Standing naked on my property

[Wolf DeVoon]

the Preamble

You're a good guy, George, with a lot of fine qualities. Constitutional law ain't one of them. Preamble is not substantive law. A moment's reflection should persuade you that the Constitution and Bill of Rights afforded few political rights to outvoted minorities (none at all to Negroes and Indians). Opposition newspaper editors were jailed, notwithstanding 1st Amendment freedom of speech. See this post

Every Fourth of July, my fellow countrymen celebrate the mistaken notion that the United States was conceived in liberty. This reveals how little our constitutional history is studied. The U.S. Constitution was not conceived at all — it was a bastard product of compromise and contentious debate, winning ratification by a slim margin among the 20 percent of colonial population who were eligible to vote for assemblies of state politicians who narrowly approved it: Pennsylvania 46-23, Virginia 89-79, New York 30-27. The U.S. Constitution did not provide any definition of justice. [COGIGG, p.122]

Anti-federalists were right. It was a bad idea to make the Constitution supreme law of the land, made worse by inverting the doctrine of enumerated powers in exchange for meaningless "protections" of the Bill of Rights that were ignored and interpreted away to nothing.

What did the Constitution and Bill of Rights achieve? -- Civil War, conscription, paper money, railroad land grants.

[George H. Smith]

the Preamble

You're a good guy, George, with a lot of fine qualities. Constitutional law ain't one of them. Preamble is not substantive law.

I said nothing about "substantive law." I merely cited the clause from the Preamble as one of the intended purposes of the Constitution.

Considering my supposed ignorance of the Constitution, I must have been very lucky when my four scripts on the U.S. Constitution (around 200 pages total -- equivalent to a short book -- on the Constitutional Convention and the text of the Constitution) were approved by a battery of constitutional scholars in 1987, after which they were approved by the Bicentennial Commission and became part of the "official" account (produced by Knowledge Products) for the Bicentennial celebration. I was also the editor for the complete series of 8 tapes.

My scripts (narrated by Walter Cronkite) are still available in DVD format.

The Constitutional Convention

http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Convention-Library-Cronkite-Narrator/dp/0786169788/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409781636&sr=1-2&keywords=george+h.+smith+constitution

The Text of the United States Constitution

http://www.amazon.com/United-States-Constitution-Audio-Classics/dp/0786169761/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409781636&sr=1-3&keywords=george+h.+smith+constitution

Ghs

[Darrell Hougen]

What did the Constitution and Bill of Rights achieve? -- Civil War, conscription, paper money, railroad land grants.

You get into these negative moods. Surely, you can think of good things that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights achieved.

Why is the U.S. still the most productive country in the world? Do our institutions get any credit, or was it all an accident? A fluke? Or is it the freedoms afforded by the common law?

Darrell

[George H. Smith]

Anti-federalists were right. It was a bad idea to make the Constitution supreme law of the land, made worse by inverting the doctrine of enumerated powers in exchange for meaningless "protections" of the Bill of Rights that were ignored and interpreted away to nothing.

What did the Constitution and Bill of Rights achieve? -- Civil War, conscription, paper money, railroad land grants.

Although I would not put the matter as you did, my opinion of the Antifederalists was summarized in this post from 4 April 2011.

George wrote:

The main argument of Antifederalists was that the Constitution was a betrayal of the principles of the American Revolution and constituted a serious threat to individual liberty. They were largely right.

End quote

Let me repeat the sentence George H. Smith frequently says, Xray, without any disclaimers, and which always sets me off. I will speak to him.

George, you said, They were largely right.

There you go again. Anarchists find traitors to THEIR freedom among the founding fathers machinations at the creation of the Constitution.

You are going off the rails again, Peter, and becoming hysterical.

I never said anything about traitors. Nor does my comment have anything to do with my anarchism. I merely stated the position of many Antifederalists.

