D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown has long been controversial since her nomination was opposed by many for what were viewed as extreme view as a member of the California Supreme Court. She was finally confirmed in a deal in the Senate that many denounced as a surrender by Democrats. Now Brown has used an opinion to denounce “powerful groups” and courts for limiting “Cowboy capitalism” that she says has been “disarmed” in America.
The diatribe came in Hettinga v. United States, where the court rejected Hettingas that contribution requirements applicable to all milk handlers constituted a bill of attainder and violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. In the opinion below, Brown and conservative colleague David Sentelle wrote to express sympathy with the Hettingas and their “understandable” “sense of ill-usage.” The central point of the concurrence appears to be a desire to express dissatisfaction “with the gap between the rhetoric of free markets and the reality of ubiquitous regulation.” She then added:
“America’s cowboy capitalism was long ago disarmed by a democratic process increasingly dominated by powerful groups with economic interests antithetical to competitors and consumers. And the courts, from which the victims of burdensome regulation sought protection, have been negotiating the terms of surrender since the 1930s.”
The opinion has raised questions of the propriety of such statements in dicta. Opinions are not meant to be opportunities for judges to hold forth on their views of the proper course of political and legal trends. At the time of her nomination, then-Senator Barack Obama took to the floor to join those denouncing Brown:
Justice Brown has shown she is not simply a judge with very strong political views, she is a political activist who happens to be a judge. It is a pretty easy observation to make when you look at her judicial decisions. While some judges tend to favor an activist interpretation of the law and others tend to believe in a restrained interpretation of the law providing great deference to the legislature, Justice Brown tends to favor whatever interpretation leads her to the very same ideological conclusions every single time.
I do not see how this statement falls within any reasonable view of appropriate judicial opinion writing. It is less dicta than diatribe. What do you think?
Here is the opinion: 11-5065-1368692
We need come up with a better cliché for a people thatare even less anti- social and unaware than a nerd.Look in the mirrow boys.
Oh by the the way I’m not anxious, I’m 59 years old and I’ve spent my life trying to improve the human experience. My conclusions are that government ends up being a Power Broker Cartel that does not do what is in the best interest of the majority. Instead those in political power do what is in their own best interest, which is a common human trait and more importantly it is not necessaily anti-virtuous, it is reality. People are going to take care of themselves first, because if they can not take care of themselves, they surely cannot take care of others. However, power, as we have seen throughout history, corrupts and therefore why give them the power if they are going to take advantage of their power. Hense limiting government. Come up with a bettter solution it you can. How to do that is the real questions??????? No one has ever been able to do that. However, that does not mean it is impossible.
skiprob,
Your last post reads much like your essay. I answered your question, sorry you don’t understand, but given the nature of your writing I’m not surprised.
“If you remove them, they are no longer beams and columns, they are just pieces of shaped steel. They lose their context when taken from the building.” That is because you have failed to properly answer the question “what is it in itself” and are mistaking form for contextual function. It is a piece of shaped steel. That is its true discrete nature; its form. Column or beam are context dependent qualities; that is its contextual function. It’s discrete function is the beam is a rigid form capable of multiple applications. Some ideas have a discrete nature (form) and a discrete function not related to context but inherent in the idea itself. These are truly discrete ideas. When you remove the beams, you affect the function of the contextual structure, but you don’t change their intrinsic nature. Their function can change according to context, but that does not negate their inherent discreteness or function. Not all ideas are discrete in form and function, but some are. Part of what makes them useful is precisely the ability to modify their function by changing the context in which you use them, but mostly they are useful because they have discreteness and a function that transcends context.
“what is it in itself” ????? Really, that is then best you guys can come up with to positively enfluence our world.
