What if?

[Modbert]

Spoiler Alert: Locke was a hypocrite who profited off the Atlantic slave trade and tried to justify slavery.

 

[Murf76]

Locke was an idiot and his philosophy has been shown to be deeply flawed.

There are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers in the subject of philosophy. There are only concepts and thoughts which we might either find to be familiar or find to be alien. It's what we ourselves MAKE of a philosophical thought, whether we choose to adopt it into our own personal philosophy, which endows it validity. Another man's philosophy either resonates on a personal level, or it doesn't.

Human nature =/=> 'inalienable rights'; human nature = human nature.

Prove it. What makes YOU right and Locke wrong? Can you prove that men are soulless creatures who do NOT crave freedom?... who do not have "rights" by virtue of God or nature?

I can't think of what evidence you might use.

It is because of human nature that we must form societies to defend ourselves from our fellow man. Human nature is an ugly and wicked thing.

While its true that human animals will naturally form tribes or clans in order to provide security for themselves, that's not the only reason we do it. Like dogs or elephants, we're naturally social creatures who seek companionship.

I take issue with the idea that human nature is "ugly" and "wicked". While it's true that we have the potential for committing evil deeds, we have an even greater potential for acts of kindness. We're attracted to beauty, in nature and through our own creativity. developing myriad forms of art in celebration of the beauty we find in nature and in our own spirits. Even when those art forms illustrate the ugly or evil, the intent is more often to be corrective.

I'm not typically a "shades of gray" person. But when assessing the good and evil in human beings, it's almost impossible to find one example who is ALL good or ALL evil. We have an innate ability to make choices and assessments, to decide whether we'll engage in acts of good or acts of evil. And because those choices are sometimes surrounded by murky data, we can easily get into trouble while making them. But on the whole, I earnestly believe that most people do try to do the right thing.

Even the terrorists who are currently making war on us, don't see the evil in their actions. Their data, insane as it is, justifies the action in their own minds.

Using that 'reasoning', we have a right to kill because we are human and able to throw a spear or a rock or a punch.

No. Because these things impede upon the unalianable rights of others, rights which are just as valid as our own. And by engaging in this kind of behavior, we create chaos. The terrorists that I mentioned above, justify their behavior, see it as good and rational. But... we see the fallout from their choice. Their imposition on the rights of others disrupts the peace of the natural condition.

We will overthrow tyrannous rulers because we're human and it's our nature to live freely.

In history, men have rarely overthrown and oft obeyed.

What tyrannical government has survived the test of time?
Rome became corrupt. Rome fell. The autocracy of monarchies have faded to near nonexistence. And the dictators of the world are at constant threat, holding their power by their fingertips and brought down when their barbarism outweighs their capacity to pacify the masses.

Think about it. It doesn't matter how rich a man is, or how influential, he can't just TAKE government office. Together, WE decide if he's worthy or not.

Maybe in your fantasy world

What do you think kings and warlords and politicians with brothers in critical states do?

Here in the United States, kings and warlords aren't tolerated. And politicians with brothers are eventually scandalized.

I'm not saying that politicians don't routinely trick us through marketing strategies. These days, that's how they get into office. And their money makes that endeavor possible. But they can't just openly buy or sell an office. We saw what happened to Blago in Illinois.

Putting a barrier between profit and public service though is probably the biggest challenge facing us when we talk about political corruption. We need REAL campaign finance reform. We need to stop the kickbacks and earmarking. Earmarking might only be a little bit of cash in comparison to the entire American budget, but in terms of corruption... it's raw bribery and vote purchasing.

Ending the corruption will go a long way to ending the apathy of the American voter and energizing our power to govern from the bottom up. It's not an easy task though, and I sincerely believe that tossing out most of the incumbents in Congress is the best way to go. It takes time to build networks and contacts. It requires guidance from senior members to make those contacts and to find the loopholes in law that allow for abuse of the system. The rule of incumbency keeps these guys from fearing us and respecting us at the polls. And we won't get their attention if they don't. We need Congress to place limits on itself, to put that money barrier in place. And they won't... if they're allowed to keep their senior members.