Do you not count opponents of the Constitution as founding fathers? They included George Mason, author of the magnificent Virginia Bill of Rights and a delegate to the Constitutional Convention who said he would rather cut off his right hand than sign the document. What about Richard Henry Lee, the Virginian who made the original resolution for American independence in the Second Continental Congress? What about Patrick Henry, who refused to serve as a delegate to the Convention because he "smelt a rat"? What about Sam Adams? What about Mercy Otis Warren, the woman who wrote a two-volume history of the Revolution and who warned that the Constitution, by failing to provide sufficient safeguards for freedom, would eventually become a virtual blank check for the expansion of federal power? What about all those Quakers and other opponents of slavery who protested that pro-slavery document?

Historians estimate that over half of America's population opposed ratification of the Constitution. The political tricks and maneuvering used by Federalists to overcome this liability have been been well documented by historians.

A few years ago, at an ISIL conference in Williamsburg, I gave two lectures on the topic, "Was the U.S. Constitution a Betrayal of the American Revolution?" My talk was very balanced, as I presented the strong and weak points of each side objectively. But whether one wishes to use the term "betrayal" or not, the fact that the Constitution departed radically from many essential principles of the Revolution is indisputable. This was a hot button topic at the time, widely discussed, and Hamilton discusses it in the Federalist Papers. He freely acknowledges the differences, but argues that the Constitution, by dramatically increasing the power of the federal government, was a change for the better.

Then there is the fact that the Philadelphia Convention exceeded its legally authorized mandate, which was to correct and amend the Articles of Confederation. This is one reason why Rhode Island never even sent delegates and why Lansing and Yates, two of the three delegates from NY, left in protest not long after the Convention began. Antifederalists objected to this illegality and demanded that a new convention be held -- one that was legally authorized and was not stacked with nationalists. In the Federalist Papers, Madison pretty much concedes the illegality argument but goes on to say that the Constitution was a new revolution, in effect.

As a pro-Constitution newspaper put it at the time: The War with Britain was a revolution in favor of freedom. The Philadelphia Convention is a revolution in favor of government.

In my two ISIL talks (which run around 2-1/2 hours total, and which may be available from ISIL), I present a detailed list and discussion of the many ways in which the Constitution departed from the principles of radical republicanism that animated the Revolution. Revolutionary principles included short terms in office, compulsory rotation in office (i.e., term limitations), a deep suspicion of executive power, a preference for local governments over a centralized government, limits on taxing power, the insistence that all powers exercised by a government must be enumerated and expressly granted by the people, a preference for federalism over nationalism, etc., etc. In virtually every case, modern libertarians would agree with the Antifederalists, not the Federalists, on these issues.

Fortunately, the nationalists did not get everything they wanted. (Hamilton, for example, wanted a president elected for life who would have to power to veto all state legislation.) Hence the final document was, in Madison's words, a "bundle of compromises." It also incorporated a number of good ideas that both Federalists and Antifederalists shared. This is why I said the Antifederalists were largely correct.

Virtually every one of their predictions about the growth of governmental power that would occur under the Constitution has come to pass, and they correctly identified the reasons for this, such as the "general welfare" clause and the "necessary and proper" clause. The Antifederalists were amenable to changes in the Articles, but they wanted to close the loopholes that the Constitution left for the expansion of power.

The dire warnings of the Antifederalists were widely dismissed as anti-government hysteria, but it was not long before Hamilton, in his defense of federal subsidies for private businesses, presented his detailed defense of the Implied Powers Doctrine. According to this doctrine, the Constitution implicitly vests Congress with powers that far exceed the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8. This broad interpretation of the general welfare clause, which effectively renders the enumerated powers (Art. 1, Sec. 8) null and void by vesting Congress with indefinite and undefined powers, was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1936. The majority decision declared:

Hamilton maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised for the general welfare.

Many Antifederalists, such as Mercy Warren, saw this coming and insisted that the Constitution should be rewritten so as to leave no doubt that Congress had only those powers that were expressly delegated to it.

I discussed these issues in some detail in the four Knowledge Products tapes that I wrote on the Constitution -- two on the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention and two on the text of the Constitution itself. My four tapes (around 200 manuscript pages) were part of an eight tape set, and in 1988 this set, after receiving the approval of a committee of leading historians, became the official Bicentennial tapes on the U.S. Constitution. I mention this in case you think that an anarchist is incapable of writing good history.