The Golden Rule. (formulated in several different philosophies and religions although essentially describing the same reciprocal relationship, the idea stands alone having utility, form and function as well as capable of being integrated into other systems)
The Aristotelian idea of hylopmorphism and the consequent substantial, accidental, and prime forms of matter. (useful in both philosophy and logic and by itself)
Empiricism as it relates to the scientific method. (empiricism is its own set of ideas, but it is a subset of the scientific method, as such, it has an independent existence and utility)
The Law of Identity
The Law of the Excluded Middle
The Law of Non-contradiction (all three compose the Laws of Thought, but all three ideas have discrete forms and function that make them useful on their own and in both other logics and philosophies, i.e. on their own or in other contexts)
You asked for a couple? There are a few. Six to be precise. All of these ideas exist and have value of their own, outside their original contexts and within other contexts.
If you are going to try to affect the human experience than you are going to have to successfully communicate you ideas in a communicative method that the majority can understand. You are not doing that or you would have many people following your BS. Now if you are sociopaths and are trying to disrupt the progress of the world, then I understand you various diatribes.
Which ones are you?
“Some ideas have a discrete nature (form) and a discrete function not related to context but inherent in the idea itself.”
Give me a couple of examples.
skiprob,
“Your stating your opinion with out providing evidence, does not give me anything to rebutt.”
I’m stating the consensus of two centuries of anthropological studies, it is hardly my opinion.
For evidence I would suggest that you read some on the subject of cultural anthropology instead of offering made-up-on-the-spot insights such as this pearl:
“Do we base that opinion on a 2/3 majority opinion, a 50%+1 majority, unanimous consent or is it the oligarchies opinion . . .”
or this one,
“If 51% of the society agrees with religious persecution, does that make it an acceptable Cultural norm? What if only 46% believe it so and 25% are afraid of being put to death for heresy, if they speak out against it.”
You are so anxious to prove your perspective of the idea of government being a failure that you don’t even realize that the bulk of this thread has been about much more base constructs such as what defines a common culture and philosophy. Your single-mindedness blinds you to even questioning you own thought process, as if it exists in a vacuum and has had no cultural influence.
Anthropology is a huge field containing five large branches, it might be a good thing if you could read some on at least cultural anthropology before you impress again with posts such as this one:
“Dude you out of you mine. What solar system are you from. That is the stupidous thing I’ve every heard of. Stop it. What you beleive is nonsence.”
Since i don’t study anthopology, give me the primary construct of their findings on the aztecs and acceptable norms?
“I’m stating the consensus of two centuries of anthropological studies, it is hardly my opinion.” ////// All science is right and especially sociologists and antropologists? http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority.//////
“Do we base that opinion on a 2/3 majority opinion, a 50%+1 majority, unanimous consent or is it the oligarchies opinion . . .”If 51% of the society agrees with religious persecution, does that make it an acceptable Cultural norm? What if only 46% believe it so and 25% are afraid of being put to death for heresy, if they speak out against it.” —– Those are questions Sherlock(s) and they are common percentages of the whole used and they are a part of cultural realities within various institutions.Which one establishes a cultural norm or is that to confining for you to answer BS?
“You are so anxious to prove your perspective of the idea of government being a failure that you don’t even realize that the bulk of this thread has been about much more base constructs such as what defines a common culture and philosophy. Your single-mindedness blinds you to even questioning you own thought process, as if it exists in a vacuum and has had no cultural influence./////////
Now we need to come up with a Logical fallacy that states: since I can’t defend my opinion of one issue, let’s minimize that issue and say we are debating a more important issue. The three of you, gbk, Gene H. & Bron are so full of **** it’s hilarious. Now wonder no one takes anthopoligist and sociologist seriously. If you’re not paid by the government or some state college, not one single person on the planet would pay any of you a single dime for your advice or opinions.
Yea, lets waste our time trying to define “what defines a common culture or philosophy”. Reallly guys really, that the most important thing you can debate ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Unless you redirect your curiousities to an important construct, how can you hold your heads up with any dignity.
Oh, I presented proof that good and evil are societally defined concepts, skiprob.
In the form of the norms for Aztec society compared to our society.
That you didn’t like it and couldn’t refute it has nothing to do with my opinion. I made an assertion. I presented proof. You failed to rebut. It’s that simple.
