Exclusive Interview
Jacob Hornberger on Libertarian Law, Religion and the Growing US Police State
The Daily Bell is pleased to publish an exclusive interview with Jacob G. Hornberger (left).
Introduction: Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) in Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, publisher of Ideas on Liberty. In 1989, Mr. Hornberger founded The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is a regular writer for The Foundation's publication, Freedom Daily.
Daily Bell: You have a military background. Tell us about it and how it affected your perception of libertarianism – of which you are certainly a prime exponent.
Jacob Hornberger: My four years at Virginia Military Institute (VMI) and, to a lesser extent, my 8 years in the Army Reserves, taught me that I never want to live in an environment in which military officials take care of me, watch every move I make, regulate my every act, and tightly control my behavior. It was a great lesson in learning to despise socialist systems and to love free societies. On the other hand, VMI taught me the importance of personal integrity, provided me with an excellent education and convinced me that a free society depends on citizen soldiers, not a professional standing army, to defend the nation from invasion.
Daily Bell: You are a lawyer as well. As a person with a military background and a law degree, it is something a miracle that you ended up being as iconoclastic as you are. How did this happen? Is it a personality trait?
Jacob Hornberger: I was born a libertarian but I didn't realize it until a few years after I had started practicing law. My practice of law gave me a deep appreciation for the vital importance of the Constitution and of civil liberties in a society – and the threat that zealous and even well-meaning government officials pose to our liberties. If it weren't for criminal-defense lawyers zealously guarding the rights of their clients, there would be a lot more people in jail or executed. That's why totalitarian regimes hate lawyers.
Daily Bell: You were a trial attorney, and trained as so. So let's ask some legal questions if you don't mind. What do you think of American justice and the court system?
Jacob Hornberger: The system of criminal justice established by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and which stretches back into centuries of resistance to British tyranny by the English people certainly has its faults, but given the protections of habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights, America's criminal-justice system has always been the finest in the world – that is, until federal officials used the pretense of the war on terrorism to circumvent the protections and guarantees in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Daily Bell: We have arrived, at long last, as the conclusion that tribal justice is the best. The system that seems to have worked in the world for tens of thousands of years was one that combined family feuds (unto the seventh generation) with honor feuds (duels with deadly weapons) and negotiated settlements with or without "wise men." In other words, the system was familial, tribal and laissez faire and depended on the threat of force to discourage illegal acts. It had no state involvement except when the tribal/clan leader was approached for settlement purposes. It was not even a Common Law system, as it predates British common law. It predates Roman law as well and we call it "tribal law" as a catch-all, or "private justice." Do you have some thoughts? Is this practical in any way? Is it even worth discussing within the context of the current judicial juggernaut?
Jacob Hornberger: I believe that justice depends on a judicial system in which people can fairly present their case before an independent tribunal, preferably with juries composed of regular citizens, and where the state has a monopoly of force to enforce the judicial judgments. It doesn't guarantee perfect justice but no system can. At least it ensures that people will have the opportunity to be heard, especially with lawyers to present their case, and that winners will have the ability to enforce their judgments without gun battles in the streets.
Daily Bell: Is the American system of justice now Admiralty justice? Is it true lawyers are instructed not to cite precedent before 1930 and that courts will not recognize previous precedent?
Jacob Hornberger: Under the Constitution, U.S. federal district courts have jurisdiction over admiralty or maritime cases, but I assume you mean by the term "admiralty justice" the claim that some tax protestors make that American courts are admiralty courts and, therefore, have no jurisdiction over such tax protestors. I agree with the conclusion reached by the courts that such a claim is meritless and frivolous. No, it is not true that lawyers are instructed not to cite precedent before 1930 or it is not true that courts will not recognize previous precedent. Lawyers are free to cite any precedent that is pertinent to their case.
Daily Bell: What do you think of the ICC? We think there is no such thing as a crime against humanity. One might as well commit a crime against a paper bag. Your thoughts?
Jacob Hornberger: I have mixed feelings about this. I understand the desire to have an international criminal court to bring to justice officials who engage in criminal conduct but whose government won't do anything about it (e.g., the U.S. officials who waged their undeclared war of aggression against Iraq or kidnapped, tortured, renditioned, or executed people without due process). On the other hand though, I don't see how such a court acquires jurisdiction over the world and I agree that a "crime against humanity" is too nebulous. Also, the procedures of the ICC aren't ideal either, including no regard for trial by jury.
Daily Bell: Is an illegal system of justice being erected around the world?
Jacob Hornberger: The judicial system that the Pentagon has established to compete against U.S. federal district courts in terrorism cases is illegal under our form of government, but there is little chance that the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional, in large part because the Court knows that the president and the Pentagon wouldn't comply anyway. This is a very bad thing and has brought disgrace and shame to our country. Our criminal justice system — the one the Framers established in the Constitution — with the guarantees provided in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, and habeas corpus in the Constitution — is the best criminal justice system in the world, including for the crime of terrorism.
Daily Bell: Is there any value in copyright? Is intellectual property valuable or, not being scarce, should it be available to anyone without charge?
Jacob Hornberger: I believe in copyrights and I believe they should be protected and not available to anyone without charge unless the owner says so. I understand that there are many brilliant libertarians who hold otherwise.
Daily Bell: Let's switch gears. Tell us about your relationship with Richard M. Ebeling and how you came to found the Future of Freedom Foundation, whose mission is to present an uncompromising moral, philosophical, and economic case for the libertarian philosophy.
Jacob Hornberger: I met Richard when I was practicing law in Dallas, Texas, and he was teaching economics at the University of Dallas. We became good friends, and I hired him to give me a personal chapter-by-chapter tutorial in Ludwig von Mises's magnum opus Human Action. In 1987, I gave up the practice of law to accept the position of program director at The Future of Freedom Foundation, and Richard later moved to Hillsdale College where he became the Ludwig von Mises Professor of Economics. Two years later — 1989 — I left FEE to establish FFF and Richard served as vice president of academic affairs for FFF in addition to his duties at Hillsdale, providing invaluable counsel and contributing a regular monthly article from January 1990 continuously until 2003, when he became president of FEE.
Daily Bell: Tell us about some of the accomplishments of the Future of Freedom Foundation.
