4 ms·
It is a central part of my personal philosophy, so, for me it's pretty much an axiom. That being said, sure, sometimes you have to explain why you consider som
by pelliphant 6y ago
It is a central part of my personal philosophy, so, for me it's pretty much an axiom.
That being said, sure, sometimes you have to explain why you consider something to be an axiom.
But at the same time, if you where to explain your axioms all the time you wouldn't get very far. So, I guess the question here is: Is it reasonable to assume this axiom in this context?
And I would argue that it is reasonable, otherwise it would be an entierly different text, about a very different subject, and for me personally, it would be a less interesting article.
- Nasrudith 6y agoI can see several logical counter examples of power on a basic level that the thesis isn't consistent or sensible. "Equality" would rely upon too many circumstances to be universal or solveable. Take 7 bigotted against Y of power X each and add an 8th Y person of power X as well. They could be lynched by them trivially. If they had 7X power he could only be matched if the bigots worked in perfect unision to combine. Otherwise he would be the effective leading power. If we are dealing with counterfactual root solutions why not use a hypothetical world where violence is literally impossible? It would be more self consistent and just as possible.