That you want to use your failure for an excuse to spew forth some more political polemic is your choice.
Also, “There is additional available cultural infomation that supports the Aztecs were a totalitarian society that fed on such brutalities.”
More presentism and false equivalence.
Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and seeks to regulate every aspect of public and private life. See North Korea for a perfect example. The Aztec were many things, but totalitarian was not one of them. Although they had a noble class/monarchy of sorts – the pīpiltin (which early in their society was not an inherited class although late in their society it had taken on hereditary aspects), most of the territory they ruled over were autonomous city-states called altepetl. Once the Aztec conquered them, they were largely left to their own devices as far as local rule went so long as the pīpiltin received their tributes.
“If you remove them, they are no longer beams and columns, they are just pieces of shaped steel. They lose their context when taken from the building.”
That is because you have failed to properly answer the question “what is it in itself” and are mistaking form for contextual function.
It is a piece of shaped steel. That is its true discrete nature; its form. Column or beam are context dependent qualities; that is its contextual function. It’s discrete function is the beam is a rigid form capable of multiple applications. Some ideas have a discrete nature (form) and a discrete function not related to context but inherent in the idea itself. These are truly discrete ideas. When you remove the beams, you affect the function of the contextual structure, but you don’t change their intrinsic nature. Their function can change according to context, but that does not negate their inherent discreteness or function. Not all ideas are discrete in form and function, but some are. Part of what makes them useful is precisely the ability to modify their function by changing the context in which you use them, but mostly they are useful because they have discreteness and a function that transcends context.
gbk:
I would say societal norms are predicated on the prevailing philosophy. They seem to swing between reason and mysticism. I think we are in a period of mysticism.
The Enlightenment is fading.
Once you gain the knowledge, you would need to revise that particular foundational axiom.
gbk:
I know I am right on the part about a philosophy needs to be looked at as a connected whole.
I am working on the part about separation and adjusting.
I think the idea is sound if you have incomplete knowledge so that one of your foundational axioms is in error. Once you gain the knowledge you would need to revise that particular foundational axiom.
You can have a philosophy which is generally connected but have “holes” of knowledge or errors of judgment. You would need to revise those areas to have a consistent philosophy.
Maybe I am contradicting myself or maybe I just cant figure out how to say what I want to say.
Think of a building that has a couple of beams or columns which are undersized, the rest of the beams and columns can take the weight of the structure for awhile. But you need to remove and replace them or repair them in place.
If you remove them, they are no longer beams and columns, they are just pieces of shaped steel. They lose their context when taken from the building.
your thoughts?
skiprob,
“What I’m saying is that the determination of a societal norm is an individual’s opinion of what the group believes and therefore it is not that “relevant” in the scheme of things. Even if it’s the group’s opinion of what a societal norm is, it is still just an opinion. Do we base that opinion on a 2/3 majority opinion, a 50%+1 majority, unanimous consent or is it the oligarchies opinion, (history is written by the victor) which is generally who I believe, as you know, in almost all societies past and present, controls the laws of the society?”
You are just dead wrong on this issue, skiprob. The determination of a societal norm is not an individual’s opinion, nor is it arrived at, as you allude to, by simple majority opinions.
Societal norms are defined by the everyday cultural expression of a common population. These norms change over time as common populations adapt to the physical world that their culture is immersed in. Law is a more formal recognition of cultural strategies that the population group has adopted in their interest of survival.
Your stating your opinion with out providing evidence, does not give me anything to rebutt. Of course I will comment none the less. In some circumstances you are correct. In the amazon for instance, their is reportedly a tribe that has an acceptable cultural norm ot promoting the father to be the 1st sexual affair of his daughter, therefore it has been practiced throughout the tribe for generations. Attributing that same logic to mass attrocities against potential unwilling victims is extremely difficult to determine. What evidence could anyone come up with that would prove that such a cultural norm was true? Just because it existed over a long period of time without rebellion provides evidence of that it may have just been a highly barbaric totalitarian society. There is additional available cultural infomation that supports the Aztecs were a totalitarian society that fed on such brutalities. When societies break down, the results are often times unconsionable. The British called the American Indians savages. We’re they really savages.
skiprob,
“I can go on and on with providing you with the evidence that you are wrong but why should I continue.”
