Originally posted by no1marauderYou say Natural Law predated the Declaration of Independence. Ok, I can grant you that. But the argument in the DOI was that the government of England did not respect of enforce that law, so it had to be cast off.
The explanation in the DOI is sufficient. You will note that it explains why governments are formed, it does not suggest or imply that Rights do not exist prior to their formation. In fact, it says exactly the opposite.
Tyrannies fall. This is inevitable due to our Nature and it does not matter what those in power think.
Sure those in power, may not repeal Natural Law, but if they fail to abide by it, or pass and enforce laws which flaunt that Natural Law, the natural law is ineffective at least until that tyranny falls, as you put it. In short, natural law is hostage to the actions of men.
Originally posted by no1marauderDespite the loveable, flowery rhetoric, the great majority of earth's population has lived under governments with not conception of natural law, and little regard for the rights it implies. Why?
From Tom Paine:
Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and ...[text shortened]... ommon consent of society, without government.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-01.htm
Originally posted by normbenignLaws regulate the action of men. Yes, they may violate them but so what? Your argument proves nothing except that men must enforce the Natural Law as they must enforce ANY law. No s**t, Sherlock.
You say Natural Law predated the Declaration of Independence. Ok, I can grant you that. But the argument in the DOI was that the government of England did not respect of enforce that law, so it had to be cast off.
Sure those in power, may not repeal Natural Law, but if they fail to abide by it, or pass and enforce laws which flaunt that Natural Law, ...[text shortened]... until that tyranny falls, as you put it. In short, natural law is hostage to the actions of men.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignPaine and the other Founders explained all this more than two centuries ago:
Despite the loveable, flowery rhetoric, the great majority of earth's population has lived under governments with not conception of natural law, and little regard for the rights it implies. Why?
It is impossible that such governments as have hitherto existed in the world, could have commenced by any other means than a total violation of every principle sacred and moral. The obscurity in which the origin of all the present old governments is buried, implies the iniquity and disgrace with which they began. The origin of the present government of America and France will ever be remembered, because it is honourable to record it; but with respect to the rest, even Flattery has consigned them to the tomb of time, without an inscription.
It could have been no difficult thing in the early and solitary ages of the world, while the chief employment of men was that of attending flocks and herds, for a banditti of ruffians to overrun a country, and lay it under contributions. Their power being thus established, the chief of the band contrived to lose the name of Robber in that of Monarch; and hence the origin of Monarchy and Kings.
The origin of the Government of England, so far as relates to what is called its line of monarchy, being one of the latest, is perhaps the best recorded. The hatred which the Norman invasion and tyranny begat, must have been deeply rooted in the nation, to have outlived the contrivance to obliterate it. Though not a courtier will talk of the curfew-bell, not a village in England has forgotten it.
Those bands of robbers having parcelled out the world, and divided it into dominions, began, as is naturally the case, to quarrel with each other. What at first was obtained by violence was considered by others as lawful to be taken, and a second plunderer succeeded the first. They alternately invaded the dominions which each had assigned to himself, and the brutality with which they treated each other explains the original character of monarchy. It was ruffian torturing ruffian. The conqueror considered the conquered, not as his prisoner, but his property. He led him in triumph rattling in chains, and doomed him, at pleasure, to slavery or death. As time obliterated the history of their beginning, their successors assumed new appearances, to cut off the entail of their disgrace, but their principles and objects remained the same. What at first was plunder, assumed the softer name of revenue; and the power originally usurped, they affected to inherit.
From such beginning of governments, what could be expected but a continued system of war and extortion? It has established itself into a trade. The vice is not peculiar to one more than to another, but is the common principle of all. There does not exist within such governments sufficient stamina whereon to engraft reformation; and the shortest and most effectual remedy is to begin anew on the ground of the nation.
What scenes of horror, what perfection of iniquity, present themselves in contemplating the character and reviewing the history of such governments! If we would delineate human nature with a baseness of heart and hypocrisy of countenance that reflection would shudder at and humanity disown, it is kings, courts and cabinets that must sit for the portrait. Man, naturally as he is, with all his faults about him, is not up to the character.
