[–]▶ No.827 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]
Reminder that it was the worst invention in legal history. If we still operated under the assumption that the law was something given, not created, people would both respect the law more and be less eager to change it for their pet project.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
▶ No.833>>834
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
▶ No.834>>835
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
▶ No.835>>837
>>834
it is untrue that law is given
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
▶ No.837>>852
>>835
Then do you mind substantiating that, so the ensuring conversation will be more than "yes" and "nu-uh"?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
▶ No.842
In another thread, someone wrote about the difference between monarchy and despotism:
>>610
>of a monarchy, that the prince should have this power, but in the execution of it should be directed by established laws; of a despotic government, that a single person should rule according to his own will and caprice
I know some people on this board hold the notion of "l'etat, c'est moi," but I am not one of them. Just like the key difference between a Republic and a Representative Democracy is that the former holds the law first and the rule of the majority second, while the latter is the opposite; so too is the difference between the Monarchy and Despotism. Besides, one of the key principles of l'Ancien Regime is that God is held above the King. Although this relies upon some sort of religious homogeneity in a society, there is a point behind this that can make the argument more secular, which is that there is some God-given or Natural right that is held as a principle above even the King, like the text you quoted.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
▶ No.852>>875
>>837
there is no god mate
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
▶ No.875>>880
>>852
Then explain to me why morality and expediency so often coincide, and why people tend to suffer when they put morality on hold for the sake of pragmatism.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
▶ No.880>>885
>>875
morality evolved naturally, apes have morality too
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
▶ No.885>>894 >>895
>>880
That's not what I mean. What I mean is that it just so happens that plunder and tyranny make a people less capable and virtuous, especially when that people is already virtuous. Why would evolution select for the traits that allow higher, freer, more virtuous civilizations to exist when there should be no selection pressure for it?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
▶ No.894>>895
>>885
> there should be no selection pressure for it?
[citation needed]
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
▶ No.895>>900
>>885
My wording was misleading:
>Why would evolution select for the traits that allow higher, freer, more virtuous civilizations to exist when there should be no selection pressure for it?
It's actually not a matter of trait selection at all. The problem is that in a society with no property rights and no freedom, no rational allocation of production goods is possible (pdf related), and so it cannot achieve prosperity. Such a society would also be unethical and reprehensible, and this coincidence is what you simply cannot explain with evolutionary biology. Whether the pricing mechanism works, and whether it is the only allocation mechanism that works, has nothing to do with any traits that evolution could or couldn't have selected for.
>>894
Still, no pass for you. This atheist tendency to invoke muh burden of proof whenever their own view is questioned is fucking annoying. There are no such things as "positive claims" except in a formal sense (in which it can easily be evaded and shifting by just rephrasing what you're saying), or in a subjective sense.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
▶ No.900>>901
>>895
even animals have property rights
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
▶ No.901>>914
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
▶ No.914
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.