Because you haven’t started yet. Your opinion – which is admittedly based on a lack of understanding of sociology and the social dynamic – is not proof or evidence of anything. All you’ve offered is opinion. I’m using the same methodology and definitions that a sociologist or an anthropologist would use and pointing to a valid historical example that proves my point that good and evil are societal constructs.
“The problem with you Gene is that you really believe that you understand the collective nature of your society and you don’t even understand that we are really a fascist oligarchy. You’re all knowing but don’t even recognise this simple fallacy of democracy.”
You apparently have a reading comprehension problem. You missed the part where I said “our leaders tell us this is democratic representative Federal republic when anyone paying attention knows it is a corporatist oligarchy sliding into corporatist fascism.” I understand the collective nature of society just fine but that is beside the point to knowing what the political dynamic of a society is and I’m pretty certain I can make my case for the above statement. I’m pro-democracy, which by definition means I’m both anti-oligarchy and anti-fascist. I’m a gifted amateur at sociology and anthropology, but I’m a professional when it comes to law, political science and history. I clearly said we don’t (although we’re supposed to) have a democracy. So either you didn’t read that, didn’t understand that or you’re lying.
“You could not even, using the methods you wrote about, answer the issue of legalized drugs vs a prohibition. Please utilize your own criteria to tell me what information did you use and what was your determination.”
Again, asked and answered. If you didn’t like the answer? Not my problem. If you didn’t understand the answer? Try asking for clarification instead of saying I didn’t answer the question. What I said was “Take the war on drugs as a prime example. Drug use is a real actual problem. But how it was responded to was politically which, since it is a health problem and not a political problem (unless you’re a drug or chemical company looking to quash cheap clean natural competition for your products like DuPont with nylon and hemp or various makers of synthetic opiates versus natural opiates) is like using a hammer to drive a screw. Wrong tool for the job. The rational public policy decision – especially given the lessons of Prohibition – was to [legalize] and tax drugs use for recreational purposes and use that money to treat and educate about the resulting health problems they create. Individual liberty is protected, the problem is addressed in a manner amenable to actually mitigating the problem and industry isn’t catered to for their profits and the personal gain pols and owners/managers get against the best interests of the public.” Either you didn’t read that, didn’t understand that or you’re lying.
You need to quit acting as if I’m non-responsive when you are avoiding answering the questions as posed to you:
My position: Good and evil are defined by social context and not intrinsic physical properties. I’ve presented evidence of this by contrasting accepted societal norms of societies past (Aztec) and present (U.S.).
Your question: If you believe that good and evil are defined by something other than social context?
Prove it.
“You are asking me to disprove something that is historical and philosphically false and because I can’t disprove it, therefore it must be true.”
I’m not asking you to prove a negative either. I’m asking you to prove your assertion that good and evil are defined by something other than social context. You made the assertion. You have the burden of proof.
If you can’t prove it (and I know for a fact that you can’t), just admit it.
Otherwise, the time being wasted is clearly mine and wasted by your evasions, lack of understanding or outright lies.
Gene, I’m not really saying that you’re totally wrong. What I’m saying is that the determination of a societal norm is an individual’s opinion of what the group believes and therefore it is not that “relevant” in the scheme of things. Even if it’s the group’s opinion of what a societal norm is, it is still just an opinion. Do we base that opinion on a 2/3 majority opinion, a 50%+1 majority, unanimous consent or is it the oligarchies opinion, (history is written by the victor) which is generally who I believe, as you know, in almost all societies past and present, controls the laws of the society? We still today have Monarchies in many countries around the world, hence the amount of rebellion around the world. The internet is helping to expose the various usurpations of individual rights to the Citizens of the world and they are rebelling in numerous ways. Really, we still have monarchies in our world???
