http://mises.org/books/15great.pdf
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Perhaps the most libertarian of all the scholastics, particularly in his later works, was the Jesuit FatherJuan de Mariana. Mariana was born in the city of Talavera de la Reina, near Toledo. He appears to have been the illegitimate son of a canon of Talavera, and when he was sixteen, joined the Society of Jesus, which had just been created. At the age of twenty-four, he was summoned to Rome to teach theology, then transferred to the school the Jesuits ran in Sicily, and from there to the University of Paris. In 1574, he returned to Spain, living and studying in Toledo until his death at the age of eighty-seven. Although Father Mariana wrote many books, the first one with a libertarian content was De rege et regis institutione (On the king and the royal institution), published in 1598, in which he set forth his famous defense of tyrannicide. According to Mariana, any individual citizen can justly assassinate a king who imposes taxes without the consent of the people, seizes the property of individuals and squanders it, or prevents a meeting of a democratic parliament.3 The doctrines contained in this book were apparently used to justify the assassination of the French tyrant kings Henry III and Henry IV, and the book was burned in Paris by the executioner as a result of a decree issued by the Parliament of Paris on July 4, 1610.4 In Spain, although the authorities were not enthusiastic about it, the book was respected. In fact, all Mariana did was to take an idea-that natural law is morally superior to the might of the state-to its logical conclusion. This idea had previously been developed in detail by the great founder of international law, the Dominican Francisco de Vitoria (1485-1546), who began the Spanish scholastic tradition of denouncing the conquest and particularly the enslavement of the Indians by the Spaniards in the New World. But perhaps Mariana's most important book was the work published in 1605 with the title De monetae mutatione (On the alteration of money).5 In this book, Mariana began to question whether the king was the owner of the private property of his vassals or citizens and reached the clear conclusion that he was not. The author then applied his distinction between a king and a tyrant and concluded that "the tyrant is he who tramples everything underfoot and believes everything to belong to him; the king restricts or limits his covetousness within the terms of reason and justice." From this, Mariana deduced that the king cannot demand tax without the consent of the people, since taxes are simply an appropriation of part of the subjects' wealth.
History texts will tell you that the state and religious authorities colluded against individuals in order to consolidate power through sheer coercion. There is a grain of truth to this statement, but it ignores the fine natural law tradition which attacked the "divine right" of the king, and eliminated all justification for the state, taxes, and inflation. Liberals hate religion because they hate natural law, all forms of it. They need reality to be purely subjective, reason to be illusory, in order to justify their absurd positions.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Esuric:History texts will tell you that the state and religious authorities colluded against individuals in order to consolidate power through sheer coercion
Indeed they did. I’m afraid that Mariana’s idea, even if sincere, was publicized only to justify the overthrow of the French monarchy (which created the very first truly socialist state in Europe), and relegated to oblivion shortly afterward (which could explain why I hear of this guy only now). Many people have used libertarian ideas to gain power, with the Marxists advocating ultimate anarchy just to get a grip of the state serving as foremost examples.
The sad truth might well be that libertarians have no ally whatsoever, but at all times find themselves opposing anyone else, and often even one-another (I’m referring to minarchists vs. anarchists, natural-lawers vs. utilitarians, etc.). The sooner we get used to this idea, the better it shall be.
Have you heard of Turgot, Say, Bastiat, or the Physiocrats?
My point is simple: it's one thing to disagree with religion and find something illogical, irrational, or wrong with it, but it's an entirely different thing to hate religion, and all people who consider themselves religious. Do religious authorities abuse power? Of course, but we must not forget that religion (not all elements) stood in the face of tyranny.
The only reason I bring this is up, is because whenever there is a thread or a blog post where anyone even mentions religion, it turns into a major thread where one group calls all religious people barbarian statist's. Natural law is the epitome of liberalism (in the classical sense).