Jacob Hornberger: FFF is the recipient of Ron Paul's Liberty in Media Award for Outstanding Freedom Website. In 2007 and 2008 we had two of the finest conferences on foreign policy and civil liberties in the history of the libertarian movement, the lectures of which are posted online at our website (www.fff.org). Every month since January 1990, we have published our monthly journal of essays, Freedom Daily, all of which are posted on our website. For the past several years, we have published our daily FFF Email Update, one of the best libertarian commentary pages on the Internet. We also have a monthly Economic Liberty Lecture Series in conjunction with the George Mason University Econ Society, a student group interested in libertarianism and Austrian economics. Prior to that, we had a great lecture series on libertarianism and Austrian economics for several years entitled The Vienna Coffee Club.
Daily Bell: You'd served three terms on the platform committee of the national Libertarian Party by 2000. In 1996, the Libertarian Party awarded you the Thomas Paine award for outstanding communication of libertarian principles. Are you going to try to run as a Libertarian candidate for president again?
Jacob Hornberger: My three terms on the LP platform committee were very enjoyable and rewarding. I was particularly struck by the ideological purity of the platform, which is why I agreed to serve on the committee. I always considered the platform to be the anchor by which the LP protected itself from LP candidates who were tempted to compromise libertarian principles in the hopes of garnering votes. It one of the biggest honors of my life when the LP awarded me its Thomas Paine award. I have no plans to run as an LP candidate for president again. I think political activity is a great vehicle for spreading libertarianism but I love the educational-foundation arena much more.
Daily Bell: You've written a number of books. Please describe the following BRIEFLY so our viewers can purchase them as they wish.
The Dangers of Socialized Medicine (co-written with Richard M. Ebeling) (1994) ISBN ISBN 0964044706.
Jacob Hornberger: This book shows how government intervention into the healthcare arena, with Medicare and Medicaid, occupational licensure, and regulation, are the root cause of America's healthcare woes. It calls for a complete separation of healthcare and the state, entailing a complete repeal, not reform, of these programs and interventions.
The Failure of America's Foreign Wars (co-written with Richard M. Ebeling) (1996) ISBN 0964044765.
Jacob Hornberger: This book explains how America's foreign wars have been a disaster and calls for the total dismantling of America's foreign military empire, which would entail closing all the foreign bases and bringing all the troops home and discharging them.
Liberty, Security, and the War on Terrorism C) (2003) ISBN 1890687049.
Jacob Hornberger: This book shows how U.S. foreign policy is the root cause of the anger and hatred toward the United States that has led to a constant threat of terrorism, which government officials then use to infringe upon our fundamental rights and freedoms. It calls for an end to foreign intervention and a repeal of all measures that infringe on liberty and privacy.
Daily Bell: Back to politics. Why doesn't the Libertarian party do better in national elections?
Jacob Hornberger: One reason is the horrible ballot-access restrictions placed by the Democrats and Republicans, including ridiculous petitioning requirements. Libertarians have to spend so much money on that that they then lack the money to run campaigns.
Another reason is campaign-donation limits. If people were free to give unlimited amounts of money to candidates, Libertarian candidates could call on a few wealthy libertarian donors to fund their campaigns. And another reason is the propensity of people to vote only for major party candidates.
Finally, the Republicans and Democrats abandoned their principles long ago in exchange for votes, which is why they preach such things as "free enterprise and limited government" and "loving the poor, needy, and disadvantaged" while supporting such socialist, imperialist, and interventionist programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, the drug war, the war on immigrants, torture, wars of aggression, and denial of due process. Statists like to mock the LP for its lack of electoral success, but the fact is that the LP has always placed a higher value on libertarian principles than getting votes, which has made its job in the electoral process more difficult. After all, while things seem to be changing now, American voters have historically oriented toward statism, despite its manifest immorality and destructiveness.
Daily Bell: Was Ron Paul right to position himself as a libertarian republican? It's probably killing the Libertarian party, yes?
Jacob Hornberger: I think he was right because as a practical matter, I don't think voters would have elected him to Congress as an LP candidate, and he has been a tremendously positive force for libertarianism in Congress. No, I don't think he's killing the Libertarian Party. On the contrary, I think he's bringing libertarianism and the Libertarian Party to the attention of ever-increasing numbers of people. One of the most admirable things about Ron Paul is how he has consistently embraced libertarians and the Libertarian Party throughout his congressional terms and during his campaign for president.
Daily Bell: What do you think of Ron Paul? Rand Paul?
Jacob Hornberger: Ron Paul is one of my real-life heroes, and he has been one of the libertarian movement's most effective advocates ever. Rand Paul is not as libertarian as his father, especially when it comes to foreign policy and the war on terrorism, but he is certainly heads and shoulders above standard Republicans when it comes libertarian philosophy, economic principles, and civil liberties. Moreover, Rand Paul's positions on monetary policy and his attacks on the Patriot Act have been extremely admirable.
Daily Bell: Have you become a gradualist about government change or do you remain a radical "Libertarian Outlaw."
Jacob Hornberger: I ardently oppose gradualism and I remain a radical "Libertarian Outlaw." If there were button that could be pushed that would immediately repeal every since welfare-state program, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and every since warfare-warfare-state program, including the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd push it. When a thief is caught embezzling funds, do we gradually reduce his dependency on the money or do we terminate it immediately? Moral principles are immutable. They're either followed or not.
Daily Bell: You're a born-again Christian and a libertarian. We're always amused by those who believe that a libertarian society would be godless or at least non-religious when the reverse is true. The freer the society, the more spiritual or at least religious it usually is because people need some sort of moral or behavioral structure. We can see this in pre-revolutionary America. How do you see it?
Jacob Hornberger: As a Christian and as a libertarian, I believe people should be free to live their lives any way they want, so long as their conduct is peaceful. That might mean living life in an irresponsible, immoral, and even self-destructive manner.
I agree with you and I do believe that a free society tends to nurture the values that most of us hold dear, such as morality, compassion, and responsibility. But by the same token, it is impossible to predict the outcome of a free society, which scares a lot of people. One of my beefs with conservatives is when they intimate that such values are a prerequisite to having a free society and that people can't be trusted with freedom until they are responsible, moral, and compassionate. As a libertarian, I say nonsense to that. Freedom entails the right to be irresponsible, uncaring, and immoral, so long as your conduct is peaceful (i.e., no murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc.)
Daily Bell: Isn't it true the more government there is, the more corrupt and lawless society becomes?
