Posted on 02/01/2002 7:13:38 AM PST by Sir Gawain
Just like OWK et. al.
Ahh, now I see your problem. You can not seperate the political philosophy of governance with personal, individual spirituality or religious beliefs. Your continual references to OWK, who wishes not to push any religious or spiritual views on anyone, shows this. He proclaims to be an atheist - I proclaim to believe in God. However, other than our personal religious beliefs, we agree on a great deal of things, one of which is that the government has no legitimate business making laws to advance any religious beliefs or to persecute any religious beliefs. This includes allowing adults to make whatever choices and decisions they want, as long as they do not initiate force or fraud against another.
We speak of what the government's business is in all of this, not what you or I should believe in our personal lives, or be forced to accept at the barrel of a gun.
One.
Well, we know what happened to Greek civilization. Also, the French Revolution was based on Greek philosophies as much as anything, and we know what happened to the French.
The U.S.A., on the other hand, was founded on concrete moral truths that were given by G-d.
But don't consider any of that proof for a spiritual reality. It's just coincidence.
Shalom.
As long as that's the best you can see -
Shalom.
Of course not, you have convinced yourself of this love, and thus given proven scientific and psychological factors, people can be come more emotionally attached to another over time.
Additional FACT: People knew what love was long before any squiggles ever appeared on a scope that monitored brainwaves. The brainwave monitor doesn't create the love, nor do the waves.
Man attributed the term "love" to which he could not explain, just as ancients worshipped the sun and the moon because they did not know what they were. No one ever said that a monitor created love, it only explains it.
But you need to open the eyes of your spirit to know this. If you trap yourself in your materialist box you will never know it.
Im not sure if anyone here understands this "materialistic box" term that you are using.
The U.S.A., on the other hand, was founded on concrete moral truths that were given by G-d.
It does seem to be a startling coincidence that the most prosperous nation on earth is the one founded on Christian principles, doesn't it?
Really? Where did I go wrong? I thought philosophy had everything to do with ethics and certainty, not anything to do with politics.
What? "My form of government" forces you to nothing except respect the natural rights of everyone. Its is you who wishes to force individuals to accept whatever your government decrees.
You are no different than Dane and the other authoritarian ilk, and not worthy of my time. In your warped world, respecting individual rights is "forcing" something on you. Yeh, whatever.
There are many many folks who are totally undeterred by the prospect of doing something 'wrong'.
We must limit their power to do wrong by restricting the purview of governmental authority; there is no other way.
They will unrelentingly pursue their own interests despite your or my 'moral suasion'.
Limiting the size and scope of government is our only protection against these 'malefactors'.
That's not the only thing you apparently don't understand.
Shalom.
Socratic philosophy is all about the former; the latter is Descartes' demand.
not anything to do with politics
One must certainly be moderate about what can and should be accomplished with the knowledge seeking wisdom brings, and philosophy does seem to be primarily a private good rather than one easily or unambiguously made into a public good, but gentle admonishment and persuasion seem legitimate ways to give a smidgen of wisdom to power. Seeking knowledge of the good is the purpose of philosophy. Applying that knowledge in whatever amount it's possessed and learning how it can and ought to be used is the job of political philosophers.
Hmmm - you might be correct in the specific, but I posit that I am correct in the general.
It was a love of their own reasoning power that "done them in" as Eliza Doolittle might have said.
Shalom.
Yep, saying that you are not worthy of my time is in deed the nicest its going to get if you insist on continuing to post drivel Mcnuggets to me.
I'm not usually amazed when the spiritually dead don't understand the spiritual, but the political is still right in front of their face.
Which is more likely to force me to pay benefits to someone who is not married to my employee: Christians or Libertarians? Which is more likely to force me to bear my share of the spiraling health care costs that come with HIV infection: Christians or Libertarians? Which is more likely to force me to bear the spiraling costs of other STDs and unwed motherhood: Christians or Libertarians? Which is more likely to force me to bear a larger share of the productivity of our economy due to people being stoned: Christians or Libertarians?
There are people out there trying to limit freedoms. That's what governments do. But the basis for limiting those freedoms can either be the lamp at the top of the mast or the north star.
Some choice, eh?
Shalom.
Agreed, though your use of quotation marks in the whole of the post puzzles me...what is wrong with saying that something is 'wrong?'
Back to the topic at hand: true, evil men will break laws, and clever evil men will make laws they can use and break at will with "the majesty of the state to defend them." Might that be a matter of prudence--that men can't be trusted not to abuse power reliably enough to found a polis on it, and that "moral suasion" is futile? If the basis of the laws themselves is "interest"--by which I take it you mean, "it is to my advantage to be free from living in fear of my fellows trying to steal from and kill me, and thus to my advantage to obey the law"--and not that stealing and killing is simply wrong and shouldn't be done save in the most unusual circumstances, then what reason would there be at the individual level to obey the law, or at the level of potential governor to uphold it? Why shouldn't we screw everybody else whenever we can get away with it?
And if the answer to that is, "We should!" then I propose that such a nation is in dire straits indeed, limited government or no.
Sheesh the Libertarians are really going to build up my ego, when using my name becomes an automatic "slur". The "slur" in Libertarian circles, is regarded by me as a badge of honor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.