Bastiat:If plunder arms the strong against the weak, it no less lets loose the intelligent upon the credulous. What industrious peoples are there on earth who have escaped exploitation at the hand of sacerdotal theocracies, Egyptian priests, Greek oracles, Roman augurs, Gallic druids, brahmins, muftis, ulemas, bonzes, monks, ministers, mountebanks, sorcerers, soothsayers, plunderers of all garbs and denominations? It is the genius of plunderers of this ilk to place their fulcrum in heaven and to glory in a sacrilegious complicity with God! They put in chains, not men's bodies alone, but their minds as well. They put the brand of servitude as much upon the conscience of a Seid as upon the brow of a Spartacus, thus achieving what would seem to be impossible: the enslavement of the mind. Enslavement of the mind! What a frightful association of words! O liberty! We have seen thee hunted from country to country, crushed by conquest, nigh unto death in servitude, jeered at in the courts of the mighty, driven from the schools, mocked in the drawing room, misinterpreted in the studio, anathematized in the temple. It would seem that in thought thou shouldst find an inviolable refuge. But if thou shouldst surrender in this last haven, what becomes of the hope of the ages and of the dignity of man?
Esuric:Natural law is the epitome of liberalism
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
I didn't say Bastiat was religious, I just asked him if he's ever heard of the pre-Austrian Austrians (for lack of a better word).
To say that religion (specifically Catholicism) had nothing to do with natural law (Aquinas, the Salamanca School), or that it did not influence subsequent forms of natural law, is just absurd. I don't get what you mean by "revealed" religion.
I'm sorry if I can't find where in one of bastiat's books he says this, but I do also think that bastiat was religious since he lauds the religious morality of the americans who lived in the freest state (according to him) and he attempts to parallel the ethics of the market (thrift, honesty) with the ethics of religion. Another clue is that in the above quote by juan, bastiat uses the word "sacrilegious" to describe state-church alliance.
As regards the OP I think that any ideology including religion can be used for both liberty and statism. For instance, in "A debate on the salt and iron mines" of han china (i think that is the correct title?) those who are in favor of deregulation of the iron mines are actually using socialist (I'm using it anachronistically) rhetoric (merchants are bad, by nationalizing the mines the gov. acts like a merchant, so nationalization is bad) to argue for it. My own opinion is that religion qua the state did more damage in the west than good. But atheism too is looking like the nouveux fashion of tyranny in our latter times (what with the USSR and socialistic-european countries being less religious than the US) so one can say I have a wary attitude to both in proportion as they get closer to the state.
I'm sorry if I can't find where in one of bastiat's books he says this, but I do also think that bastiat was religious
To say that religion (specifically Catholicism) had nothing to do with natural law (Aquinas,
Let's not get into all of that, Juan.
Juan:To say that religion (specifically Catholicism) had nothing to do with natural law (Aquinas, Well, it had to do with 'natural law', not with natural law. When I say natural law, I'm referring to libertarian natural law, so to speak. On the other hand, this is catholic 'natural law' Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death." I hope you see the difference ?
No. That one quote does not invalidate an entire movement. There was progression, over time, where libertarianism was deduced from premises put forth by religious institutions (and others). The Jesuits and the Salamanca school are as libertarian as you get, as well as extremely religious.
Either way, my point is simple: When Marxists attack religion, they're really attacking natural law.
Have you read Rothbard's essay "Marx As Religious Eschatologist", Esuric?
Esuric:Either way, my point is simple: When Marxists attack religion, they're really attacking natural law.
I like the way this is going, so the battle between marxism and austrianism (or libertarianism to be more exact) is really the battle between the philosophy of aquinas-aristotle and that of hegel or marx?
Juan:Yes, in a parallel universe. Not in real western history.
Yes I meant in a logical way not a historical way.
Natural law, if it's fully realized and embraced, will mean the death of etatism. It would mean that a person doesn't have to be well-versed in economics and political philosophy to see the evil's of the state. Inflation and taxes will be on the same moral footing as rape and murder. There's a reason why religion (especially Catholicism) became the target of so many intellectual movements during the 17th, 18th, and 19th century. If it was really so in bed with the state, it would have remained prominent.
The Jesuits...as libertarian as you get,
loyola:Thirteenth Rule: To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black if the hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the bridegroom, and the Church, His bride, there is the same spirit, which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls.