We should purge. And allow only the most dedicated and ethical to survive. Any who haven't had the U.S. Constitution on their lips since they walked up the steps of Capital Hill, any who don't already self-limit, who don't show their understanding of the spirit of Constitutional government by their actions... should be punted out of office.

 

[Murf76]

Spoiler Alert: Locke was a hypocrite who profited off the Atlantic slave trade and tried to justify slavery.

Zoom-boing was right. You really ARE one of those "kill the messenger" types.

Even Adolf Hitler could've told you that water is wet. Just because he was an evil mass murderer doesn't mean that couldn't deliver a fact and have it be... factual.

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington owned slaves. That's not nice. But it doesn't invalidate every other thing they said or did.

 

[American Horse]

But what if they were telling the truth and laying out the real facts. Just for the sake of conversation, what would you say then?

I often listen to Rush Limbaugh. When has he not told the truth? What fact has he mentioned that is demonstrably false?
That isn't the issue.
The issue is how they interpret the facts. Thus Nancy Pelosi can crow that healthcare passed the House on a bipartisan vote because she had Republicans voting for it (OK, one). That isn't technically untrue, but it is a gross distortion and no one in his right mind would describe the House vote as bipartisan.
I assume that's how liberals view Rush, assuming they bother to take him seriously at all. The facts he mentions are true but they feel his presentation is. biased and unrepresentative of reality.

You can't be serious. Rush Limbaugh is all about universal premises. All Liberals are ... (fill in the blank); All Democrats are ... (fill in the blank); All non lassie faire capitalist are Communists (or socialists, marxists, radicals, nazi's, etc.); Women who demand equal rights are 'fema-nazi's'. Limbaugh's entire show is about keeping fear and hate alive; and so are the shows of Hannity, Savage, and Beck.
Histories, biographies and other factual and annotated sources of data do not generally stir the emotions, the shows noted above almost always do, and that is their intent. The former are intended to stir the brain, lay the foundation for critical examination of who, what, when, where, why and how; the latter answer these questions with a preconcieved conclusion that is ideologically pure.

It would take far too many words to deal with each of your criticisms of Rush, so I’ll deal with the one most easily dispatched; the term “feminazis.”

Here are the actual facts on just that one: “He [...] popularized the term "feminazi", referring to about two dozen feminists "to whom the most important thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur." [Rush] credited his friend Tom Hazlett, a professor of law and economics at George Mason University, with coining the term.”

Many times I’ve heard Rush clarify that comment, such that now he says that there may be only 5 or 6 feminazis around today. My own thinking is that feminazi is accurate nomenclature for women with such attitudes about the inconvenience of the unborn.

Now digest your own comment: “Histories, biographies and other factual and annotated sources of data do not generally stir the emotions, the shows noted above almost always do, and that is their intent. The former are intended to stir the brain, lay the foundation for critical examination of who, what, when, where, why and how; the latter answer these questions with a preconcieved conclusion that is ideologically pure.”

I'm a daily listener since 1992. Rush says a lot which irritates me, but for the most part what he says holds basic truth which curious people should take into account; the same with Beck, etal.

If you can be so wrong about just that one easily clarified item, how sure can you be about all the rest (and I don't think that you are), given that you most likely are not a listener?

I don't think all his "theories" (opinions) do hold water, but I give him credit for thinking out of the box and having a phenomenal memory about the body politic. He can recall on an instant's notice events, names, and the words of newsmakers (or those who don't make the news in the MSM environment) with almost total accuracy. When he mis-speaks he announces his error as soon as possible afterwords. If time has lapsed he will correct at the top of the next show.

 

[MaggieMae]

Okay, to answer the "what if" question, if those right-wing commentators had irrefutable evidence that everything they've been saying is in fact true, I would send each of them a bouquet of roses, together with a personalized locked whine box with my name engraved on it, and a card with my humble apologies for ever doubting them.

Now seriously, doesn't that sound silly knowing what we know about their respective agendas?

You didn't answer anything you just gave a smarmy response.

I posted this earlier. Would this be ok with you?

From reading his many posts I believe BBD is asking what if what Beck and the like were saying about Obama and what they believe he is doing to this country were true? If he were leading us down the road of socialism (or whatever 'ism' it would be) . . . how would you react to that, if it were true?