When it comes to the laws of a society in relation to good and evil, I believe that a large number of people have already established what those parameters are and our Constitution was an unsuccessful attempt to protect inalienable rights and therefore set them into law. So now we have to determine why this experiment failed. That is what I’m trying to expose. I did not become a libertarian easily; I went down kicking a fighting.
Let’s go back to the issue. For instance, In the case of the Aztecs we surely have evidence that it was a cultural phenomenon but the attempt to transfer a belief based on something that happens in a society and attempt to determine if the society believes those events are good or evil, is a very difficult, I think impossible, assignment for any historian or anthropologist.
The father and mother who is watching their daughter being beheaded and thrown off the cliff, probably has a bit of a different perspective of good and evil then the religious leaders who ordered the sacrifices for the God(s). Accepting the sacrificing of people under some level of duress and truly believing that the God(s) need to be fed people to be happy is a very difficult determination especially if there is such little written evidence as there was during that time. Can you imagine what the daughter is thinking as she is being laid on the beheading table? You want to read a great story. Goggle the story about the Martyrs at Boston Common which happened in 1659 and 1660 or read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_martyrs
Culturally we have not progressed at the rate that is acceptable to me and it shouldn’t be for anyone else. I believe that it is because we have been mislead for a very long time that the institution of Government, as we know it today, can provide and promote a civil society, when it does not. The masses now have the ability and information to disprove this lie. However, there are many that are unknowingly complicit in prolonging the institution of government. Isn’t it always a matter of education, but if we continue to teach our children the wrong things, we are doomed to failure.
Bron,
If, as you say, “. . . cut it out and reformulate the portion which is wrong . . .” then it seems pretty apparent that your integrated system can have parts seperated from the whole.
To modify the portion deemed wrong it has to be seperated out. How can you then say, “. . . you cannot separate a part from the whole . . . ?”
Bron,
After this I’m done.
I know you think that you’ve answered my question, but all you’ve done is repeated what you believe. I get that you believe those two things. I don’t question that belief. What I question is how you reconcile the two beliefs. After this I’ve ran out of ways to say “you can do X” and “you can’t do X” are mutually exclusive.
“When dealing with philosophy you cannot separate a part from the whole at least in my opinion. It takes away the meaning.”
“Now if part of it is wrong, then you would want to cut it out and reformulate the portion which is wrong so that you have an integrated world view or whatever you want to call it.”
Now, did I change the meaning of either of those two phrases by doing this?
“When dealing with philosophy you cannot cut [a part] out at least in my opinion. It takes away the meaning.” (I had to change the pronoun because there was nothing before “it” to define it, however in the orginal phrase “it” replaces ” a part of a philosophy, so it doesn’t change the meaning)
“Now if part of it is wrong, then you would want to separate a part from the whole and reformulate the portion which is wrong so that you have an integrated world view or whatever you want to call it.”
If I didn’t change the meaning then the two phrases are equivalent. Which means that you are saying “you cannot X” and “you can X”. THAT’S A CONTRADICTION. No matter how many times you’re mental record skips and you keep repeating “I believe…” about both things, it’s still a contradiction.
Bron,
“When dealing with philosophy you cannot separate a part from the whole, at least in my opinion. It takes away the meaning.
Now if part of it is wrong, then you would want to cut it out and reformulate the portion which is wrong so that you have an integrated world view or whatever you want to call it.”
You really don’t see the contradiction inherent in those two statements, do you?
“If free markets work then they work, if they dont then they dont. I contend that economics or sociology or psychology have certain universal principles which can be understood and applied in a rational way, just like gravity or the principle of addition or subtraction.”
Thus revealing the fundamental flaw in your absolutist thinking – you never allow for exception or aberration. Also showing a complete lack of understanding about the difference between hard science and soft science while making an association fallacy. A physical law like gravity or a mathematical axiom possess a degree of certainty attached to them that laws of economics, sociology and psychology (all soft, social sciences) will never possess. Their truth comes from the physical structure of reality. This may help you understand why your comparison fails.
skiprob,
“And I’ve presented evidence that no human has the capacity to determine what is or is not a social acceptable norm, and surely I would not like you making that decision.”