Jacob Hornberger: Yes, but only when the government is doing things that it shouldn't be doing, such as regulating economic activity or criminalizing the possession or distribution of drugs. When government is limited to doing the things it should be doing – such as going after murderers, rapists, and thieves – more government might be better and society will less corrupt and lawless.
Daily Bell: Should drugs be legalized? Is the war on drugs a failure?
Jacob Hornberger: Yes, absolutely, immediately. With the possible exception of public (i.e., government) schooling, it would be difficult to find a better example of a failed, immoral, and destructive government program. Not only has the drug war not achieved its purported end, it has actually made society much worse off in terms of violence, death, and destruction.
Daily Bell: We think the Internet like the Gutenberg Press before it is collapsing the Anglo-American empire. Reaction?
Jacob Hornberger: The Internet is certainly helping us libertarians educate people to the reality of their government has become – a socialist, imperialist, interventionist monstrosity that is taking our country down the road to moral debauchery, government dependency, and financial bankruptcy. Time will tell though whether a critical mass of Americans decide to restore a free-market, limited-government republic to our land.
Daily Bell: We think the Internet like the Gutenberg Press before it is creating a new Renaissance and new Reformation – Internet Reformation, if you will? Response?
Jacob Hornberger: It certainly is providing people with the means to circumvent the long-established mainstream media outlets, which is a great thing.
Daily Bell: Many believe that a New World Order is being created by an elite group of banking families residing in the City of London. Conspiracy theory?
Jacob Hornberger: It's a conspiracy theory that I don't personally find persuasive. But whether one believes that such a conspiracy exists or not, our goal should be the same – to end all the socialist, imperialist, and interventionist programs and establish a total separation of economy and state, money and state, healthcare and state, and education and state, dismantle our nation's overseas military empire, its standing army, and its military industrial complex, and restore civil liberties to our land.
Daily Bell: Is the US Dollar on the way out?
Jacob Hornberger: It might well be on the way out since the government keeps spending and borrowing and the Federal Reserve keeps inflating and debasing to enable the government to continue spending and borrowing.
Daily Bell: We will see a gold backed currency in your lifetime?
Jacob Hornberger: Possibly, but I would prefer a free-market in money – what Friedrich Hayek, the libertarian Nobel Prize winning economist, called "the denationalization of money." Government has no more business in currency and money than it does in health care, education, or charity. Separate money and the state by repealing legal tender laws, abolish the fed, and free the market so that people can use any type of money they want.
Daily Bell: Interesting point. Can you give us your take on free-banking, clearinghouses and private fractional reserve banking? We're all for money competition generally.
Jacob Hornberger: Yes, I favor free banking, along with the likely possibility of fractional reserve banking, and private clearinghouses. The argument that fractional reserve banking in a free market is fraud, which some libertarians make, is, in my opinion, ill-founded because fraud involves an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact (or omission of a material fact) with the intent to deceive. If the bank represents up front that it is engaged in fractional-reserve banking and the customer agrees, then there cannot be fraud. The customer voluntarily takes the risk of a bank run and the bank's going under. Those customers who don't want to take such a risk can find banks that don't engage in fractional reserve banking and serve simply as warehouses for people's money.
Daily Bell: Let the market decide ... Maybe because the market has been so powerfully regulated it's having difficulty operating. Are we in the midst of a rolling, global depression?
Jacob Hornberger: It sure seems like it to me. In fact, we might actually be in a perfect storm of failure and destruction of statism all over the world, including our nation's own socialism, imperialism, and interventionism.
Daily Bell: Is the war on terror a phony war?
Jacob Hornberger: It's more a fraudulent war. The U.S. government goes abroad and provokes people with things like sanctions, foreign interventions, invasions, support of dictatorships, and foreign aid. Then when the victims retaliate, as they did on 9/11, the government cries, "Oh, it had nothing to do with what we did to provoke them. It's all because they hate us for our freedom and values." And then feds use the terrorist threat to do more of the same, including invasions and occupations, thereby producing a perpetual need for government "protection," which comes in the form of ever-growing infringements on our privacy and freedom, such as the fondling at the airports, the Patriot Act, the spying on Americans, the secret searches of financial information, and so forth.
Daily Bell: Is al-Qaeda a made up enemy?
Jacob Hornberger: No. Its roots go back to the extremist Muslims that the U.S. government was supporting when they were trying to oust the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. After the Soviets were evicted, al-Qaeda committed itself to ousting the U.S. Empire from the Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Middle East.
Daily Bell: Is there ever a justification for "wars of overseas aggression?"
Jacob Hornberger: No.
Daily Bell: Does the US seek overseas conflict to further domestic repression?
Jacob Hornberger: Perhaps but regardless of whether they intend it or not, that is the logical outcome of its overseas interventions. James Madison pointed out that the officials of the Roman Empire were famous for inciting foreign crises whenever the Roman citizenry became restless over the Empire's ever-growing taxes, debt, and regulations.
Daily Bell: Is the US becoming a police state?
Jacob Hornberger: The U.S. has become a police state. Federal officials now have many of the powers wielded by the Middle East dictatorships that the U.S. government supports. These include the power to label people as suspected terrorists, arrest and detain them indefinitely without trial, ignore verdicts of acquittal in federal court terrorism cases, torture people, execute people after kangaroo tribunals, kidnap people and rendition them to friendly dictatorships for torture. Also, we've got the Patriot Act, the CIA, the ATF, and the NSA. Then when you combine the powers being wielded in the war on terrorism with the powers wielded by increasingly militarized cops in the war on drugs, that's what a police state looks like. Doesn't the United States jail more people per capita than communist China and every other country? I think we're Number 1 in this regard.
Daily Bell: Is Obama a better president than George W. Bush?
Jacob Hornberger: They are both the same. Obama is Bush's third term. He is an absolute disaster. Not only does he embrace socialist economic policies and big spending and big borrowing, he's been as big a disaster on civil liberties and foreign policy as Bush.
Daily Bell: Is the EU on the way out? How about the euro?
Jacob Hornberger: I don't know. For sure the welfare states of Europe are collapsing before our eyes, especially given the enormous spending and borrowing burdens placed on their citizenry. Where it will lead is anyone's guess, but I have a feeling it's not going to be pretty.
Daily Bell: Is every law a price fix?
Jacob Hornberger: I'm not sure what you mean by that. Laws against murder, rape, stealing, and other violent crimes place a price on violation, but I consider such laws perfectly valid. Economic crimes, such as minimum-wage laws or price controls, fix prices and are invalid and destructive.