Some time ago, during an earlier incarnation of our debate, I urged you to read the Antifederalists and to become more educated about how the Constitution was written and ratified. You obviously ignored my advice. Fine, that is your prerogative -- but waving the American flag in my face is no substitute for knowledge.

America, considered in terms of her fundamental principles, will find no greater champion than I. You would know this if you ever listened to some of my lectures on American history, such as the three I delivered for over a decade at Cato summer conferences. A set of these used to be available from Laissez-Faire Books, but I don't know if they still are.

I have alway detested patriotism rooted in ignorance -- that jingoistic, "love it or leave it attitude" that should never be expressed without first putting on boots and a cowboy hat. By studying and teaching early American history, I have done more to honor this country than you ever have, or ever could.

If anything, the fact that I am an anarchist enables me to appreciate early American history even more. The anitauthoritarian spirit of anarchism runs deep in American history. We see it in the antinomianism of Roger Williams; in the revolutionary ideology of the colonial period; in the "that government is best which governs not at all" attitude of Thoreau; in the radical Jeffersonian individualism of William Leggett and the Loco-Focos; in the voluntary experimental communities of Josiah Warren, Moses Harman, and other social nonconformists; in the "Constitution of No Authority" of Lysander Spooner; in the condemnation of the Constitution as "a covenant with death and an agreement with hell" by William Lloyd Garrison and other abolitionists whose passionate belief in self-ownership often cost them their lives; and in many other fountainheads of American freedom.

Then some ignoramus like you happens along and, while tap-dancing to "God Bless America," tells me to love it or leave, and that I cannot appreciate America if I don't blindly believe in the mythology of the U.S. Constitution.

Ghs

I should also note the remarkable comment by James Madison, made on the floor of the 1787 Convention, that the purpose of a new constitution was to create a central government with powers even greater than the powers of the British parliament, against which Americans had recently rebelled.

[Wolf DeVoon]

What did the Constitution and Bill of Rights achieve? -- Civil War, conscription, paper money, railroad land grants.

You get into these negative moods. Surely, you can think of good things that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights achieved.

...freedoms afforded by the common law?

Moods? -- an assessment other than yours is a mood?

Common law does not afford freedoms.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Although I would not put the matter as you did, my opinion of the Antifederalists was summarized in this post from 4 April 2011.

Noted, no objection. As I said above, you have many fine qualities.

[George H. Smith]

My last post mentioned the lectures on American History that I repeatedly delivered at Cato Summer Seminars during the 1980s. The 3 lectures (which run around 4-1/2 hours total) from 1983 have since been posted on YouTube by L.org. Here are the first two. I discuss the Constitution and the ratification debates in the second lecture. The first deals mainly with the principles of the American Revolution.

These lectures were given during my Skinny Years.

Ghs

[Darrell Hougen]

What did the Constitution and Bill of Rights achieve? -- Civil War, conscription, paper money, railroad land grants.

You get into these negative moods. Surely, you can think of good things that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights achieved.

...freedoms afforded by the common law?

Moods? -- an assessment other than yours is a mood?

Common law does not afford freedoms.

I was attempting to be gracious. "What did the Constitution and the Bill of Rights achieve?" To suggest that all it accomplished was "Civil War, conscription, paper money, [and] railroad land grants" is to ignore most of American history.

It is true that the Constitution had and has its problems. It didn't eliminate slavery. The historical reasons for that are well known. It didn't eliminate conscription. It should have. The other points are debatable.

The Constitution established the primary institutions of government. It established the three branches of government and divided and enumerated their powers including the checks that each had over the powers of the others. By so doing, it limited the power that any one person could amass. In that, it was largely successful for the first hundred years and has still prevented a tyrant from coming to power. That alone is largely responsible for the success of the Republic.

With the Progressives including Woodrow Wilson, this country's first Progressive President, the government began to escape the box the Constitution had constructed for it. The Executive branch now exercises powers expressly granted to the other two branches of government including legislative and judicial powers.

So, perhaps that's your point. Perhaps your point is that no piece of paper can limit the power of government. In some sense, you're right. The people running the government must respect the rules written on paper for the paper to have any effect and the populace at large must make sure they do.