I suppose I would turn against him just like citizens have turned on others they previously supported. What else should I do? Join your revolutionaries to try to have him done in? Considering the state of the GOP these days, there's no way in hell I would ever vote for a Republican except in my local/state elections. I happen to like the Republican Governor who replaced Howard Dean (whom I also liked), so there you have my politics in a nutshell. In the meantime, I won't flock to the side of the right wing extremists, no matter what happens with this current presidency.

Is that response better?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Locke was an idiot and his philosophy has been shown to be deeply flawed.

There are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers in the subject of philosophy

There are when on'es philosophy is based on false principles and inaccurate claims of observation, upon which one builds a house of cards cemented with logical fallacies.

Prove it. What makes YOU right and Locke wrong?

Firstly, Locke claims the existence of something he cannot demonstrate to exist.

Secondly, he claims that the natural state is one of equality- a blatant lie, as men are not equal in stature, skill, intellect, wealth, or potential.

Can you prove that men are soulless creatures who do NOT crave freedom?...

Demonstrate the e3xistence of a 'soul'.

Men want to be ruled. They love a kind tyrant and abhor true freedom and liberty. They do not wish to decide for themselves how to live or what is moral. That is why they dream of powerful gods to rule over them and give them the orders by which they can live. The few who break this mold are deemed an evil sort.

who do not have "rights" by virtue of God or nature?

Locke's Christian God does not exist and you have not demonstrated that anything else bestows' rights' except for Man upon himself and his fellows.

I can't think of what evidence you might use.

You and Locke bear the burden of proof.

I take issue with the idea that human nature is "ugly" and "wicked".

Are you familiar with human history?

What tyrannical government has survived the test of time?

What free people have withstood the test of time and achieved menaingful technological development? None! The very nature of Man is that he destroys everything he or his fellow constructs. Until the very nature of Man is changed, no great human civilization can last.

 

[MaggieMae]

Murf, natural law is the oppression of the weak by the strong. That's why we reject the natural order and the natural state and form civilizations like ur own in the hopes of protecting the weak.

What I'm talking about is the Lockean philosophy on natural law...

Locke was an idiot and his philosophy has been shown to be deeply flawed.


Human nature =/=> 'inalienable rights'; human nature = human nature.

It is because of human nature that we must form societies to defend ourselves from our fellow man. Human nature is an ugly and wicked thing.


Using that 'reasoning', we have a right to kill because we are human and able to throw a spear or a rock or a punch.

We will overthrow tyrannous rulers because we're human and it's our nature to live freely.

In history, men have rarely overthrown and oft obeyed.

Think about it. It doesn't matter how rich a man is, or how influential, he can't just TAKE government office. Together, WE decide if he's worthy or not.

Maybe in your fantasy world

What do you think kings and warlords and politicians with brothers in critical states do?

You're simplifying a complex theory that great scholars have contributed to for eons.

With the secularization of society resulting from the Renaissance and Reformation, natural law theory found a new basis in human reason. The 17th-century Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius believed that humans by nature are not only reasonable but social. Thus the rules that are "natural" to them -- those dictated by reason alone -- are those which enable them to live in harmony with one another. From this argument, by the way, Grotius developed the first comprehensive theory of international law.

Natural law theory eventually gave rise to a concept of "natural rights." John Locke argued that human beings in the state of nature are free and equal, yet insecure in their freedom. When they enter society they surrender only such rights as are necessary for their security and for the common good. Each individual retains fundamental prerogatives drawn from natural law relating to the integrity of person and property (natural rights). This natural rights theory provided a philosophical basis for both the American and French revolutions. Thomas Jefferson used the natural law theory to justify his trinity of "inalienable rights" which were stated in the United States Declaration of Independence.

An Overview of Natural Law Theory

 

[MaggieMae]

Spoiler Alert: Locke was a hypocrite who profited off the Atlantic slave trade and tried to justify slavery.

So did some of the framers of our Constitution.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Okay, to answer the "what if" question, if those right-wing commentators had irrefutable evidence that everything they've been saying is in fact true, I would send each of them a bouquet of roses, together with a personalized locked whine box with my name engraved on it, and a card with my humble apologies for ever doubting them.