Daily Bell: Are laws and regulations ever necessary, hypothetically speaking?
Jacob Hornberger: Laws that punish actions in which people initiate force against others are necessary. Murder, rape, stealing, fraud, etc., are examples. Laws and regulations that punish peaceful conduct are illegitimate. Examples including drug laws, insider-trading laws, and minimum-wage laws.
Daily Bell: Are central banks necessary? Should they be done away with?
Jacob Hornberger: No, central banks are unnecessary and are highly destructive. They are one of the twin engines by which the federal government confiscates people's wealth. (The other one is the IRS.) It should be done away with immediately. (So should the IRS and the income tax.)
Daily Bell: Are gold and silver going higher in terms of purchasing power? How high?
Jacob Hornberger: Owning gold and silver might not be for the faint of heart because of the stomach-churning plunges in price. But as long as federal spending and borrowing continue soaring, the longer the Fed will be debasing the currency, which means gold and silver will be going higher, at least in terms of the dollar. How high is anyone's guess.
Daily Bell: Where do you go from here? How about your Foundation?
Jacob Hornberger: We continue fighting for a free society by spreading sound ideas on liberty. With crisis comes opportunity – to opportunity to restore a free, peaceful, and prosperous society to our land. We invite everyone to subscribe to our daily FFF Email Update and to our monthly journal "Freedom Daily" and to support our work with tax-deductible donations and bequests. Our work depends on the financial support that people give us. As Mises pointed out, when society is headed toward destruction, none of us can stand aside. We all have a stake in the outcome. We must all throw ourselves vigorously into the battle.
Daily Bell: Are you working on any other books?
Jacob Hornberger: No, we are using the Internet as our primary means to disseminate our libertarian perspectives.
Daily Bell: Is this an exciting era in which to be a libertarian?
Jacob Hornberger: This is the most exciting time ever to be a libertarian. People are finally figuring out that something is fundamentally wrong in our country. If they can only achieve the breakthrough that we libertarians have achieved – that long ago America abandoned its philosophy of freedom, free markets, and a limited government republic and embraced socialism, imperialism, and interventionism, then we've got a real shot at ridding our nation of the statism that afflicts our land, along with all the horrible consequences it has wrought. More people are becoming interested in libertarianism than ever before, especially young people. With two libertarians who can competently and eloquently defend libertarianism now running for the Republican presidential nomination – Ron Paul and Gary Johnson – this will certainly add to libertarian excitement.
Daily Bell: Any other thoughts?
Jacob Hornberger: Thank you for the interview. It's an honor to be added to your cast of interviewees, many of whom have been heroes of mine for a long time.
Daily Bell: Thanks for sitting down patiently through an extensive interview and answering the "tough" questions. It's been a pleasure and honor to interview you.
Like so many others, we've admired Jacob Hornberger's dedication to the spread of libertarianism and the eloquent writing he's produced. The Future of Freedom Foundation is an essential free-market voice, and he's been an effective spokesperson throughout his career.
As a former military man and lawyer, he could have aimed his life's work toward a number of areas. There are certainly more lucrative ways to make a living, but he decided to focus on what he loved and believed in. He was "born" to do what he's doing and his passion is evident.
We learned a lot in this interview, as we expected to. Jacob Hornberger is a widely read individual, and that comes through in his books and articles as well as his interviews and radio appearances. His remarks on religion, free banking and the West's growing militarism were most thoughtful in our opinion. One issue where we still have questions (though admittedly his opinion is more mainstream than ours) is his perspective on the American justice system.
We pointed out some of our conclusions about tribal and clan justice as a workable and ancient system that predates British Common Law and emphasized familial as well as "elder" negotiation. His reply, as you can see in the interview, above, emphasized the system as it had evolved, including a trial by jury before an independent tribunal "where the state has a monopoly of force to enforce the judicial judgments."
Of course, once the state has a monopoly of force, doesn't that allow the state a good deal of latitude? It seems to us that we're reaping the unfortunate results of a monopoly of force, today, given the growing government lawlessness both in America and Europe. We also asked him about the idea that modern US courts operate under Admiralty law. He seemed to answer this question carefully: "I agree with the conclusion reached by the courts that such a claim is meritless and frivolous."
He was far blunter in regard to the how US courts evolved in the 20th century. His answer was unequivocal: "No, it is not true that lawyers are instructed not to cite precedent before 1930 or it is not true that courts will not recognize previous precedent. Lawyers are free to cite any precedent that is pertinent to their case."
He was clear about the ICC, stating that he doesn't see how "such a court acquires jurisdiction over the world" and that a "crime against humanity is too nebulous." We certainly agree with that and were not surprised by his perspective or willingness to speak out.
We thanked him at the end of the interview for answering "tough" questions but he's been taking on tough issues throughout his professional career. Those in the libertarian community are lucky to have his eloquence and influential think-tank the Future of Freedom Foundation to call on. The fight for freedom has never been more necessary than today.
Editor's Note: The Daily Bell is published by the Foundation for the Advancement of Free-Market Thinking (FAFMT). Your financial generosity supports interviews like today's, and other educational material that appears on these pages; we rely on your help. Please consider making a donation today so that we can to advance the principles of free-market thinking! Click here to help us now. We thank you for your support.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by Summer on 06/10/11 05:15 PM
JD: 'I don't doubt that in many situations, even religions that propound a morality I find dangerous and repugnant might be the peoples' only remaining hope against a slave state. (For some of them, it's their religious morals that put them there, and it's too damned late.)'
May I ask what you find 'dangerous and repugnant' about religion? Western funded extremism? Distortion of true religious teachings bent away from original messages, through corrupt clergy; often funded by the Elites?
It is wrong to label religion as 'dangerous' when the most dangerous period in history is in its relative absence - the last century.
To judge any religion one must look at the ORIGINAL teachings propounded by prophets. They were living embodiments of each religion. I do not find what Abraham, Moses, Jesus or the Prophet of Islam taught as objectionable or 'repugnant', on the contrary they advocated the highest moral ideals of justice, truth, charity, patience, love and forgiveness. I do not find the US constitution (or some others) to be dangerous but those who claim to be acting under it - are most dangerous and repugnant!