But, how would you construct a better government? If the people are ignorant and uncaring, how can any government be constructed that protects their rights? One cannot expect judges to be any better than politicians in protecting the rights of ordinary people. The judicial branch is always the weakest branch, subject to intimidation by the executive.

One can attempt to educate people about the proper form and function of government, but it is hard to penetrate a barrier of ignorance and indifference. Or, one can just be cynical. Perhaps things just have to get bad before they start to get better. Or, perhaps it will be too late to do anything and America as a beacon of freedom will pass into history.

Darrell

Edited September 4, 2014 by Darrell Hougen

[Darrell Hougen]

My last post mentioned the lectures on American History that I repeatedly delivered at Cato Summer Seminars during the 1980s. The 3 lectures (which run around 4-1/2 hours total) from 1983 have since been posted on YouTube by L.org. Here are the first two. I discuss the Constitution and the ratification debates in the second lecture. The first deals mainly with the principles of the American Revolution.

These lectures were given during my Skinny Years.

Ghs

I started watching them last night. Very interesting and enlightening.

Darrell

[Wolf DeVoon]

Considering my supposed ignorance of the Constitution, I must have been very lucky when my four scripts on the U.S. Constitution (around 200 pages total -- equivalent to a short book -- on the Constitutional Convention and the text of the Constitution) were approved by a battery of constitutional scholars

I did not say you were ignorant. I said that you conflated the claim of natural rights set forth in the Declaration with constitutionally protected rights (in the quoted video passage) that was subsequently fudged as limited powers, no religious tests, and one of three purposes in the Preamble. We've both read Madison's Debates, Farrand, Elliot, The Federalist, etc, and there is little difference of opinion between us, I trust, that the impetus to scrap the Articles of Confederation was an urgent matter forcing improvisation and tragic compromise.

Where we depart is fairly simple. You seem satisfied with Lockean natural law, both as an historical inspiration for 18th century American liberty and (as you explicitly said in the 1996 clip) a durable source of legal thinking for libertarians in the future. That your scholarship was sanctioned and celebrated is not in question, nor was it a trivial achievement. I admire you for it.

However, it's wrong front to back. John Locke was wrong to derive equality from Scripture, wrong to posit a "state of nature" and to draw inferences from the Hobbesian floating abstraction, wrong about homesteading, wrong about consent, and wrong to shave everything with caveats that disenfranchised the poor, the stupid, the unwanted orphan, Roman Catholics, and other "savages" who deserve nothing but punishment. In the context of his time and experience, the Second Treatise was nonetheless a courageous statement of novel principles that inspired democratic self-government in America. Completely wrong front to back. The history of America from colonial times to Civil War shows repeatedly that land and labor were taken by force, popular legislation a disgraceful division of spoils, an elected Executive no less arbitrary than a monarch, and political appointment of judges an outright disaster.

That last item -- proper constitution of the Judiciary -- has been my particular area of interest for 40 years. I have no firm opinion or concern about the organization of an Executive or any other local, regional, or national combination of private interests. My solitary endeavor was an independent profession of law and administration of justice. In that context, there can be no natural law or natural rights, apart from the legal right to be represented by counsel (if you wish) and petition the courts.

Laissez faire law is discovered and demonstrated in the process of litigation and trial. It cannot be legislated, codified, or imposed by a lawgiver.

[George H. Smith]

Considering my supposed ignorance of the Constitution, I must have been very lucky when my four scripts on the U.S. Constitution (around 200 pages total -- equivalent to a short book -- on the Constitutional Convention and the text of the Constitution) were approved by a battery of constitutional scholars

I did not say you were ignorant. I said that you conflated the claim of natural rights set forth in the Declaration with constitutionally protected rights (in the quoted video passage) that was subsequently fudged as limited powers, no religious tests, and one of three purposes in the Preamble.

I did no such thing.

Where we depart is fairly simple. You seem satisfied with Lockean natural law, both as an historical inspiration for 18th century American liberty and (as you explicitly said in the 1996 clip) a durable source of legal thinking for libertarians in the future.

I am not satisfied with the Lockean version of natural law theory.

