.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « … as you noted yourself, humans are not equipped or meant to create justice. Only divine justice is infallible. »
.

What I wrote was : “justice is a moving target and extremely difficult to attain”. That does not mean that it is impossible to attain. We human beings can and often do manage to attain it if we put our minds to it, especially in our dealings with children.

What you call “divine justice” is what I call “whatever happens next, including nothing happening”. I am happy to go along with the idea that “whatever happens next or nothing happening” is “infallible”. It’s infallible because it’s beyond human control. It’s fatalism – whatever will be will be ! Call it “divine justice” if you wish.

I call it fatalism.
.

2. « "government by the people" does not define WHICH people, »
.

In a representative democracy such as Australia, the “people” who govern are the freely elected representatives of the Australian citizens.
.

3. « … this definition still allows any dictator (or elite) to select and link together an arbitrary cohort of people to suit their selfish goals »
.

That’s correct, Yuyutsu. Hitler, Mussolini, Chavez, Maduro, Putin and Mugabe are a few examples. Trump seems to be headed in the same direction.
.

4. « Being told that you must lose what is dearest to you because "the majority" so decided, is no comfort at all when you never agreed to belong or have anything to do with the cohort out of which that majority emerged »
.

I presume you are referring to something that is considered illegal. As you indicate it is something “dearest to you,” you do, of course, have the right, by virtue of Australian democracy, to contest that judgment in a court of law.

Have you done so ?

.

Dear Banjo,

1.
«I call it fatalism.»

But I was not speaking of "whatever happens next": I was speaking of actual divine justice which is a reality, just like gravity, which none of us can avoid. Either way, all that is relevant here is that it's beyond human control.

2.
«In a representative democracy such as Australia, the “people” who govern are the freely elected representatives of the Australian citizens.»

Well not quite, Australia is not truly a democracy, but that was not my main point, which you seemingly missed.

Perhaps an even more brutal and shocking example is required to bring my point across:

Suppose you live next to a lake full of alligators.
Suppose the alligators decide to create a democratic state, Lekgator, then define Lekgator's territory as "the area within 5 kilometres of the lake's shores".
Suppose the alligators declared that all creatures over 1m in length are eligible voting citizens.
Suppose the lake has 1000 alligators and the villages within 5km of the lake have only 300 humans, 100 horses and 200 cows.
Elections take place.
The "Alligators' Trumpet" party wins.
Parliament is convened and legislates that humans should be eaten.
You become alligator food.
- In a perfectly democratic manner.
You had your vote. You lost. You got eaten.

The problem being not the lack of democracy, but that you were never asked whether or not you consent to be part of that state!

Had you only been asked in advance, then you could at least negotiate with the alligators. You could tell them for example: "Look, I am happy to be part of Lekgator, but only if the voting eligibility criteria drop down to those over ½m", in which case your dogs and sheep would also be counted and your life could be saved.

3.
«Hitler, Mussolini, Chavez, Maduro, Putin and Mugabe»

To the best of my knowledge these dictators used brute force rather than the subtler trickery of manipulating the list of eligible voters.

[continued...]

[...continued]

4.
«I presume you are referring to something that is considered illegal.»

Well of course, this is what democracy is all about - to give individuals at least some limited recourse regarding the laws and regulations that restrict their lives.

Yes, states have other functions too, but for ordinary people they fade in importance compared with the effects of criminal law.

In other words, from the individual voter's perspective, democratic elections are primarily not about who and from which party will the next transportation minister be, but about the maximal speed one can drive their car at, over which they will incur a violent response from the state.

«As you indicate it is something “dearest to you,” you do, of course, have the right, by virtue of Australian democracy, to contest that judgment in a court of law.

Have you done so ?»

This is a general discussion about democracy where "You" could be anyone, not Yuyutsu in particular, and not particularly in Australia.