Marxism the typical, tired example of the results of divergence between the 'nation' and religious-based morality. Philosophers say it was all just a misunderstanding, we should read Marx in a more sophisticated fashion, and shouldn't let the notorious Soviet era 'label' Marx, it was the wrong interpretation of Marx of course! (Louis Althusser et al)
Religion is backward, for simpletons - the biggest meme going; so embedded in the Western mind that religion cannot be viewed objectively anymore. Probably the longest standing meme too- to steer people away from the obvious need for a COLLECTIVE belief in morality - achievable to a suitable standard, only through religion. Which could unite people - the worst thing for Elites.
If people had strong, TRUE religious beliefs (like the prophets) they would be dominated by NO ONE. Being slave to a greater purpose, one is truly free from the shackles of world.
JD: 'And another historical point; observe how easy it has been to totally neuter and essentially destroy an entire culture or tribe, simply by putting them on welfare. The American Indians come to mind, as well as the inner city subculture. Modern welfare is denied when the breadwinner resides with the family. The utter destruction of the family in American inner cities is all but complete. '
I agree that the traditional breadwinner is positive for the family and society but it is not 'welfare' that is the main culprit in ending his (breadwinner's) importance. Inter alia: feminism, disloyalty, adultery, women viewed as a play thing rather than a decent role model, lack of cultural norms that were bound to religious heritage and economic deprivation.
I disagree with total disdain for welfare provisions. Most on this forum are probably middle class, we will never see our families starve or be homeless. Granted, 'spongers' who don't work when they could are in a negative 'cultural' dependency spiral. But as a human being I'd much rather that, than see people starve as they had done in the past. It's probably one of the only good things about the modern state - almost complete eradication of extreme poverty. Even though the mass of wealth is in a few hands at least the crumbs from their table feed them.
JD: 'The modern welfare state has grown into the monster it is now through the hijacking of good-sounding slogans. People are silenced from opposing them by the crowd, because the crowd is encouraged to blindly support an unexamined morality. It is the morality of the crowd that hands the welfare state its overwhelming power. My hope is that the internet reformation will cause people to examine whether the thought patterns they think of as 'morality' are being used against their interests, to control them, to shut off opportunities, to siphon off their life energy, to turn them into human tools of death and injustice '
I reiterate - impossible without a united stand for morality, which in history has only been achieved effectively through religion. And dare I say, may be again.
 |
Posted by Wayne on 06/08/11 11:04 PM
"And another historical point; observe how easy it has been to totally neuter and essentially destroy an entire culture or tribe, simply by putting them on welfare. The American Indians come to mind, as well as the inner city subculture. Modern welfare is denied when the breadwinner resides with the family. The utter destruction of the family in American inner cities is all but complete.'
You bring up an interesting point here.
Why is this being allowed to continue? Isn't there a level of dysfunctionality so high that it's pointless to create it? Once they have created this Welfare Paradise, of what earthly use is it to them? No production, no creation, no purpose at all!
I just don't get this at all!
 |
Posted by John Danforth on 06/08/11 08:03 AM
Excellent observations going on here while I was away.
A few observations of my own:
Law is generally intended to be a mechanism to insure 'justice'. Justice is a moral concept and it includes the idea of forcefully imposing a cost on immoral behavior. So law is the application of deadly force to the enforcement of moral precepts. It is the moral precepts of the population that generally get carried forward into law; if the law is contrary to them, the population will usually eventually use force if necessary against the government to change that government.
I believe this is why governments spend such an inordinate amount of resources on propaganda, including taking over the entire field of education. Taken in this light, it is easy to understand why religion acts as a check on ambitious government. Government will always expand its consumption of resources and use of force up to the point where it begins to fear having the tables turned. That point is defined by how far it goes before the population decides it is acting contrary to the morals and material interests of the population; and religion has always been the primary backstop that the people have despite government control of schools and media. So in this regard (as far as it is effective), I fully endorse DB's original assertion about freedom and religion. I don't doubt that in many situations, even religions that propound a morality I find dangerous and repugnant might be the peoples' only remaining hope against a slave state. (For some of them, it's their religious morals that put them there, and it's too damned late.)
Now on the other side of the equation, there is the problem of what kinds of morals people really have, and just how effective training is (by whoever) in instilling a particular morality. Also, just exactly what that morality is and whether it has inconsistencies, precepts that lead to the opposite of the intended effect.
I'll leave open for another time the question of how one of the most advanced societies in the world at the time could evolve into the Nazi state, but I will observe that in the context of the above, certainly there were some inconsistencies in the morality held by the majority that insured they either endorsed the policies or at least froze them into inaction until it was too late to oppose them without risking their own lives.
And another historical point; observe how easy it has been to totally neuter and essentially destroy an entire culture or tribe, simply by putting them on welfare. The American Indians come to mind, as well as the inner city subculture. Modern welfare is denied when the breadwinner resides with the family. The utter destruction of the family in American inner cities is all but complete.
The modern welfare state has grown into the monster it is now through the hijacking of good-sounding slogans. People are silenced from opposing them by the crowd, because the crowd is encouraged to blindly support an unexamined morality. It is the morality of the crowd that hands the welfare state its overwhelming power. My hope is that the internet reformation will cause people to examine whether the thought patterns they think of as 'morality' are being used against their interests, to control them, to shut off opportunities, to siphon off their life energy, to turn them into human tools of death and injustice.
|
Posted by Summer on 06/07/11 06:30 PM
DB:'It might evolve naturally if people made the determination to live simple, independent lives ...'
I think in the West this would be difficult viz. tribal systems - much easier to dismantle than establish, especially with global migration/intermarriage etc. Leading 'simple independent lives' could be easier to achieve - with the right ideals IMHO.
|
Posted by Summer on 06/07/11 09:52 AM
Hart was trying to give an antithesis to natural law. Natural law was dominant after Marxism, for obvious reasons. Also of interest to DB may be the Hart-Devlin debate. Lord Devlin was a committed libertarian, I agree with many of his points.
I have a question for DB, do you see tribal law as an ideal or as something societies should try to revert to? If the latter how would you construct a tribal system where tribal custom had disappeared? Do you offer a legal system/tradition which could be applicable in ANY society? Thanks
Reply from The Daily Bell
I have a question for DB, do you see tribal law as an ideal or as something societies should try to revert to? If the latter how would you construct a tribal system where tribal custom had disappeared? Do you offer a legal system/tradition which could be applicable in ANY society? Thanks ...