However, it's wrong front to back. John Locke was wrong to derive equality from Scripture, wrong to posit a "state of nature" and to draw inferences from the Hobbesian floating abstraction, wrong about homesteading, wrong about consent, and wrong to shave everything with caveats that disenfranchised the poor, the stupid, the unwanted orphan, Roman Catholics, and other "savages" who deserve nothing but punishment.

There are several serious distortions in your brief account of Locke's ideas. That's my primary beef with you. I couldn't care less if you disagree with Locke -- I have many substantial disagreements as well. What annoys the shit out of me is your careless disregard for accuracy. You seem to view earlier quasi-libertarian philosophers as grist for your mill, as straw men to be demolished so you can show how much more clever you are. You remind me of a fanatical Randroid on steroids.

Your problem derives, in part, from your lack of appreciation for historical context, including the key problems of a particular era, such as the 17th century, that had to be overcome before a theory of individual freedom could be established.

For example, Locke believed that reason, not revelation (including the Bible), is the only proper foundation for political philosophy. But the Bible was such a normal part of political discourse during the 17th century that he sometimes referred to it in an effort to show that even that source did not conflict with the conclusions of reason. But to read your accounts one would think that Locke was some kind of Bible thumper. Absurd. Much of Locke's appeal to later Enlightenment thinkers lay in the fact that he did not ground his political theory in the Bible.

You seem to have little or no understanding the the role that a "state of nature" played in the natural rights theory. I discuss, in a somewhat different context (international law), that issue here:

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/natural-rights-moral-foundations-libertarianism-part-1

The two major types of justifications for natural rights are discussed in Part 2:

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/natural-rights-moral-foundations-libertarianism-part-2

Ghs

[Wolf DeVoon]

John Locke was wrong to derive equality from Scripture, wrong to posit a "state of nature" and to draw inferences from the Hobbesian floating abstraction, wrong about homesteading, wrong about consent, and wrong to shave everything with caveats that disenfranchised the poor, the stupid, the unwanted orphan, Roman Catholics, and other "savages" who deserve nothing but punishment.

There are several serious distortions in your brief account of Locke's ideas.

Like what?

I see above you assert Locke used the Bible as a trump card to defend reason. Is that my "several serious distortions"?

-- ooops, he's still editing the above post. Says imaginary "state of nature" is vital in natural rights theory.

[Wolf DeVoon]

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/natural-rights-moral-foundations-libertarianism-part-2

Now who's the Randroid on steroids? -- me, or you?

“Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

That is no answer at all to the constitution of an independent judiciary. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

Laissez faire law is discovered and demonstrated in the process of litigation and trial. It cannot be legislated, codified, or imposed by a lawgiver.

[Brant Gaede]

Considering my supposed ignorance of the Constitution, I must have been very lucky when my four scripts on the U.S. Constitution (around 200 pages total -- equivalent to a short book -- on the Constitutional Convention and the text of the Constitution) were approved by a battery of constitutional scholars

I did not say you were ignorant. I said that you conflated the claim of natural rights set forth in the Declaration with constitutionally protected rights (in the quoted video passage) that was subsequently fudged as limited powers, no religious tests, and one of three purposes in the Preamble. We've both read Madison's Debates, Farrand, Elliot, The Federalist, etc, and there is little difference of opinion between us, I trust, that the impetus to scrap the Articles of Confederation was an urgent matter forcing improvisation and tragic compromise.

Where we depart is fairly simple. You seem satisfied with Lockean natural law, both as an historical inspiration for 18th century American liberty and (as you explicitly said in the 1996 clip) a durable source of legal thinking for libertarians in the future. That your scholarship was sanctioned and celebrated is not in question, nor was it a trivial achievement. I admire you for it.

However, it's wrong front to back. John Locke was wrong to derive equality from Scripture, wrong to posit a "state of nature" and to draw inferences from the Hobbesian floating abstraction, wrong about homesteading, wrong about consent, and wrong to shave everything with caveats that disenfranchised the poor, the stupid, the unwanted orphan, Roman Catholics, and other "savages" who deserve nothing but punishment. In the context of his time and experience, the Second Treatise was nonetheless a courageous statement of novel principles that inspired democratic self-government in America. Completely wrong front to back. The history of America from colonial times to Civil War shows repeatedly that land and labor were taken by force, popular legislation a disgraceful division of spoils, an elected Executive no less arbitrary than a monarch, and political appointment of judges an outright disaster.