Can we possibly suppose that if governments had originated in a right principle, and had not an interest in pursuing a wrong one, the world could have been in the wretched and quarrelsome condition we have seen it? What inducement has the farmer, while following the plough, to lay aside his peaceful pursuit, and go to war with the farmer of another country? or what inducement has the manufacturer? What is dominion to them, or to any class of men in a nation? Does it add an acre to any man's estate, or raise its value? Are not conquest and defeat each of the same price, and taxes the never-failing consequence? — Though this reasoning may be good to a nation, it is not so to a government. War is the Pharo-table of governments, and nations the dupes of the game.
If there is anything to wonder at in this miserable scene of governments more than might be expected, it is the progress which the peaceful arts of agriculture, manufacture and commerce have made beneath such a long accumulating load of discouragement and oppression. It serves to show that instinct in animals does not act with stronger impulse than the principles of society and civilisation operate in man. Under all discouragements, he pursues his object, and yields to nothing but impossibilities.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-02.htm
Perhaps if you weren't wasting your time reading anti-social flakes like Rand, economic cranks like Von Mises and authoritarian nuts like Hoppe you'd have some knowledge of their timeless insights.
More Paine:
Nothing can appear more contradictory than the principles on which the old governments began, and the condition to which society, civilisation and commerce are capable of carrying mankind. Government, on the old system, is an assumption of power, for the aggrandisement of itself; on the new, a delegation of power for the common benefit of society.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though it might be proved that the system of government now called the NEW, is the most ancient in principle of all that have existed, being founded on the original, inherent Rights of Man: yet, as tyranny and the sword have suspended the exercise of those rights for many centuries past, it serves better the purpose of distinction to call it the new, than to claim the right of calling it the old.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-03.htm
Paine, of course, did not have detailed knowledge of our prior existence in egalitarian societies but his was more correct than even he knew.
Originally posted by no1marauderWell you've up to right now been oblivious to that argument. Unenforced laws are no laws at all.
Laws regulate the action of men. Yes, they may violate them but so what? Your argument proves nothing except that men must enforce the Natural Law as they must enforce ANY law. No s**t, Sherlock.
Do you think anyone would obey speed limit laws, if not for the danger of being ticketed by police? People tend to respect so called natural laws, but without proper government, all law is ineffective. You are the great fan of government control, and I have to convince you of this?
Originally posted by no1marauderI've read Paine and Locke. I don't share your conclusions on their writings. How do you propose returning to this idyllic "natural state"? Would it be better if we could just pitch a tent anywhere, and toss our crap out the window? Would a hunter/gatherer society even be manageable, or would the majority be better off? Surely your statist tendencies would not allow such a thing to happen.
Paine and the other Founders explained all this more than two centuries ago:
It is impossible that such governments as have hitherto existed in the world, could have commenced by any other means than a total violation of every principle sacred and moral. The obscurity in which the origin of all the present old governments is buried, implies the iniqui ...[text shortened]... on Mises and authoritarian nuts like Hoppe you'd have some knowledge of their timeless insights.
As someone recently pointed out subsistence used to mean barely having enough to eat and some poor form of shelter. Now it's doing without an I phone.
Originally posted by normbenignNo, I do not agree that "unenforced laws are no laws at all".
Well you've up to right now been oblivious to that argument. Unenforced laws are no laws at all.
Do you think anyone would obey speed limit laws, if not for the danger of being ticketed by police? People tend to respect so called natural laws, but without proper government, all law is ineffective. You are the great fan of government control, and I have to convince you of this?
No, I do not agree that no one would obey speed limits if not ticketed by the police.
You are sadly mistaken if you think I'm a "great fan of government control" though I prefer the "control" of a democratically selected government to an non-elected hierarchical elite in areas where government control is appropriate. You seem to prefer Herr Hoppe's vision of a society controlled by our "betters" which holds the common people in contempt and disdains democratic principles.
Originally posted by normbenignI don't propose returning to the Natural State.
I've read Paine and Locke. I don't share your conclusions on their writings. How do you propose returning to this idyllic "natural state"? Would it be better if we could just pitch a tent anywhere, and toss our crap out the window? Would a hunter/gatherer society even be manageable, or would the majority be better off? Surely your statist tendencies wo ...[text shortened]... n barely having enough to eat and some poor form of shelter. Now it's doing without an I phone.
I propose remaking our society to fit those principles which are part of our Nature i.e. along egalitarian, non-hierarchical, democratic lines while also protecting our Natural Rights.