It might evolve naturally if people made the determination to live simple, independent lives ...
|
Posted by Summer on 06/07/11 07:10 AM
I strongly recommend Fuller. From the excerpts I have read I can find NOTHING objectionable. I think he is even closer to your (DB) tribal law view than you may have initially thought, as his principles positively expressed would be:
1. Be promulgated, to the extent that they are well known (tribal custom obviously would be)
2. Not be retroactive
3. Be general (equally applied where victim requires so - my interpretation of his view and I think plausible)
4. Be clear (law would be in tribal systems as tribal customs are passed down and 'known')
5. Not be inconsistent (fair where there is the same crime and the victim requires the same punishment as is custom, or a lesser degree as long as is customary too)
6. Not require the impossible from people - capacity
7. Be 'congruent' (consistent) with official action (where elders may apply the same decision or choices of decision for the same crime)
8. Be reasonably stable (not change too frequently) - I think even this would be fine as customs are well known in society
Ultimately Fuller believes law is a scheme of justice. This is how he spoke of a legal system without the 'scale' of aspiration AND duty :'the poet tossing his wife into the river in the belief - perhaps quite justified - that he will be able to write better poetry in her absence'.
I think DB should definitely read his book, I certainly intend to now my exams are over. I think H.L.A Hart's criticism of Fuller were extremely weak and the famous Hart-Fuller debate was set up to Hart's advantage(ex- british secret service, later at Oxford, Jewish and liked to spend his weekends with 'boys'). I asked two of my professors to offer a critique of Fuller (because I could not think of any) and they could not. One of them said that his rules would not have prevented the Nazi legal system, to which I responded "of all the philosophers' legal systems none would have" - no answer. However, the only legal system which theoretically could have stopped the Nazi legal system would have been a religious one as it goes beyond procedure and moral prevalence of the day and asks for all to have 'equal' treatment before the law from divinely enshrined moral values.
Although divine law would not be 'just' in a society where the majority to not 'believe' this is why I think a plural legal system is ultimate justice for all. I don't know if DB was also interested in the Islamic legal system stuff or just Fuller, but here goes anyway... Islam of course was founded in a region with a strong tribal tradition and has no contradiction with any legal system as long as it is based on justice - similar to Fuller's view and of course plural legal systems.
DB:' CONCLUSION: People have a LOT of trouble with the idea of justice being adjudicated by those party to the injustice. But even in early Common Law days, in Britain, people purchased judicial dispensation from private courts and beyond doubt the decisions were irregular (varying from court to court and region to region).'
This is exactly what Islam says with regards to the victim. The victim or his family have the right to determine the punishment according to the standard of justice within the society. For example if one's relative was murdered the victim's family could chose: death penalty, blood money or forgiveness it was their choice as they are the aggrieved party.
|
Posted by Wayne on 06/07/11 04:42 AM
"So, yes. We are all manipulated and are at the short end of the societal stick. But this does not fully excuse those who do not choose to listen and question, open their eyes.
And it especially doesn't excuse those who ridicule the ones who see something much closer to the truth."
Your latter point is what is usually avoided.
If all these people were truly innocent victims, why are they soooo hostile to the few that do see the trap?
A good Psychiatrist would have a field day with this issue.
I could suggest a few things, but denial or avoidance would be the likely response of many.
|
Posted by Wayne on 06/07/11 02:21 AM
Further comment
It's one thing for you to make a bad decision. that's your fault.
It's another thing altogether for someone else to make a bad decision, and then stick you with the bill.
We need to take their power if we pay for their errors, instead of them paying.
|
Posted by Wayne on 06/07/11 02:11 AM
Alas, if it was only so easy.
That's the "It's your Karma" copout.
Without the Internet, few would even have access to the information that suggests the problem.
They set the "irresistable" bait, and then either hide the penalty, or change the rules when you are on the hook.
If only we could understand that we all pay the penalty in this sick game.
Because they take the loot, and "socialize' the cost.
They play, and we pay.
Byy all logic and justice, we should tell the Bankers, and DC. to stuff it. But most won't because they keep fantasizing about what they have, instead of looking at the real value of things.
Most have lost all their home equity, and many are underwater on their houses, and yet they keep rasing the property taxes on the houses.
Few have a real pension, and the 401ks and IRAs get their clocks cleaned in every bear market.
And there is no job security any more, except for the government parasites.
If ever there was a time for most to just say, take the houses and job, and stick, it's now. The Dream has turned into a nightmare, and it's time we faced that fact.
Only by the majority acknowledging the reality of their situation will they get their power back.
They control the system, and we control the economy, if we would only act.
Example;
Tired of the TSA. Everyone stop flying until TSA is removed from the airports. Do you realize that if Airline revenue dropped 30-40% for two months, The Airlines would personally escort the TSA out of the airports.
You have the power. Use it or admit you like the situation.
|
Posted by bionic mosquito on 06/07/11 12:12 AM
"...the "you deserve what you get" game."
I agree with this sentiment, however there is one minor hole in it.
There are people who have figured out the game, or at least a good portion of it - despite the public schooling and other manipulations intended to strip them of all independent thought. Look at the conversations on this site, LvMI, FEE, and many others.
Consider the list of manipulations you posted earlier at: Posted by channa on 06/06/11 05:45 PM. You can see these; why can't others?
If it is possible for some, it is possible for all. And if enough people wake up, there is a chance to effect change in a more free direction.
So, yes. We are all manipulated and are at the short end of the societal stick. But this does not fully excuse those who do not choose to listen and question, open their eyes. And it especially doesn't excuse those who ridicule the ones who see something much closer to the truth.
 |
Posted by channa on 06/06/11 10:59 PM
DB:"It's just a meme, Wayne, designed to justify what's going on"
This is one thing I like about this site. It does not play the "you deserve what you get" game. Over the last few years I have seen this meme used more and more on the internet. How easily people pick up on it. It is only used against the masses that I can tell.
Reply from The Daily Bell
"Over the last few years I have seen this meme used more and more on the internet."
Very good. We noticed too. Many pundits proclaim this solemnly. The fault is YOURS. How so, when the entire cocoon of modern Western civilization has been painstakingly designed to dissimulate?
|
Posted by Wayne on 06/06/11 09:34 PM
Some perspective on the current state of affairs
I don't know, but H.L. Mencken said it best. "People deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard."
~ Timothy Moultrie
Click to view link
"In democracy you get the goverment you deserve. Alternately you deserve the government you got."
~Josef Heller
Everything said and done, at the end of the day, we get the government we deserve and deserve the government we get.
~ P. Ramakrishnan
Click to view link
"A people deserve the government they permit."