No you haven’t. You’ve presented your opinion and a poorly framed argument. Vegetarians believe eating meat is wrong, but it’s still the socially accepted norm in our culture. You are making a bizarre combination of appealing to anecdote, the fallacy of composition and an ad hominem attack. A societal norm are laws or rules that govern society’s behaviors whether the “law” is a formal laws or informal custom within a society. The degree of individual variance from the social norms decides whether the individual is simply a social deviant (your theoretical anti-human sacrifice Aztec or a vegetarian) or a criminal (a thief in either culture). You have done nothing to disprove this. If you think individuals determine what the social norms are? That only illustrates that you don’t understand the collective nature of society in the first place like most Libertarians and Objectivists. But an individual can certainly recognize social norms if they are properly acculturated to the society in which they live.
As to the ad hominem? I could give a flying rat’s ass whether you want me making decisions or not. I wouldn’t let someone who believes in non-scientific pseudo-economics that is window dressing for political polemic and a political ideology with a philosophical base that rests on a ridiculous and anti-social assertion like selfishness is a virtue be in charge of cleaning the cat box much less running my country. That’s why I won’t vote Libertarian. Ever. Your causal analysis is crap, solutions are worse and your ideology is ridiculous and self-defeating. You go on and on about “liberty” and “freedom” all the while not realizing that your economics encourage tyranny and oligarchy and your fundamental precepts are anti-social.
In a democracy, everyone has a role in making decisions. That’s the nature of a democracy. And in society, all the people collectively define the social norms of their society and whether or not those norms are formally or informally enforced and/or recognized.
You are asking me to disprove something that is historical and philosphically false and because I can’t disprove it, therefore it must be true. The only way to show you that what you beleive is wrong, is to show you what is right and I have tried to do that in an adequate manner. Sorry.
As an example, you still believe that democracy is a valid method of determining the rule of law and therefore a valid method of determining a cultural norm. Democracy is a fallocy as I have pointed out clearly in my writings if you would have read them and I’m not the only one that has provided overwelming evidence. There is more than enough data throughout the ages to support the libertarian perspective such as Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Thomas Paines Common Sense and I can literally go on and on. Apparently a lot of very famous people, people that actually made a difference in this world that disagree with your position. I confess, that doesn’t necessaily make you wrong. So lets’ keep poking holes in your arguments.
Your ranting about Ayn Rands “selfishness is a virtue” shows me that you did not read her books. If you would have really read her books you would know that it is not about greed and you therefore are misconstruing the various elements of her value system. It is as much about being responsible and taking care of yourself. If you cannot take care of yourself than you can surely not take care of others. She is saying that it is virtuous to take care of yourself and sometimes you need to be selfish to do that. People will pull you from every direction the more competent you are, because many, rather than learn or just do something themselves, will try to get somebody else to do it for them. Example: You know Gene is really good at writing so I’m going to ask him for my help in writing this letter to an investor, because he can do it much more quickly that I can and he is much better with words. He’s knows I don’t have the money to pay him now but if I get the money I will promise to pay him something. Would it be selfish to say no to this person, especially if you didn’t like his idea? Is it selfish to ask another person to do something that you can do yourself? I bet you are selfish at times.
You stated “That only illustrates that you don’t understand the collective nature of society in the first place like most Libertarians and Objectivists. But an individual can certainly recognize social norms if they are properly acculturated to the society in which they live.” So who determines if one is “properly acculturated to a society? Of course politicans, you know the ones that lie to us during the campaign to get us to vote for them, and then entrench themselves in fascist activities within the power brokerage cartel to steal and extort as much money from the average Citizens that they can possibly get away with. Doesn’t that sound like the cultural norm of our society today?
