]

a populist movement is hardly the use of might.

Sure it is. Any "movement" worthy of the name wields power.

that is people coming behind a stance based on philosophy and law.

Or not. The only requirement of populism is that it places the needs of a (fictional, idealized) common person over the preferences of a (fictional, villified) "elite." This has frequently happened lawlessly - in response to and in rejection of laws, in fact - and also without much philosophical consideration. As you'd expect from a political technique works by telling high school drop-outs that they know as well as the ivory-tower eggheads.

Might is the uses of force or the threat of force.

Yes. And how is it that populist movements do not posses might again?