~attributed to the pseudonym "General R. Never,"
Click to view link
"In Russia, it is a common saying that every people deserve the government they choose."
~Vladimir Viardo
Click to view link
I recall what a British prime minister said years ago, "In a democracy you get the government you deserve and you deserve the government you get."
~Duane W. Compton
Click to view link
We have to let these turkeys know that we are not going to play games and go sideways and backwards. America deserves better. They say that you deserve the government you get.
~ Eldridge Cleaver
Click to view link
"We deserve the government that we get. That's an old adage and it's really true."
~Patricia Boyd, executive director of the Minnesota Christian Coalition
Click to view link
There are few victims here, for most voted for this!
Wnat proof/
What happened to everyone who tried to get elected to stop all this insanity?
Defeated by the Will of the People!
So disregard all the wailing and gnashing of teeth.
That's all part of the human drama.
Reply from The Daily Bell
It's just a meme, Wayne, designed to justify what's going on. If it had just "happened" that would be one thing. But people - stressed and going about their jobs and raising their families - are constantly being lied to and manipulated, apparently by a bunch of trillionaires who have set up vast think tanks like Rand and Tavistock to figure out BETTER ways of manipulating the poor, bedeviled middle classes. They've set up central banks to ruin the currency and blue chip stock exchanges to steal it; they promulgate wars, even world war while preaching peace, set up phony voting systems with Intel-backed candidates and when nothing changes, and everything seems to get worse - they chant, "you deserve what you get!" Sort of what a rapist or sadist would shout at a victim ... If it weren't for the Internet, we wouldn't even know it ...
|
Posted by Wayne on 06/06/11 07:59 PM
Well, your particular proirities really don't matter, because we broke.
The cupboard's empty, and the shelves are bare.
Too many cookie eaters, too few cookie makers, equals no more cookies for you, or anyone else.
Now we all pay for the failure to maintain economic discipline.
Pain is the Forecast for defying the fundamental law of Economics.
TANSTAAFL!
|
Posted by Wayne on 06/06/11 07:41 PM
@DB
"On this we agree. You obviously do not have a problem with private justice. Most people cannot even conceive of it. But if the state is to have a monopoly of force over justice, how can a libertarian society ever be arrived at, even hypothetically? '
Amazing how conditioned they are.
As to the States monopoly over force, there are groups that coexist with the State, but still impose cause and effect upon their families/members.
All powerful families and clans (just an extended familiy) always have a few wise/seasoned/trustworthy members that they seek advice from. These consiglieres are the real governing force. And the secret of the familiy's/clans success. To go against the advice of one of their counselors
would be questioned by all as to it's wisdom. Respect is the key to all this.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Yes, that is our point, too. There are lots of ways to arrive at private justice and little of it has to do with a one-size-fits-all morality (apologies to the theologians that like to discuss this subject ad nauseam and have done so for the past several thousand years).
|
Posted by Wayne on 06/06/11 07:28 PM
"It is and always will be about individuals. If you claim the "right to life", you are also undertaking the responsibility to "defend yourself" and ally with like-minded individuals.
Predators ALWAYS (efficiency: effort / rewards) go for low hanging fruit. Your defense is their cost. They will move on. Whining to them is futile. They are incapable of honest trade (quid pro quo) and intend to prey. Civilization is a matter of predator control. "
Well said.
When will this host wake up to the fact that it must destroy all parasites feeding on it, or they will destroy that host.This is just a simple biological fact. To argue against this is a sign of mental derangement.
|
Posted by channa on 06/06/11 07:23 PM
DB,
You misunderstood again what my point is. I am saying if you want to zero in on "social programs" try the ones I listed that are causing the collapse. But that won't happen by the mainstream. Hornberger said to immediately stop SS. Why not the others? That is my point. If you are going to talk this way, why not include all the other "programs" too, instead of those that are aiding the elderly and disabled?
Yes, the females you listed are cheerleaders, but they are few in comparison to the many males that directly benefit from the Military industrial complex that takes care of them. Many of these are making darn good salaries on the public dime and contributing little to the overall evolution of the society. Hilary, madeliene and those types would not be in their positions if they were demanding cooperation. They are where they are because they do not deter or question the status quo.
I was not trying to get into a Social Security debate, but to point out the contradiction.
Reply from The Daily Bell
We appreciated you listing costly US programs, we point them out regularly, especially the military ones. We think the defense budget is the one that should be slashed, before anything else. So really we agree with you!
|
Posted by Wayne on 06/06/11 07:10 PM
@DB
"CONCLUSION: People have a LOT of trouble with the idea of justice being adjudicated by those party to the injustice. But even in early Common Law days, in Britain, people purchased judicial dispensation from private courts and beyond doubt the decisions were irregular (varying from court to court and region to region)."
And this principle is the biggest con ever pulled off.
No one really knows the loss, pain, and suffering of a victim other than that victim.
That some outsiders are allowed to just play out their own idea of morality and just punishment which is then forced upon the victims as being justice is absurd.
This is just another device to strip you of the concept that you own yourself. If you are not allowed to defend yourself, or determine retribution aginst a transgressor, then you have been reduced to a slave, and the master will deal with all that for you.
Reply from The Daily Bell
On this we agree. You obviously do not have a problem with private justice. Most people cannot even conceive of it. But if the state is to have a monopoly of force over justice, how can a libertarian society ever be arrived at, even hypothetically?
|
Posted by Wayne on 06/06/11 07:00 PM
"Bluebird mentions the atmosphere now compared to years ago. I remember things that way, too. Back then, a single wage earner could earn enough to raise a family, have leisure time, and have some surplus to be generous with. Consider what it is that has led us to this, with entitlement mentality and hatred for success on one side, and politicians taking credit and glory for handing out the dole and promising to crush the wealthy. Guess who is forgotten in all this? The 'greedy', heartless generator of wealth. It's not greed to steal from his production, not greed for people to accept handouts while hating those who feed them for not giving them enough. But it is greed for him to believe they have a right to none of it, to believe they are using his best qualities to chain him."
Ineresting, isn't it?
Once "The needs of the Many outweigh the needs of the Few" became enshrined as the "offical mandate" of the many (Democratic America), AKA "The Great Society", We encountered a society with all needs, and no talent to contribute. And now we are broke.
Go Figure.
Sick, sick, sick is what this orgy of feeding off the productive is.
Time for all the productive to Shrug!