You are right about one thing so far. I do not admittedly understand the collective nature of society. I see a bunch a people running around doing a bunch of really cool stuff and really horible stuff. I see severe injustices, high unemployment, high highschool drop out rates,low college graduation rates, high encarceration rates, goverments cutting off the arms and legs of those who oppose them, etc. etc. etc.
The problem with you Gene is that you really believe that you understand the collective nature of your society and you don’t even understand that we are really a fascist oligarchy. You’re all knowing but don’t even recognise this simple fallacy of democracy.
I can go on and on with providing you with the evidence that you are wrong but why should I continue.
You could not even, using the methods you wrote about, answer the issue of legalized drugs vs a prohibition. Please utilize your own criteria to tell me what information did you use and what was your determination. Give me some hope that I’m not wasting my friggin time.
Gyges:
I have answered many times.
When dealing with philosophy you cannot separate a part from the whole, at least in my opinion. It takes away the meaning.
Now if part of it is wrong, then you would want to cut it out and reformulate the portion which is wrong so that you have an integrated world view or whatever you want to call it.
That is how I try to operate good, bad, or indifferent.
If free markets work then they work, if they dont then they dont. I contend that economics or sociology or psychology have certain universal principles which can be understood and applied in a rational way, just like gravity or the principle of addition or subtraction.
skiprob,
I know exactly what malum prohibitum and malum in se are and I don’t care what you want to question about the other other article. That ground is throughly covered including your approach of blind worship of the individual as sacrosanct. You – like almost all Libertarians – don’t have a clue how social compacts work in part because you refuse to admit that there are others in a society and other consideration than what you want. War on Drugs? Simply another attempt on your part to change the subject.
Now. Enough of your distraction and evasion.
You wanted an article? You got one.
Let’s get back to your persistent evasion of presentism and other fallacies in your statements and arguments on this thread.
Good and evil are defined by social context and not intrinsic physical properties.
I’ve presented evidence of this by contrasting accepted societal norms of societies past and present.
If you believe otherwise?
Prove otherwise.
And I’ve presented evidence that no human has the capacity to determine what is or is not a social acceptable norm, and surely I would not like you making that decision. Slavery was not acceptable to many people, so was it an acceptable norm or not. It may have been acceptable to the slave owners but I assure you it was not to the vast number of slaves. Dude you out of you mine. What solar system are you from. That is the stupidous thing I’ve every heard of. Stop it. What you beleive is nonsence.
And I’ve already pointed you to one of mine, skiprob, but I’ll do it again.
What Makes A Good Law, What Makes A Bad Law?
It’s from a highly trafficked web site (this blog) and it is the single most commented on article posted here since you apparently want to compare sizes, um, excuse me, “value”.
While were at it, just because you’d chosen to ignore the presentism and other logical fallacies in your arguments and statements to focus on me instead? That doesn’t mean I’ve forgotten (or that others have forgotten) about the presentism and other logical fallacies in your arguments and statements. But please continue to meander away from them.
In reference to What Makes A Good Law, What Makes A Bad Law? You might want to look at the two different types of law formulated by the Romans. One is Malum in se and the other Malum prohibitum and look at the rule of law from this perspective as well.
What I would question with your method of determination is 1. who is smart enough to determine the absolute benefits and negative ramifications of a specific law since there are an endless numbers of them to evaluate as the law pertains to each individual. I don’t know what is in your best interest, nor can you know what is in mine. Just as you don’t know what is necessarily bad for me or not. Assuming that our statistics are even correct is risky. For instance I may own land that has the perfect soil for growing opium poppies which bi-products do have a huge benefit to mankind for a variety of reasons, yet many people have addictive personalities and get addicted on it.
Let’s continue with the “War on Drugs”. The negative ramifications have been horrific and the benefits have not been so good and vice versa depending on the perspective you are evaluating from. Based on your theory, should all drugs be legal or not? and please give me your answer to this question. From your system I would have to decline in making a detemination for the primary reason that I could be wrong and the consequences to my fellow man could have a profound influence on them both socially and individually. I’m supposed to guess if we should have legalized drugs or not??? Sadly, I think many people choose law in this manner.