Previous 11 - 20 Next
Very insightful. thanks. However... Jus Naturale implies an objective system of natural justice. We moderns may say we have a right to this justice, but the fact remains and as is implied by your statements, the notion of a "right" to something which is natural seems contradictory. Natural justice already exists, objectively, while a "right" might be denied. Still, people may act against natural justice so this implies a right that might be denied in practice. The ancients did talk about the estate of nature. The Stoics said we should live in accord with human nature, and the Latin legal scholars took this to mean equity, the bridge between stoicism and Jus Gentium. The law of nations (Jus Gentium) approximates Jus Naturale. So it's not like we start with the non-aggression axiom and then apply to examples, deductively. Rather, we inductively arrive at an approximation of the non-aggression principle by abstracting the elements in common to all positive legal systems. This is explained in my magnum opus, found at: How does this apply to the Garner case? Clearly, natural justice was violated by the anti-cigarette selling law. The non-aggression principle (not axiom) was violated by the law and it's enforcement. The NAP could be considered an axiom, since it is hard-wired in the human brain. When someone strikes us, the body/mind react automatically in self-defense. But even if not an axiom, it is a principle that can be approximated inductively.
The opening words of this article are misleading. No one is filing lawsuits against Christmas or any religion. People are objecting to religious displays on government property. Because government resources should not be used to promote any particular religion or religion in general. Rather, government should be about protecting the rights of all citizens. Protection of those rights (to life, liberty, and property) is the rightful purpose of every government, including those established before Christ--or any particular religious leader--were born. Justice precedes any religion and does not depend on religion. Governments which have been based on religion, are theocracies and that is prohibited by the US Constitution.
Graham is Christian. Christianity has partially assimilated to western civilization, so is partially humanistic. Obama is very confused. His first loyalty, if he has any loyalty at all outside himself, appears to be to Islam, which is the least humanistic of popular religions. Therefore because Graham is relatively more humanistic than Obama, Graham is more correct than Obama.
The Supreme Court, and politicians, do not speak for "secularism". Further, "Secularists" do not speak for humanists. If Brown does not understand these points, he is unqualified to speak on the matter. Further, Christians, just as those in the "Moral Majority", have a history of imposing their values on society at large. So there is reason for suspicion.
In response to:

Bringing Happiness to Iran

kevin837 Wrote: Oct 11, 2014 4:43 PM
The easiest, cheapest, and most effective way of overthrowing the regime, is to bomb their oil export facilities. These can easily be rebuilt at a later time of our choosing, and in the meantime, would deprive Iran of the funds necessary to prop up their regime and their subsidies to terrorism.
Those interviewed are not talking about substantive issues. They are talking in generalities about conclusions, not why people might come to those conclusions. Of course I prefer to be loved not hated, but the most important value to me is freedom. People shouldn't be jailed for pot, nor should religion be allowed to determine curriculum for government schools. Pot should be legal and government schools should be abolished.
Humanism in practice (by definition) leads to progress, humanism in theory tends to lead to progress. Religion tends to retard progress, the more faith-based and less humanistic, the worse. If you think religion automatically leads to freedom, trying living in Iran.
Rick Scott favors medical cannabis.
When it's raining, we don't get to declare there is no rain. It's not like the US will not be attacked if we are passive. Retreat stupidity (I.e. Ron Paul's policies, an extreme version of US gov't policy) are interpreted by our enemies as weakness and encourage more attacks on Americans and American interests. Ron Paul, have you no shame? How can you honestly comment on foreign policy, without disclosing your Judeophobia and close associations with white nationalists and neo-nazis?
In response to:

Hong Kong: One Country, One System

kevin837 Wrote: Sep 06, 2014 10:46 PM
That should be "imperial" not "empirical".
Excellent article! I said much the same, and more, in my article:
Previous 11 - 20 Next