1984: 'Do you remember,' he went on, 'writing in your diary, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four"?' 'Yes,' said Winston. O'Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended. 'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?' 'Four.' 'And if the party says that it is not four but five--then how many?' 'Four.' The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston's body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O'Brien watched him, the four fingers still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased. 'How many fingers, Winston?' 'Four.' The needle went up to sixty. 'How many fingers, Winston?' 'Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!' The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at it. The heavy,stern face and the four fingers filled his vision. The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably four. 'How many fingers, Winston?' 'Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!' 'How many fingers, Winston?' 'Five! Five! Five!' 'No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?' 'Four! five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!'
loyola:Thirteenth Rule: To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black if the hierarchical Church so decides it,
Esuric:Liberals hate religion because they hate natural law, all forms of it. They need reality to be purely subjective, reason to be illusory, in order to justify their absurd positions.
Indeed, without a religious foundation, natural law is a laughably weak position. There is a reason why natural law remains primarily a Christian political philosophy; if man was not made in the image of God, if man were nothing but a rational ape then there is absolutely no reason for believing in the dignity of the individual that is necessary for the dogmas of natural law to be fully comprehended. If God is dead, then there is no objective moral obligation holding back the king from executing citizens as he sees fit.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus:Indeed, without a religious foundation, natural law is a laughably weak position. There is a reason why natural law remains primarily a Christian political philosophy; if man was not made in the image of God, if man were nothing but a rational ape then there is absolutely no reason for believing in the dignity of the individual that is necessary for the dogmas of natural law to be fully comprehended. If God is dead, then there is no objective moral obligation holding back the king from executing citizens as he sees fit.
I tend to agree, this is why philosophy is important. A strong position in favor of natural rights without appealing to God would be revolutionary.
laminustacitus: Indeed, without a religious foundation, natural law is a laughably weak position. There is a reason why natural law remains primarily a Christian political philosophy; if man was not made in the image of God, if man were nothing but a rational ape then there is absolutely no reason for believing in the dignity of the individual that is necessary for the dogmas of natural law to be fully comprehended. If God is dead, then there is no objective moral obligation holding back the king from executing citizens as he sees fit.
An opposite argument can be made just as easily. Natural rights are only meaningful, if they can not be broken without that being an act of evil. Jet some religions speak of God as a being that transcends good and evil, a being that can murder a human being without that being an act of evil. Thus natural law is actually only ever meaningful when it is placed above God, in the sense that even God must conform to it or be rightfully condemned. Thus what makes natural rights a strong proposition is not that they come from God, but that they are divorced from God in the sense that they are much more than merely his whim (wheter it is that they come from Him or not).There is a reason why natural law remains primarily a Christian political philosophy (rather than a Jewish or a Muslim one) and it is because the New Testament nowhere has God, father or son, break any natural rights, thus it can be thought of them as something that is truly absolute to the point that even He must conform to them.
This is what was truly revolutionary about Christianity. It for the first time allowed for a God that is bound, we could say shackled, by ethics. Before that time the omnipotent God that went around pissing down on the dignity of human life was an obstacle to absolute morality.
Marko: laminustacitus: Indeed, without a religious foundation, natural law is a laughably weak position. There is a reason why natural law remains primarily a Christian political philosophy; if man was not made in the image of God, if man were nothing but a rational ape then there is absolutely no reason for believing in the dignity of the individual that is necessary for the dogmas of natural law to be fully comprehended. If God is dead, then there is no objective moral obligation holding back the king from executing citizens as he sees fit. An opposite argument can be made just as easily. Natural rights are only meaningful, if they can not be broken without that being an act of evil. Jet some religions speak of God as a being that transcends good and evil, a being that can murder a human being without that being an act of evil. Thus natural law is actually only ever meaningful when it is placed above God, in the sense that even God must conform to it or be rightfully condemned. Thus what makes natural rights a strong proposition is not that they come from God, but that they are divorced from God in the sense that they are much more than merely his whim (wheter it is that they come from Him or not).