That last item -- proper constitution of the Judiciary -- has been my particular area of interest for 40 years. I have no firm opinion or concern about the organization of an Executive or any other local, regional, or national combination of private interests. My solitary endeavor was an independent profession of law and administration of justice. In that context, there can be no natural law or natural rights, apart from the legal right to be represented by counsel (if you wish) and petition the courts.

Laissez faire law is discovered and demonstrated in the process of litigation and trial. It cannot be legislated, codified, or imposed by a lawgiver.

This sort of sounds like the "rule of the airmen" in the 1930s' movie Things to Come or, in this case, rule of the lawyers. Well, that's what we've got. Good luck getting rid of it with this approach. Freedom comes from the citizenry. Bottom up. The structure is always secondary.

I've yet to read your book Laissez Faire Law.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

John Locke was wrong to derive equality from Scripture, wrong to posit a "state of nature" and to draw inferences from the Hobbesian floating abstraction, wrong about homesteading, wrong about consent, and wrong to shave everything with caveats that disenfranchised the poor, the stupid, the unwanted orphan, Roman Catholics, and other "savages" who deserve nothing but punishment.

There are several serious distortions in your brief account of Locke's ideas.

Like what?

I see above you assert Locke used the Bible as a trump card to defend reason. Is that my "several serious distortions"?

I never said that "Locke used the Bible as a trump card to defend reason." If you cannot accurately summarize a brief post from minutes earlier, no wonder you have a serious problem with more difficult passages.

As for your misrepresentations of Locke, your claim that he shaved "everything with caveats that disenfranchised the poor, the stupid, the unwanted orphan, Roman Catholics, and other "savages" who deserve nothing but punishment" is a joke.

If you are interested in my own interpretation of Locke's ideas, it can be found in my presentation for Knowledge Products, originally produced in 1987. The complete recording (over 2-1/2 hours) may be listened to for free (in streaming video or downloaded) on the L.org website here:

http://www.libertarianism.org/media/video-collection/cato-home-study-course-vol-2-john-lockes-two-treatises-government

Ghs

[Wolf DeVoon]

Laissez faire law is discovered and demonstrated in the process of litigation and trial. It cannot be legislated, codified, or imposed by a lawgiver

rule of the lawyers. Well, that's what we've got. Freedom comes from the citizenry. Bottom up.

What we have now is bottom up tyranny of voting lawyers into legislatures and the executive branch, political appointment of judges.

[Wolf DeVoon]

I never said that "Locke used the Bible as a trump card to defend reason."

I said it. You and I see the issue differently. No one is obliged to agree with you, or to accept your interpretation as law.

Ayn Rand The Lawgiver, George Smith The Lawgiver ...

Lemme guess. Judges are robots. All cases are decided by Moral Law -- yours -- no adversarial claims allowed.

[Brant Gaede]

I never said that "Locke used the Bible as a trump card to defend reason."

I said it. You and I see the issue differently. No one is obliged to agree with you, or to accept your interpretation as law.

Ayn Rand The Lawgiver, John Rawls The Lawgiver, George Smith The Lawgiver ... cripes in a tea kettle.

But you aren't? True, not in any comparable sense. (I'm not talking Rawls, whom I don't know.) Rand and Smith are mostly cutters of law clutter by referencing political philosophy but they ain't Moses. All they are saying is ye shall not initiate physical force. Where say ye that? If ye do, then ye are no more than them. If ye not, then WTF?

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Rand and Smith are mostly cutters of law clutter by referencing political philosophy but they ain't Moses. All they are saying is ye shall not initiate physical force. Where say ye that? If ye do, then ye are no more than them. If ye not, then WTF?

Courts of law and sworn law enforcement officers initiate force as a matter of necessary routine. You are summoned to appear.

[George H. Smith]

I never said that "Locke used the Bible as a trump card to defend reason."

I said it. You and I see the issue differently. No one is obliged to agree with you, or to accept your interpretation as law.

Here is what you wrote, referring to my earlier post (my italics):

I see above you assert Locke used the Bible as a trump card to defend reason.

