Mightysword wrote: ↑Wed, 19. Dec 18, 18:02
Sure, but the examples you're offering are so simple they are pretty much irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It's similar to how knowledge taught in the classroom used to be (and probably still are in some place) useless for real jobs. Not because what are taught is wrong, but because they often lack the "realistic" context. Anyone can come up with a idealistic theory using "common" sense, the problem is it's not like reality lack common sense, it's just often not ideal.
Basic founding principles of an organization are always "simple." "Mission Statements" are always "simple." Targeted goals that lead more complex processes to reach them are always "simple."
The ambiguities found in needlessly complex basic principles are undesirable... "Basic Principles" are supposed to be "basic."
And like I said, why does it have to be that extreme? Is it Tyranny because it is tyranny, or is it because you just want to slap that label on it? Studying, most kids don't like to do it. A kid got grounded by the parents for not studying can scream "MY PARENTS ARE TYRANTS!!!", to other adults, we just call it "parenting".
A "Tyrant" does not have to be "bad." You're not understanding the practical, functional, definition of "tyrant" : "A tyrant (Greek τύραννος, tyrannos), in the modern English-language usage of the word, is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or person..."
Wiki-Tyrant
These days, people refer to neutral or even good "tyrants" as "Benevolent Dictators." I think that's just to avoid the negative stigma of the word "tyrant." I prefer the neutral, mechanical, definition.
Again, this kind of example is so far out there that I can't find a way to address them in a way that will add something meaningful to the discussion. Here is some suggestion for more relatable examples in this context:
I don't see how these are "more relatable." The point is that if you establish a set of basic principles and guidelines for the formation of all future "law," you have a clearly defined way to measure the legitimacy of all future law creation. And, if that is true, anything the organization decides to do must be measured against a set of already established principles that are not easily subject to being redefined, changed, or argued about.
If there are a clear set of principles that all members agree to for the E.U. (which there are) then there shouldn't be any problems in how these are interpreted, right?
But, if one starts mucking about with "special circumstances" one is going to start introducing exceptions that can be argued as illegitimate based upon those principles.
..Like I said, welcome to reality.
Yeah... But, where do I get off if I don't like the ride?
BugMeister wrote: ↑Wed, 19. Dec 18, 18:04
Morkonan wrote: ↑Wed, 19. Dec 18, 15:27
For instance, people don't like it when they feel they're giving up something so that someone besides themselves will see benefits.
- could you possibly be more uncharitable..??
Not sure what your use of "uncharitable" means, here. But, I will attempt to fulfill your request:
"People are jerks."