An opposite argument can be made just as easily. Natural rights are only meaningful, if they can not be broken without that being an act of evil. Jet some religions speak of God as a being that transcends good and evil, a being that can murder a human being without that being an act of evil. Thus natural law is actually only ever meaningful when it is placed above God, in the sense that even God must conform to it or be rightfully condemned. Thus what makes natural rights a strong proposition is not that they come from God, but that they are divorced from God in the sense that they are much more than merely his whim (wheter it is that they come from Him or not).
Absolutely no religion speaks of God as a being that can "transcend good and evil"; rather God is a being that defines good, and evil. Furthermore, you are completely overlooking the fact that the relationship between man, and his fellow man is of a completely different nature than that of man, and his Creator. In fact, man owes his Creator everything due to the fact that he cannot exist if it were not for God's act of creation. Ergo, this entire argument fails to realize that God is the very Creator of natural law, and that because of this fact he is "above" it. In addition, the obligations entailed by natural law cannot exist in an ontological void, the "ought" must be grounded in an "is".
Marko:There is a reason why natural law remains primarily a Christian political philosophy (rather than a Jewish or a Muslim one) and it is because the New Testament nowhere has God, father or son, break any natural rights, thus it can be thought of them as something that is truly absolute to the point that even He must conform to them.
....
Marko:This is what was truly revolutionary about Christianity. It for the first time allowed for a God that is bound, we could say shackled, by ethics. Before that time the omnipotent God was an obstacle to absolute morality.
No, in Christianity, God is goodness in itself. He is not "shackled" by any moral precepts.
laminustacitus: Marko:This is what was truly revolutionary about Christianity. It for the first time allowed for a God that is bound, we could say shackled, by ethics. Before that time the omnipotent God was an obstacle to absolute morality. No, in Christianity, God is goodness in itself. He is not "shackled" by any moral precepts.
Semantics. He is bound by his very nature. How you phrase it has no practical consequences.
People presuppose natural law and categorical truth every time they act. If there was no truth, if causality didn't exist, if there were no natural laws governing our universe, then all action would be meaningless. You could wake up in the morning and find that your bed has turned into a black hole, or your doorknob into a snake, or that the sun no longer exists; your life, sanity, and whatever would be in danger at all times. Constancy and order within the universe allow for purposeful action. The teleological argument, at least for me, is the most reasonable explanation for such order (to say that there isn't complete order, or that the world isn't perfect, would be ignoring the argument, rather than refuting it; men are not gods, and not omnipotent, which is also necessary for human action). If it's good enough for economics, it's good enough for metaphysics, at least that's my view.
Marko:He is bound by his very nature.
He is the creator of nature. If you're going to talk about god, the same god in the bible, then he knows no limits. He invented limits for all other beings.
laminustacitus: Absolutely no religion speaks of God as a being that can "transcend good and evil"; ...
Absolutely no religion speaks of God as a being that can "transcend good and evil"; ...
What does it matter what is the actual vocabulary employed? People are capable of drawing their own conclusions as to what it amounts to. The point is that fundamentalist religion (including Orthodox Marxism) demands submission to god`s will that is completely arbitrary, thus virtue is completely dependant on the context. Anything may be virtous provided that god wills it. Whereas Christianity (with exceptions) specifically made efforts to explain that God`s will can not possibly be for someone to commit what would on its own amount to evil. In words of the common man, God is incapable of making his will be for you to commit evil.
Marko: laminustacitus: Marko:This is what was truly revolutionary about Christianity. It for the first time allowed for a God that is bound, we could say shackled, by ethics. Before that time the omnipotent God was an obstacle to absolute morality. No, in Christianity, God is goodness in itself. He is not "shackled" by any moral precepts. Semantics. He is bound by his very nature. How you phrase it has no practical consequences.
God is not "Bound" by anything, you are falsely implying that His nature binds him.
Marko:What does it matter what is the actual vocabulary employed?
Because subtle changes in vocabulary can have a massive effect on the meaning of the sentance.
Marko:The point is that fundamentalist religion (including Orthodox Marxism) demands submission to god`s will that is completely arbitrary, thus virtue is completely dependant on the context.