Now seriously, doesn't that sound silly knowing what we know about their respective agendas?

You didn't answer anything you just gave a smarmy response.

I posted this earlier. Would this be ok with you?

From reading his many posts I believe BBD is asking what if what Beck and the like were saying about Obama and what they believe he is doing to this country were true? If he were leading us down the road of socialism (or whatever 'ism' it would be) . . . how would you react to that, if it were true?

I suppose I would turn against him just like citizens have turned on others they previously supported. What else should I do? Join your revolutionaries to try to have him done in? Considering the state of the GOP these days, there's no way in hell I would ever vote for a Republican except in my local/state elections. I happen to like the Republican Governor who replaced Howard Dean (whom I also liked), so there you have my politics in a nutshell. In the meantime, I won't flock to the side of the right wing extremists, no matter what happens with this current presidency.

Is that response better?

MY 'revolutionaries to have him done in'? That's rich. Care to link to any post where I've ever advocated anything even remotely like this?

Good, extremists on either side are nuts.

Yeah it was. Wasn't so hard either, was it?

 

[MaggieMae]

Here in the United States, kings and warlords aren't tolerated. And politicians with brothers are eventually scandalized.

I'm not saying that politicians don't routinely trick us through marketing strategies. These days, that's how they get into office. And their money makes that endeavor possible. But they can't just openly buy or sell an office. We saw what happened to Blago in Illinois.

Putting a barrier between profit and public service though is probably the biggest challenge facing us when we talk about political corruption. We need REAL campaign finance reform. We need to stop the kickbacks and earmarking. Earmarking might only be a little bit of cash in comparison to the entire American budget, but in terms of corruption... it's raw bribery and vote purchasing.

Ending the corruption will go a long way to ending the apathy of the American voter and energizing our power to govern from the bottom up. It's not an easy task though, and I sincerely believe that tossing out most of the incumbents in Congress is the best way to go. It takes time to build networks and contacts. It requires guidance from senior members to make those contacts and to find the loopholes in law that allow for abuse of the system. The rule of incumbency keeps these guys from fearing us and respecting us at the polls. And we won't get their attention if they don't. We need Congress to place limits on itself, to put that money barrier in place. And they won't... if they're allowed to keep their senior members.

We should purge. And allow only the most dedicated and ethical to survive. Any who haven't had the U.S. Constitution on their lips since they walked up the steps of Capital Hill, any who don't already self-limit, who don't show their understanding of the spirit of Constitutional government by their actions... should be punted out of office.

Campaign reform won't stop the endless career legislators unless they're voted out. Ironically, with all the complaints about Congress, when a person is asked if s/he likes our own lawmakers, inevitably the answer is yes. So the problem continues to be ours, since we DO have the power to send them packing and start fresh.

But campaign reform for the massively expensive presidential campaigns would be simple to fix: A certain amount of money funded from the checkoff on your tax return divided up among the field of candidates, and if they want to spend their own money on Internet or newspaper ads or fliers, that would be acceptable. No PACS, no corporate donations and no bundling by individual donors. AND, no non-stop television ads which cost millions and turn campaigns into huge pools of dirty money because so much is needed to pay for them and candidates will take it wherever they can get it. A series of televised debates sponsored by unbiased organizations like C-Span, and that's it. When it comes down to two candidates, the national committees for both can step in and use their respective bank accounts to promote their candidates.

That was just off the top of my head, so I'm open to suggestions and/or criticism.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The 17th-century Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius believed that humans by nature are not only reasonable but social. Thus the rules that are "natural" to them -- those dictated by reason alone -- are those which enable them to live in harmony with one another. From this argument, by the way, Grotius developed the first comprehensive theory of international law.

Man is an emotional creat5ure, not a reasonable one. Wars, fights, and the countless woes Man brings his own fellows are most oft guided by emotions, not reasons. Man's reason is not natural, it must be developed and nurtured through active, willful, and determined effort to overcome man's emotional nature- a nature inherited from our evolutionary predecessors. The human animal is not elevated above the rest of the kingdom animalia by gods, but by his own efforts to achieve his full potential and overcome his nature and limitations.

