Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Lowbacca_1977, Nov 2, 2012.
It demonstrates that for some people there is no redemption, no rehabilitation.
I already mentioned this in the other thread, but there's an interesting initiative on e Illinois ballot about state pension rights and legislative control over pension increases. This will increasingly become an issue of national importance with the large number of states that have billions in unfunded pension liabilities.
A better question here would be, does the state have the liberty to perform capital punishment? Natural Law says No. Socialist Law says Yes, if the government says so.
What are you talking about?
So you're talking about how in your world definitions have whatever meaning you assign to them? Because that's what I'm getting from your use of "socialist" in this context.
EDIT: Please clarify, in precise terms, how a law can be said to be "natural."
You may also know Socialist Law by alter definitions, such as Legislative Law, Man-Made Law, or Statutory Law. Does any of these ring a bell?
I do not have the ability to assign meanings to them, they are factually as they are.
If you do not know what Natural Law is, some reading on the US Constitution might help for better understanding. I can not recommend a book for a legal professional, however, "whatever happened to liberty" is a good layman's introduction.
In short, Natural Law is law derived from nature -- It can not be legislated, changed, or taken away. An example of natural law is freedom of speech, property, self-defense, and privacy.
Law in the USA is a combination of Socialist and Natural Law. The US Constitution is a list of (for the most part) Natural Laws, whereas laws enacted by Congress are Socialist (created by the people)
Still don't know what socialist means, I see.
Wikipedia is not a valid source. I recommend you research scholarly journals or opinions from experts or professionals on a subject for clearer definitions.
Ok, so you're definition of Socialist Law is patently incorrect and your definition of Natural betrays a simple-minded ignorance of the fact that all laws are derived form the wills and consent of the men who make them and are subjected to them. You're right to speech is only "natural" in so far as a majority of persons believe it to be.
As you clearly have done on this issue.
EDIT: Oh, what the hell.
This is where our philosophical beliefs differ.
Precisely. Rather than be of the common rabble and form opions from Faux News, CNN, or the like, I prefer to read expert opinions and form my own conclusions.
So the fact that the first fifty articles on "Socialist Law" on Google Scholar use a different definition than you do is just a crazy coincidence?
I can not confirm or deny your claim as reading the first 50 articles of Google Scholar, as that would take an extensive amount of time.
Not to worry - it's often defined in the abstract, so it takes very little time to grok their intended meaning.
dont quibble with him over semantics. the more pressing issue is that the man is claiming that the "right" to vaguely-defined "property" arises from the ether and is not granted by a man-made system. this notion has been the justification for every form of oppression that has taken place in the western world since we stopped buying the divine right of kings, a notion no less absurd
Rogue_Ten, are you claiming that human rights are at fault for government oppression?
The conclusion I have drawn is that government oppression happens when human rights are ignored, and the people accept their loss of human rights (which is self-ownership and property ownership).
He's claiming that the notion that "property" and "ownership" are "natural" states in the world is the source of much of the inequality and oppression that has occurred over hte past several hundred years, if not more, which is like, you know, true.
Do you believe if one person has $10,000,000 and another has $1,000 it is okay to force the person with $10,000,000 to give part of his property to the person with $1,000?
Do you believe that generating false equivalencies is a valid manner of argument?
every abuse under a capitalist system "naturally" arises (see, i can dress my language in undeserved inevitability too) from the privilege property (specifically capital) is granted over human welfare in bourgeois democracy (that's "Western Democracy" in your grand narrative). from debtors prisons, to american chattel slavery, to the exploitation and starvation of millions in both the industrialized and the developing world, all these problems arise from the notion that some rich ******'s money is more important than, say, a child receiving adequate medical attention.
but of course you need the notion of "property" (or "happiness" as it is hilariously euphemized in the Declaration of (white male landowner) Independence) as a "natural right" in order to justify bourgeois class rule to begin with, which is how accumulation wound up enshrined alongside something as basic as "hey dont kill me, government" in your silly patchwork philosophy.
speaking of "life, liberty and the pursuit of (money)", which one of those do you think we take most seriously in america? true, even your right to almighty property can be sidestepped if you're too poor to defend it, (mass eminent domaining of poor neighborhoods for "urban renewal" comes to mind), but i think the answer is clear when you consider the death penalty, the prison-industrial complex, and the militarized police force: property is more important than human life or liberty in american society. and that's the only way it can be under the system that the "natural rights" sham philosophy has been created to justify with the demi-educated