It is utter nonsense to speak of God's will as "completely arbitrary".
Marko:Whereas Christianity (with exceptions) specifically made efforts to explain that God`s will can not possibly be for someone to commit what would on its own amount to evil.
I don't understand what you are asserting here.
Marko:In words of the common man, God is incapable of making his will be for you to commit evil.
That is utterly contradictory due to the fact that whatever God wills is, by definition, good. However, to assert that even the most extreme forms of divine voluntarism are incompatible with Christianity is incorrect; many theologians, though, have tried to create systems in which God cannot will anything that would be intuited by man as "bad", the end results of such systems do not shackle God to any exogenous moral law, but rather state that He is not simply a good being, but rather goodness per se. As a result, God has no limits, but He would simply not will anything to that which is not good - but, at this point natural theology simply breaks down due to the limits of pure reason.
This repugnant thread is just a sermon.
Caley McKibbin: This repugnant thread is just a sermon.
Like most arguments against god, they're either entirely invalid, like Marko's position, or entirely emotional, like yours. That's not to say that there are extremely valid arguments against God, because there are, but they're hard to find in non-philosophical circles. And yet, in these circles (non-philosophical), you will find the most, let's say, 'aggressive' arguments against God (the broadest possible definition of God).
Even on libertarian websites, you can't support any notion of God without being called disgusting, nor can you even defend the mere possibility of God when it's attacked. No one on this thread has damned anyone to hell, nor have I said anyone is immoral because they don't believe in God; rather, I put forth a very straightforward statement, which was immediately attacked, and now I'm expressing my views. It seems like some so-called libertarians will let anyone BUT religious people exist.
Very emotional and irrational. I mean your icon says it all.
laminustacitus: Marko:The point is that fundamentalist religion (including Orthodox Marxism) demands submission to god`s will that is completely arbitrary, thus virtue is completely dependant on the context. It is utter nonsense to speak of God's will as "completely arbitrary".
Well I said god`s will. Or do you deny that the will of The God That Is Communism (to the devout) is arbitrary? Simply because the Marxist-Leninist priestly clas asserts otherwise (that it is "scientific")?
Nobody actually goes out to say their god`s will is arbitrary. But many of them say a lot of other things which taken together amount to the same thing.
laminustacitus: That is utterly contradictory due to the fact that whatever God wills is, by definition, good. However, to assert that even the most extreme forms of divine voluntarism are incompatible with Christianity is incorrect; many theologians, though, have tried to create systems in which God cannot will anything that would be intuited by man as "bad", the end results of such systems do not shackle God to any exogenous moral law, but rather state that He is not simply a good being, but rather goodness per se. As a result, God has no limits, but He would simply not will anything to that which is not good - but, at this point natural theology simply breaks down due to the limits of pure reason.
Who cares? Does this distinction have a consequence as per the natural law or is it purely cosmetic? God which is bound by his nature, and God which is not bound but would never ever in a million years do it because he is not a bastard , act precisely the same. The distinction is meaningless as per the conseqences. Wheter they are bound or not they both act as if they were in fact bound. And yes, yes I know. God is not only 100% good, but in fact all goodness is from God so that actually what ever he does is by definition good. The same way everything jelly does is by definition sleazy. It is merely that we in our strictly limited wisdom can not hope to comprehend His actions. Thus even should he do something which seems naughty, it is actually not naughty it is just that we, the morons that we are, don`t get it. I know the rap.But there are some things to be said about this:A.) First of all this point is (fortunately) largely academic, because God manages to last the length of the New Testament without actually doing anything which would seem naughty to us.B.) Second of all this is a strictly Christian thing. There is none of this touchy-feely stuff in Islam and Judaism. The God of Abraham is not "goodness itself". The God of Abraham is a stone cold killer. And as I understood it we are discussing the relation of religion to natural law, not just of Chritianity.C.) Finally it is a doctrine that rings a little hollow when you open up the New Testament and there is "God" genociding people left, right and center. Screw my finite wisdom. That at least is not a complicated thing. You just need some basic common sense to see that that is some henious stuff. Had God actually done all that it would have made Him an asshole. It is highly doubtful anyone who thinks differently can at the same time harbour a commitment to a meaningful concept of natural rights. It is a little hard to argue that it is a good starting point for understanding natural rights and sanctity of human life to belive that, if God had gotten so pissed at people, that barring a single family, he needed to go and drown every single one of them, it was all a fault of their own. Sooner it is a lesson of how cheap human life is, and unless God`s bidding is done to the letter - forfeit.