In yesterday's news (just an example so let us not digress into the content), the UK parliament voted to stop criminalising women who abort in their final term of pregnancy: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-18/uk-parliament-votes-to-decriminalise-abortion/105434012

This seemed to be a case where democracy worked and the people's representatives did their job and echoed the sentiments of their voters.

... but it took over 100 years to achieve this little bit of justice.
And let us not forget that at the time of criminalisation of abortion, only men over 21 were eligible to vote, and earlier than that, only men over 21 who owned real-estate property.

That is not good enough.

For some women, not having to carry a baby could be dearest, but no court of law could assist them while the law said otherwise.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « But I was not speaking of "whatever happens next" »
.

Yes, you were, Yuyutsu. Justice is posterior, not anterior, to whatever is to be judged. You were commenting on what I had written as follows :

« What you call “divine justice” is what I call “whatever happens next, including nothing happening”. »
.

2. « I was speaking of actual divine justice, which is a reality, just like gravity, which none of us can avoid »
.

Reality is that which exists independently of ideas concerning it (OED). Whereas divinity is an idea that has never been proven to exist independently of ideas concerning it.

Gravity is evidenced by the physical attraction the earth exercises on everything it contains and supports, including us human beings. It also determines the motion of planets, stars, galaxies, and even light.

Unlike divinity, the reality of gravity is beyond all possible doubt.

And contrary to your claim, we can avoid the Earth’s gravity. Voyager 1 was the first spacecraft to cross the heliosphere, the boundary where the influences from outside our solar system are stronger than those from our Sun.

Elon Musk is planning a trip to Mars in 2026 – well beyond the attraction of Earth’s gravity.
.

3. « Australia is not truly a democracy »
.

Yes, it is, Yuyutsu, but, as we all know, it is not perfect.

Democracy is a human institution and nothing human is perfect. It’s not so much the institution that’s at fault. It’s certain individuals who compose and operate democracy that tend to divert, distort, and denature it from its intended objective of justice.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

4. « The problem being not the lack of democracy, but that you were never asked whether or not you consent to be part of that state! »
.

Applying for Australian citizenship, Yuyutsu, is not just a “consent” to be “part of the state”, it is a specific request to be accepted as “part of the state”. Anybody who does not wish to be part of the state should not seek Australian citizenship.

As you indicated in one of your previous posts that you requested and were granted Australian citizenship, it was you who asked to be “part of the state” — not ”the inverse. The state did not ask you to be part of the state. You did.
.

5. « For some women, not having to carry a baby could be dearest, but no court of law could assist them while the law said otherwise. »
.

The major world religions have taken varied positions on the morality of abortion and capital punishment, and, as such, they have historically impacted the way in which governments handle such practices. Although the viewpoints of some religions have changed over time, their influence on abortion and capital punishment generally depends on the existence of a religious moral code and how closely religion influences the government. Religious moral codes are often based on a body of teachings, such as the Old Testament or the Qur'an.

I understand that classical Hindu texts are strongly opposed to abortion and that traditional Hinduism and many modern Hindus also see abortion as a breach of the duty to produce children in order to continue the family and produce new members of society.

And even though Hinduism has historically not taken a stance on the death penalty and has little influence on the Indian governments opinion of it, it appears that India has the lowest rate of execution of any other country.

.

Dear Banjo,

1-2:
I mentioned divine justice in passing. Actual divine justice which I believe exists and is real no less than the force of gravity. You believe otherwise - but either way that is not the topic.

3:
Yes, Australia has a TECHNICAL democracy, but the convoluted way in which it was implemented ensures that it will not serve the spirit of democracy.

4:
I did so under duress, because otherwise I could be kicked out of my new home and thrown back to where I escaped from.

5:
I wrote in advance that I am not interested in discussing the topic of abortions at this time, that it was only an example.

May I remind you that my original remark to you was:

"Though majority-rule seems nicer than minority-rule, "majority" means nothing when it is the majority of an imposed arbitrary cohort one never freely chose to associate themselves with."

You seem to be a champion in changing the topic.
If you aim for attrition then you won - I have so many other things to do in life.