'Natural rights' are nothing more than a beautiful rhetorical device so oft employed by men who have had no qualms about violating the 'rights' of those deemed inferior or less deserving.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Spoiler Alert: Locke was a hypocrite who profited off the Atlantic slave trade and tried to justify slavery.

So did some of the framers of our Constitution.

So much for their rhetoric of natural rights and the equality of men....

 

[MaggieMae]

You didn't answer anything you just gave a smarmy response.

I posted this earlier. Would this be ok with you?

From reading his many posts I believe BBD is asking what if what Beck and the like were saying about Obama and what they believe he is doing to this country were true? If he were leading us down the road of socialism (or whatever 'ism' it would be) . . . how would you react to that, if it were true?

I suppose I would turn against him just like citizens have turned on others they previously supported. What else should I do? Join your revolutionaries to try to have him done in? Considering the state of the GOP these days, there's no way in hell I would ever vote for a Republican except in my local/state elections. I happen to like the Republican Governor who replaced Howard Dean (whom I also liked), so there you have my politics in a nutshell. In the meantime, I won't flock to the side of the right wing extremists, no matter what happens with this current presidency.

Is that response better?

MY 'revolutionaries to have him done in'? That's rich. Care to link to any post where I've ever advocated anything even remotely like this?

Good, extremists on either side are nuts.

Yeah it was. Wasn't so hard either, was it?

I often use "your" collectively as does everyone else. I even used it as my signature for a while. Don't be so touchy.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Still not answering the question, bolded above, still talking messenger vs. message.

The answer is obvious that the majority of Americans would not like that including myself. However, Beck and Co. go way beyond that. Plus, BBD seems to be saying that they are right about Obama leading us the road of socialism. Either way, I just see this thread as a way to attack Obama and put higher the right wing commentators.

This is no different than asking what if Keith, Rachel, Chris, and Ed were right about everything. It's pointless and stupid.

You are wrong in your assessment, Dogbert. The question is just as you read it - not "read into it". A simple question, what if they were all right? What would your reaction be then?

 

[Murf76]

Locke was an idiot and his philosophy has been shown to be deeply flawed.

There are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers in the subject of philosophy

There are when on'es philosophy is based on false principles and inaccurate claims of observation, upon which one builds a house of cards cemented with logical fallacies.



Firstly, Locke claims the existence of something he cannot demonstrate to exist.

Secondly, he claims that the natural state is one of equality- a blatant lie, as men are not equal in stature, skill, intellect, wealth, or potential.


Demonstrate the e3xistence of a 'soul'.

Men want to be ruled. They love a kind tyrant and abhor true freedom and liberty. They do not wish to decide for themselves how to live or what is moral. That is why they dream of powerful gods to rule over them and give them the orders by which they can live. The few who break this mold are deemed an evil sort.



Locke's Christian God does not exist and you have not demonstrated that anything else bestows' rights' except for Man upon himself and his fellows.



You and Locke bear the burden of proof.

I take issue with the idea that human nature is "ugly" and "wicked".

Are you familiar with human history?

What tyrannical government has survived the test of time?

What free people have withstood the test of time and achieved menaingful technological development? None! The very nature of Man is that he destroys everything he or his fellow constructs. Until the very nature of Man is changed, no great human civilization can last.

Ugh... well, I can see you're a hopeless pessimist who will find no goodness or beauty in the world. And while that's tragic... it's nothing I can fix for you even if I were to type my poor, weary fingers to the bone.

But I like ya just fine anyway, and I'll pray for your soulless bag of skin if only just to tweak your nose a bit.


On the subject of Locke and natural rights, I do think there's some proof in the pudding though. It's been well over two hundred years, and even though we squabble a bit amongst ourselves... overall, we're a huge success story.

 

[Murf76]

Campaign reform won't stop the endless career legislators unless they're voted out. Ironically, with all the complaints about Congress, when a person is asked if s/he likes our own lawmakers, inevitably the answer is yes. So the problem continues to be ours, since we DO have the power to send them packing and start fresh.