Esuric: Marko:He is bound by his very nature. He is the creator of nature. If you're going to talk about god, the same god in the bible, then he knows no limits. He invented limits for all other beings.
Esuric: keep in mind that property rights are the natural law of human nature. I don't know if I can ever know the natural law of God.
Marko: To say God is bound by his very nature can also be stated as: God is bound by his/her very definition. Nature also means definition. The nature of something is the definition (identity) of something. Can I really grasp God's identity/definition? Completely I say no. But do I grasp a God's existence that there IS a God. I do by belief, but I wouldn't know how to fully explain any of this. My belief might be full well a trick, a lie - i don't know.
Marko:Finally it is a doctrine that rings a little hollow when you open up the New Testament and there is "God" genociding people left, right and center. Screw my finite wisdom. That at least is not a complicated thing. You just need some basic common sense to see that that is some henious stuff. Had God actually done all that it would have made Him an asshole.
I'm well aware of the dangers of this thread turning into a theological one but I cannot help resisting the urge to write a pet theory of mine that might be a sufficient response to the above.
Now God is supposed to be above all categories in excess since He is transcendent.
But God massacres people yet he is supposed to be so good that he transcends all known goodness
The reason for this happening is several fold:
1) God is so high above all things that our morality is only an analogous morality (think plato's forms versus the items which mimic them).
2) Yet God must communicate with people to save them from immorality and must do so in a way that doesn't deprive them of free will which is a perfection which they have.
3) So God commands things which are bad since he knows man cannot carry out orders perfectly (in the moral sense) or efficiently because man faces trade-offs and is hindered in his attempts at virtue. Therefore again, God must tailor his commands to fit the madness of mankind or else, no man could follow such commands.
4) therefore mankind is led into genocide. But this is man's fault and not God's since it seems, God did the best he could.
There's no such thing as natural rights or God.
There are no objective rights. But you can work out what is ethical or not, through reasoning.
People get to God through secular reasoning; that reasoning is simply faulty.
Rights are a statist concept; it is a means of a trade off... your sovereignty for the ability to petition for safety and empty promises. And since the state must create a monopoly to do so, we know from economics their product will be crap.
Marxists hate religion because they see it as a means of keeping the powerless down and accepting of their fate in life. Christianity does this through telling the poor they will inherit the earth. Buddhism through reincarnation myths (misfortune comes from a past life). Hinduism through caste system mythology. Etc. Etc. etc.
Liberals generally only hate Christianity, if they hate any religions. And that's because they think conservatives are Christian. Generally, liberals will find some way to deconstruct Christianity to make more to their liking. Michael Moore even has a pathetic segment of Catholic priests calling capitalism corrupt (without any irony). Conservative Christians (even the war-making kind) can fit to their liking. And then all is well. They read what they want to read into it.
Why is it that Marxists dislike religion?
The problem that Marxists encounter with establish religious doctrine arises out of a conflict between class consciousness on the one hand and an incentive system based on individual behavior in which there are 'saints' and 'sinners.' The arrival of the Communist revolution brings with it a realization within man that he/she is one with all and all are one with him. Bluntly, the interests, needs and desires of an individual are similar to all others. We are a 'species-class' meaning we are one in the same. At first, class consciousness is suppose to manifest itself within the state apparatus. If one were to read works concerning the Hegelian dialectic then one can see that man is himself a god, capable of being divine yet not perfected to its final form. Marx though that the communist revolution was the final form and therefore we would achieve our oneness with nature and thus become divine figures. The state then being composed of divine figures then becomes man's religion. The state never dies, it is able to weld vast power over the inhabitants, being lead by divine figures who are intune with nature it can now bend nature to its will. Is this not the ability of a God? Compare that to a system of beliefs in which individual acts are the basis for whither or not such divinity can be achieved. Where some experience paradise while other experience hell [ notice that a class conflict still exists ] That is the main reason why Marxism opposes religion. You can also say that religion is apart of the superstructure which is based on the forces of production and therefore anything that is religion is merely established along the lines of bourgeois dominance over proletariat masses.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
John Ess:There are no objective rights
What is a 'subjective right'?