It seems you have trouble even understanding what you wrote.

Ghs

[Wolf DeVoon]

Sorry, guys, I'm quitting this thread, no more to say.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm still going to read your L.F.L. so I can get my head around your ideas in this area. I still can't quite get what they come out of so their context is missing. First you have human being ("man") then his best if not necessary philosophy then political philosophy. Without the philosophy I'm having trouble with the political. Ayn Rand came with the philosophy but it's so ignorant of human being, though hardly all ignorance, it's still flapping around on the floor like a bird with a broken wing. Locke and the Founding Fathers were all about people and their needs and problems of getting along socially. Rand came with an ethics and lip service to "reason." Rand could not begin to stand up to this kind of Internet environment of give and take nor did she even indulge in more limited venues. So far you complain about "law givers," but all I see is a structure giver as a replacement but you still are a giver, if only would be, or a top-downer to hoi polloi and, in fact, to everyone. Givers need takers. That's the trade.

--Brant

[Darrell Hougen]

I'm still going to read your L.F.L. so I can get my head around your ideas in this area. I still can't quite get what they come out of so their context is missing. First you have human being ("man") then his best if not necessary philosophy then political philosophy. Without the philosophy I'm having trouble with the political. Ayn Rand came with the philosophy but it's so ignorant of human being, though hardly all ignorance, it's still flapping around on the floor like a bird with a broken wing. Locke and the Founding Fathers were all about people and their needs and problems of getting along socially. Rand came with an ethics and lip service to "reason." Rand could not begin to stand up to this kind of Internet environment of give and take nor did she even indulge in more limited venues. So far you complain about "law givers," but all I see is a structure giver as a replacement but you still are a giver, if only would be, or a top-downer to hoi polloi and, in fact, to everyone. Givers need takers. That's the trade.

--Brant

Some days I think you understand Rand implicitly and other days you sound clueless. "Lib service to 'reason'"? What is that?

Look here (emphasis added):

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

I can scarcely count the number of times Rand stressed the importance of rationality and/or reason.

Perhaps you just have a bad habit of conceding too much in the interest of being polite.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Laissez faire law is discovered and demonstrated in the process of litigation and trial. It cannot be legislated, codified, or imposed by a lawgiver.

Discovered by what means using what facts with reference to what principles? The judge's opinion? Based on nothing? If the judge has no concepts of right and wrong, what is he to do? Just twist in the wind? If you think your system will work, you must have some reason for believing that judges will tend to converge on the right conclusions or decisions most of the time or over time. Should they consult their own moral codes? Or their own feelings? Or should they based their concept of right on reason? Or is the outcome irrelevant so long as the right procedure has been followed?

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

I'm still going to read your L.F.L. so I can get my head around your ideas in this area. I still can't quite get what they come out of so their context is missing. First you have human being ("man") then his best if not necessary philosophy then political philosophy. Without the philosophy I'm having trouble with the political. Ayn Rand came with the philosophy but it's so ignorant of human being, though hardly all ignorance, it's still flapping around on the floor like a bird with a broken wing. Locke and the Founding Fathers were all about people and their needs and problems of getting along socially. Rand came with an ethics and lip service to "reason." Rand could not begin to stand up to this kind of Internet environment of give and take nor did she even indulge in more limited venues. So far you complain about "law givers," but all I see is a structure giver as a replacement but you still are a giver, if only would be, or a top-downer to hoi polloi and, in fact, to everyone. Givers need takers. That's the trade.

--Brant

Some days I think you understand Rand implicitly and other days you sound clueless. "Lib service to 'reason'"? What is that?

Look here (emphasis added):

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

I can scarcely count the number of times Rand stressed the importance of rationality and/or reason.

Perhaps you just have a bad habit of conceding too much in the interest of being polite.

Darrell

I was there in NYC during the height of NBI "reason" in Objectivism days where you were served the philosophy up on a plate. "It's your job to tell people that Objectivism is. It's our job to tell them what it is." "Reason" is the window dressing of Objectivism. Of course there is a lot of it inside, but it's not yours. If it was you'd have walked out the door.

--Brant

now, shall I repeat my critique of the philosophy as such, for the 100th time? (Rand's quote is all wrong)