Post by angrypuppy on Mar 2, 2009 11:48:34 GMT -5
1. I'm sure you see the problems with Gawd as our guide. Gawd speaks in ways that none of us understand and considering the number of religions it quickly becomes impossible to settle on one church - we have so many. If 'I' claim a moral authority it is the golden rule as known and understood by 20th century American and Enlightenment thought. We surely don't want a golden rule of primitive savages. And while morality has a nice sound to it, it is law in the end that constitutes our moral world and behavior. On the practical side most crooks consider themselves moral so we need a set of rules to check that out. So we are still stuck with government informed by culture and law. I doubt you would like Iran.
2. 'Natural Law recognizes private property,' it does? How?
Again you rely on a religious framework and there is nothing wrong with that but I still don't see a natural law unless the right to life is one and that gets complicated as we kill much life just to live. Since you quote Jefferson let me quote him too. "... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."* So you see even Jefferson sounds like a 20th century liberal when it comes to property. Curiously, even Adam Smith, much used by libertarian to excuse greed, thinks in similar fashion. "What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."** So we'll just disagree on this one.
PS Jefferson's 'natural right' is a right for everyone, a rather hard proposition don't you think.
* Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison 1785
** The Wealth of Nations, Book I Chapter VIII
1. I'm sure you see the problems with Gawd as our guide. Gawd speaks in ways that none of us understand and considering the number of religions it quickly becomes impossible to settle on one church - we have so many.
I Truly don't. I celebrate vision, discovery, and invention. Purpose may be implemented through legislation or decree, yet it's birth is individual. Part of individual Purpose is to decipher and seek the higher path. That Enlightenment or Communion state is a life time journey, Midcan. It has nothing to do with measuring others and comparing. It has everything to do with improving motive and intent through conscience, Sincerity of Heart. There are things about you and I that exist inside and outside of society. Do you remember what Thoreau said about the best government being no government, yet because we are not perfect, and sometimes act without thinking or conscience, we need it. We need infrastructure to contain and help with damage control, while we develop. The birth of government by consent, though short lived, touched on something very new to mankind.
I distinguish between, God the Creator, man, society, and government, you do not. I am not telling you what to call God, or how to pray. I am suggesting that as an individual, unique in being, you seek god out in sincerity, even cause and effect, even consequence teach, and develop us as individuals, and as a society. Natural Law is. How we interpret it, does not change it.
If 'I' claim a moral authority it is the golden rule as known and understood by 20th century American and Enlightenment thought. We surely don't want a golden rule of primitive savages. And while morality has a nice sound to it, it is law in the end that constitutes our moral world and behavior. On the practical side most crooks consider themselves moral so we need a set of rules to check that out. So we are still stuck with government informed by culture and law. I doubt you would like Iran.
There are times I prefer the primitive ways. Lets not confuse pompous and arrogant with enlightened. Show me where the privileged class or exemption does not exist. Distinguish between blind Justice and Impartiality in Justice. Take a sneak peak at Universal Law, consider that each application being unique to circumstance would share similar and dissimilar characteristics with another. One size does not fit all. In each case, the remedy, being unique to circumstance, would need to be tailored to address each individual factor related to circumstance, to remain true and just. Though it makes sense to compare and consider from experience, it should not be limited. The Purpose being, Remedy, failure to address a single relevant factor, may result in a minor to an extreme disservice. The birth of Tyranny results when procedure, form, infrastructure, are elevated above the Principle they serve. We are human, not perfect, and neither are our laws. That it why we need to be vigilant in our ability to recognize and adapt.
I have some fond memories of some Iranian friends I had back in 79 & 80, down in Charlotte NC. I shared an apartment with two of them. Remember Carter and the hostage crisis. That was a hard time. My only problems with Iran, or Islam, are the Jihad, the refusal to recognize Inalienable Right, and Slavery, people are not property.
2. 'Natural Law recognizes private property,' it does? How?
Again you rely on a religious framework and there is nothing wrong with that but I still don't see a natural law unless the right to life is one and that gets complicated as we kill much life just to live. Since you quote Jefferson let me quote him too. "... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right."* So you see even Jefferson sounds like a 20th century liberal when it comes to property. Curiously, even Adam Smith, much used by libertarian to excuse greed, thinks in similar fashion. "What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."** So we'll just disagree on this one.
PS Jefferson's 'natural right' is a right for everyone, a rather hard proposition don't you think.
What I rely on is Individual Perception, and Conscience. I sense God's presence and seek harmony with it. I have learned through cause and effect, through consequence, through conscience, even through guilt, as have you. The only religious thing I suggest to you is your own being is the core from which to seek the Creator, not other peoples journeys. The foundation is within your own being, not society's, not Government's, which are non beings.
Madison and Jefferson accomplished great things for this Nation. They both fought against Tyranny and warned against it with everything they had. Study the Alien and Sedition Acts, and Hamilton's involvement. Study Jefferson's part in the Kentucky Resolution, and Madison's part in the Virginia Resolution. They risked it all in defense of our liberty.
What is natural Law in relation to private property? what is it to attempt to take a fresh kill from a hungry lion or bear? What is individual and joint or collective reaction to injustice? What is crime?
I do believe in eminent domain. I do believe that it must be justified, and fairly compensated, that would include pain and suffering in extreme cases. The effected should be no less off as a result.