John Ess:Rights are a statist concept; it is a means of a trade off... your sovereignty for the ability to petition for safety and empty promises.
Well that is contradictory. Isn't your sovereignty involved in gaining and enacting such a petition?
John Ess: There's no such thing as natural rights or God.
I guess people are at liberty to say whatever they want as long as it doesn't initiate physical aggression against anybody ie. property.
Laughing Man: John Ess:There are no objective rights What is a 'subjective right'? John Ess:Rights are a statist concept; it is a means of a trade off... your sovereignty for the ability to petition for safety and empty promises. Well that is contradictory. Isn't your sovereignty involved in gaining and enacting such a petition?
Subjective rights are: I have a right to ponies for my birthday and Christmas carols. Stuff people just make up. Maybe they'll get it. Maybe not. This also involves every other thing people claim to have a right to. Free speech, trial by jury, right to bear arms. Even property rights. which people claim to exists, whether they're being squashed by the guarantors of them or not.
Your sovereignty wasn't involved in the choice, but it is nullified. The social contract just makes up rules as it goes along regarding this particular trade. Hence, why it is nonsensical to believe in rights or social contracts with government.
laminustacitus:] Indeed, without a religious foundation, natural law is a laughably weak position. There is a reason why natural law remains primarily a Christian political philosophy; if man was not made in the image of God, if man were nothing but a rational ape then there is absolutely no reason for believing in the dignity of the individual that is necessary for the dogmas of natural law to be fully comprehended. If God is dead, then there is no objective moral obligation holding back the king from executing citizens as he sees fit.
I think that you're right to the extent that without God there is no ultimate enforcer. However, the rule of "don't do to others what you wouldn't have them do unto you" still makes sense to me even though I don't believe in God. However, there are some people that are perfectly willing to play the game as "do unto others before they do unto you" and if those people don't believe that there will ultimately be anyone judging them for their actions, they could obviously be dangerous.
I love how people who believe in talking snakes talk about validity.
The reason I called the thread repugnant is because the OP did not request an assault by jesuit missionaries. But that is what jesuits do best, right? Aggressively smear all opposition and shove tall tales is everyone's face 24/7.
Esuric: Like most arguments against god, they're either entirely invalid, like Marko's position, ...
Like most arguments against god, they're either entirely invalid, like Marko's position, ...
I didn`t make an argument against God. Why would I do that?
John Ess:Your sovereignty wasn't involved in the choice, but it is nullified. The social contract just makes up rules as it goes along regarding this particular trade. Hence, why it is nonsensical to believe in rights or social contracts with government.
Ok so you believe that property rights are derived not from homesteading principles but because of government and once this government is gone then no one will have any actual rights and it will be a war against all?
The urge to pitch the sales schtick to talk to yourself every night is so strong and unrelenting that any subject is a candidate, however unlikely it may seem, for some kind of essay on how only Bible thumpers can have anything to contribute or have any reason to. Maybe nearly every serious believer being an annoying snob is why "liberals" (really anyone not religious) hate religion. Even some people who believe in a god hate religion.
...Oh, then they turn around and play the hard-done-by victim routine, croon on and on about how 3vil, devilsent conspiring forces are out to get them and how they don't get a fair shake in secular societies like science, etc. Then they run off and sign up on countless Christian singles websites so they don't have to think the person they share every day with for the rest of their lives is going to burn in agony for eternity, so they can find someone who can stand their sanctimonious lectures on everything little thing.
Now, to make this topical, which is more likely reason for why anyone would ever have hated religion:
a) some ivory tower philosophy that 0.01% of people have heard.
b) the scary, creepy, harassing character of it.