Science Forums 2

[KickAssClown]

I would not confuse Fair with Impartial. They are similar, though that is incidental.

Fairness is the measure of equal probability of players in the game meeting there objective.

Now when I talk about fairness I am generally talking about some kind of fairness in reference to a specific game. In this case we are talking about the games of society, liberty and life. In which fairness of liberty is the measure of the liberty of all players in the game.

If we acknowledge that other countries are players, and that all players deserve liberty then we must acknowledge limitations to procedures we can take to accomplish our own goals that are prohibited by the rules that we ourselves have laid out and expect of ourselves to live.

So I acknowledge several very important rules. One I am a person, and as a person I believe that I am entitled "life, liberty and justice". I would even acknowledge the last part of that "for all"; This arises from the ethic of reciprocity.

If I am a person, and other people are persons also.
as a person I am entitled to life, liberty, and justice
Then they, the people, are likewise entitled to these rights and privillages.

A leader who fails to play by the rules, is a damn dirty cheat. I don't know about but I don't trust a cheater to play any game fair-like. If the leader will cheat while playing games with other people, then the leader is not above cheating even their own people.

Same thing applies to presidentals and CEOs. If they embezzle one way, they are likely to embezzle another. For what truely is the difference between one set of people and another?

I would prefer a leader whom I know, with reasonable certainty, to be a fair player than a leader whom I know, with reasonable certainty, to be a cheater. Just like when picking people for a team to compete one generally picks those who one knows to win games rather those one knows to lose games.