But campaign reform for the massively expensive presidential campaigns would be simple to fix: A certain amount of money funded from the checkoff on your tax return divided up among the field of candidates, and if they want to spend their own money on Internet or newspaper ads or fliers, that would be acceptable. No PACS, no corporate donations and no bundling by individual donors. AND, no non-stop television ads which cost millions and turn campaigns into huge pools of dirty money because so much is needed to pay for them and candidates will take it wherever they can get it. A series of televised debates sponsored by unbiased organizations like C-Span, and that's it. When it comes down to two candidates, the national committees for both can step in and use their respective bank accounts to promote their candidates.

That was just off the top of my head, so I'm open to suggestions and/or criticism.

Benjamin Franklin once said, "I am apprehensive, therefore - perhaps too apprehensive - that the Government of these States may in future times end in a monarchy. But this catastrophe, I think, may be long delayed, if in our proposed system we do not sow the seeds of contention, faction, and tumult, by making our posts of honor places of profit."

I see autocratic government as not essentially different than monarchy. It's top-down power, not bottom-up. So, I think there's a significant risk that through the division by "contention, faction and tumult" we've already seen, we can lose the actual power of our citizen sovereignty and end up with not much more than a facade.

In some respects, I think we've come pretty far down that path by virtue of the fact that it takes so much money to get an elected official into office and that our representatives appear to spend more time indulging special interests than in doing the job they were sent to do. We're left feeling apathetic about the process, like our votes don't account for much. Too often, instead of the best man (or woman) winning, we see the best marketing strategy winning, marketing strategies that were bought and paid for.

And as Franklin points out to us, the profit-motive is causal in the "contention, faction, and tumult". The free-marketer in me usually applauds the profit-motive. It appeals to our sense of innovation. But NOT when it comes to government.

I tend to agree with most of what you said above, although to be honest... I probably wouldn't even let them spend their OWN money on it if it were left wholly up to me. I can't say I've given much consideration yet to the Constitutional aspects, but it seems counterproductive to a reform effort that personal wealth should give a leg-up to one candidate over another.

The thing we need to accomplish though, is to create a barrier between profit and public service, between special interest and bureaucrat. Stopping the flow of money stops the motive for political corruption, and... it stops the hidden motive for division and faction.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

On the subject of Locke and natural rights, I do think there's some proof in the pudding though. It's been well over two hundred years, and even though we squabble a bit amongst ourselves... overall, we're a huge success story.

The success of law and liberal governance does not demonstrate the validity of Locke's rhetoric. It merely says that this experiment in increasing liberalism has been successful because of its tendency to grow more liberal,m thereby alleviating somewhat the class str4uggles that, with other factors, lead to system instability.

 

[Murf76]

On the subject of Locke and natural rights, I do think there's some proof in the pudding though. It's been well over two hundred years, and even though we squabble a bit amongst ourselves... overall, we're a huge success story.

The success of law and liberal governance does not demonstrate the validity of Locke's rhetoric. It merely says that this experiment in increasing liberalism has been successful because of its tendency to grow more liberal,m thereby alleviating somewhat the class str4uggles that, with other factors, lead to system instability.

But it was Locke's philosophy, in part, upon which Constitutional Law was designed.

There's a world of difference between the Classical Liberalism of the founders and the modern liberalism we see today. Modern Liberalism is essentially Collectivist, oftentimes flouting Constitutional Law in favor of democratic mob rule. The word itself, "Liberalism", stems from Liberty... freedom. Not collectivist. You can't be a Borg and be free. It means freedom of the Individual.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

They paid lip service to Locke, but they never believed any of it. Hence the founding of a nation where all rich, white, landed gentry were equal and everyone else could go fuck themselves. The law itself reflected few principles that were good for the common man, instead adopting the liberalism of the rich elite who owned the factories and plantations, a philosophy which speaks of a God given right to exploit the lower classes. Theirs is the liberalism of the Bourgeois, rooted not in meaningful principles, but in the Divine Right of the Rich.

 

[Conspiracist]

Regardless of what you think of these people, let's take a look at the other side of the coin and imagine... Now, what if Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Rielly, Sean Hannity and others like them were telling us the absolute truth? How would you react if you suddenly found out that every word they have been saying was the pure truth? Think about that for a couple of minutes... How would you react or feel?

those types will never tell the full truth.


Just a pipe dream.

Also since their "truths" differ so greatly it is impossible that they are all telling the truth.

their ideals are different. Big difference