There remain high levels of want and poverty in this society despite glib comments to the contrary. This would be even more so if your political and economic philosophy was put into place.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou do favor government controls over people who have combined labor with land to produce value added goods. You favor government making decisions over buyers and sellers doing so without coercion.
No, I do not agree that "unenforced laws are no laws at all".
No, I do not agree that no one would obey speed limits if not ticketed by the police.
You are sadly mistaken if you think I'm a "great fan of government control" though I prefer the "control" of a democratically selected government to an non-elected hierarchical elite in areas where gov ...[text shortened]... d by our "betters" which holds the common people in contempt and disdains democratic principles.
Mr. Hoppe actually agrees with Murray Rothbard and improves on Mises regard for so called "public goods". He sees no need for government to operate any monopoly production, not even of security. Where do you get the notion of disdain of common people? I bet you've not read a page of Hoppe's writing, of can't understand it. You prefer the incomprehensible, contradictory ramblings of Stiglitz. Democracy itself, disregards common people, at least the up to 49% minority of them.
Originally posted by no1marauderIf the "natural state" is real and proper, then we ought to return to it, or at least as close as possible.
I don't propose returning to the Natural State.
I propose remaking our society to fit those principles which are part of our Nature i.e. along egalitarian, non-hierarchical, democratic lines while also protecting our Natural Rights.
There remain high levels of want and poverty in this society despite glib comments to the contrary. This would be even more so if your political and economic philosophy was put into place.
Remaking our society? How does that happen, except by coercion and government force? Democratic voting doesn't assure any of those goals, or even respect for so called "natural rights". It simply means the strongest and most numerous gang wins. Egalitarian would mean that my income and yours would be the same despite the fact that you spent a good many more years and dollars to to become an attorney. Rewards for effort are necessary for a society to prosper.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignThis is just your typical ranting and raving. It's been responded to a thousand times here and I feel no need to do so again.
You do favor government controls over people who have combined labor with land to produce value added goods. You favor government making decisions over buyers and sellers doing so without coercion.
Mr. Hoppe actually agrees with Murray Rothbard and improves on Mises regard for so called "public goods". He sees no need for government to operate any m ...[text shortened]... Stiglitz. Democracy itself, disregards common people, at least the up to 49% minority of them.
I posted some excerpts from Hoppe's demented writings on this forum and you ignored them. Hoppe despises any type of democracy and champions elite control of society. Just like you.
EDIT: Last two posts on this page:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=163187&page=&page=3
As well as raving against democracy, he insists on the "libertarian" principle of "social discrimination" to drive out what he considers "undesirable" elements from his Galt Gulch utopia.
Originally posted by normbenignYou reading comprehension sucks.
If the "natural state" is real and proper, then we ought to return to it, or at least as close as possible.
Remaking our society? How does that happen, except by coercion and government force? Democratic voting doesn't assure any of those goals, or even respect for so called "natural rights". It simply means the strongest and most numerous gang wins. ...[text shortened]... nd dollars to to become an attorney. Rewards for effort are necessary for a society to prosper.
Please slowly reread my post and then try to rationally respond to it. I certainly didn't propose absolute democracy of the "Socrates you must now drink the hemlock because that was the vote" variety. Nor did I propose that all incomes be equal.
But you probably know this and are just being disingenuous. Societies get remade all the time even without coercion and force.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou prefer the tyranny of the majority, rather than each individual have liberty and his "natural rights", with no majority being able to vote them away.
No, I do not agree that "unenforced laws are no laws at all".
No, I do not agree that no one would obey speed limits if not ticketed by the police.
You are sadly mistaken if you think I'm a "great fan of government control" though I prefer the "control" of a democratically selected government to an non-elected hierarchical elite in areas where gov ...[text shortened]... d by our "betters" which holds the common people in contempt and disdains democratic principles.
Her Hoppe's vision is one of which I suspect you are totally ignorant, or you would not speak of it in the way you do. Hoppe is a disciple of Murry Rothbard, and a true libertarian, finding even a few areas where Mises and Rothbard justified government intervention, which he does not. He in other words has purified the libertarian philosophy not left any individuals "in contempt" or to be dominated by your so called betters. You are projecting your own notion of liberty, dominated by folks sold on what government can provide for them, at the expense of others, who they manipulate via coercion.