The sad thing is that it is the only thing that will work.
We can always rebuild it when they have destroyed each other with thier insane creed of "My need and greed is your problem". The other version is "I'm not a thief, you are just greedy" for not giving me the means for my happiness.
So circle the wagons, and put your best marksmen into place, because they will come to steal more! That's who they are!
Who Is John Galt?
|
Posted by Summer on 06/06/11 06:14 PM
Law
Justice for all is the foundation for any legal code/system and justice cannot be separated from morality. Plural legal systems such as under early Islamic times, offered a choice of penal codes for individuals i.e. Christian, tribal, Jewish etc.
Therefore no one had a code imposed upon them that they did not 'believe' in. The 'legal decision' was one of fact finding only, the punishment was under whichever code was preferred by the individual(s) involved. Law was to be obeyed, if validly passed and SHOULD have moral content.
Indeed, Thomas Aquinas oft called a genius of legal philosophy was influenced by Averroes (Islamic Spain) and articulated the first major non-Islamic articulation of Utilitarian-type ideals rather than purely divine legal system.
Universalism is possible, in individual societies as a minimum content of law i.e. theft, murder etc is wrong/illegal. The Positivists: no moral content required for legal validly of properly enacted law.
But who can demand justice without morality, perhaps Hans Kelsen? His theory, so clinical that it asked no questions of what constitutes 'valid'/moral law, just that - be it enacted correctly we 'ought' to follow, clearly a mere observation NOT a philosophy.
Though even H.L.A Hart's soft positivism- supposedly free from 'moral' content in law (the preferred philosophy of recent times), required a minimum content of 'natural law', whilst dismissing a minimum content of MORAL Natural Law. Why did he dismiss moral needs from other 'human needs for his minimum content? Because then he would have to admit morality is REQUIRED for 'good' law.
The natural law tradition - that the creation of law should be based on divine commands OR commonly held moral values for validity. In my view, of recent times Lon Fuller is to be preferred (legal philosopher) - the 'procedural natural lawyer'. However, I would take an element from the Utilitarian Austinian School - that validly passed law is still law, to be followed but that it should contain Fuller-like requirements...
Fuller's Eight Routes of Failure for any Legal System:
1. The lack of rules or law, which leads to ad-hoc and inconsistent adjudication.
2. Failure to publicize or make known the rules of law.
3. Unclear or obscure legislation that is impossible to understand.
4. Retroactive legislation.
5. Contradictions in the law.
6. Demands that are beyond the power of the subjects and the ruled.
7. Unstable legislation (ex. daily revisions of laws).
8. Divergence between adjudication/administration and legislation
'Laws are viewed based on purpose, not on meaning of the words. In the vehicle in the park example above, Fuller would say that it would depend on the purpose for banning vehicles from the park. For example, if the purpose were to prevent noise pollution, a bicycle would not be a vehicle for the purposes of the law. Because of this focus on purpose instead of meaning, a judge using a natural law interpretation of statutes relies much more heavily on legislative history.' Lon Fuller
Religion
Islam teaches that if someone does not obey God or even believe, out of genuine ignorance of true religion (not outright rejection) but follows a 'good' life to the best of his knowledge then he is 'good'. There is no claim to monopoly of MORALS within religion, but the refinement and peak of them. Yes, religion just as anything else has been manipulated to evil ends but it is not the teachings to blame, it is the manipulators. Just as the actions of the US government may not reflect the constitution. It always astonishes me when intelligent people do not grasp this simple notion.
Religion is in two parts: duties to God, and 'doing good' (duties to man) to please God. The latter upholds true social and moral justice. No society can be truly 'decent' without a moral code, we need it (not IMPOSED upon us but valued by society) because without it (in its pristine form) we are selfish, corrupt and hurt others. We want to be free from suffering at the hands of others, but do we have any right to demand this if we follow only a loose notion of morality ourselves? Then morality is just that - loose.
Some 'crimes' are purely moral wrongs - spiritual. When it comes to 'standard' crimes one can be labelled guilty however shame for 'moral' guilt, nowadays is no big deal. Even though without the latter we cannot hope to reduce the former! Or should we just be content with the satiation of desires with a mild moral compass to suit as we wish? On the receiving end of moral 'wrongs' we dislike it and yearn not to be subjected to those acts. Without a structured moral code man is lowly in justice, nobility, honour and goodness. But morality cannot be followed to a high standard without conviction that usually requires 'belief'.
Belief can be partly bestowed and partly 'found'. There are those that are deaf, dumb and blind to faith, some hearts are like stone, they will never believe - till the hour strikes. It's their choice. Isn't it safer to have the humility open-mindededness? There are no negative consequences to 'belief' and following good principles (rationally right too of course).
Religion at its best gave man pious and noble principles to hold true to to the death. That, is living.
Reply from The Daily Bell
This is great stuff. Here is our response from the point of view of pre-Common Law systems (tribal or clan law as applied for thousands of years before and perhaps during the Neolithic):
Fuller's Eight Routes of Failure for any Legal System:
1. The lack of rules or law, which leads to ad-hoc and inconsistent adjudication.
DB: Tribal law was seemingly always ad hoc. If the aggrieved person would not press for "justice" no justice was forthcoming ...
2. Failure to publicize or make known the rules of law.
DB: Tribal/clan law would doubtless substitute tradition for a formal, written judicial ambit.
3. Unclear or obscure legislation that is impossible to understand.
DB: Tribal/clan law needed no legislation. It was very simple and was enforced, if at all, by the aggrieved parties.
4. Retroactive legislation.
DB: Not applicable.
5. Contradictions in the law.
DB: No problem. The law was ad hoc and based on only a few moral precepts that were observed as people (the aggrieved parties) wished to apply them.
6. Demands that are beyond the power of the subjects and the ruled.
DB: Don't quite understand this one.
7. Unstable legislation (ex. daily revisions of laws).
DB: No problem. No written law to contend with.
8. Divergence between adjudication/administration and legislation
DB: No problem as there was no legislation to begin with.
CONCLUSION: People have a LOT of trouble with the idea of justice being adjudicated by those party to the injustice. But even in early Common Law days, in Britain, people purchased judicial dispensation from private courts and beyond doubt the decisions were irregular (varying from court to court and region to region).
|
Posted by channa on 06/06/11 05:45 PM
DB: You apparently prefer what you have now. You won't have it long. It is collapsing.
Well, I certainly don't think it is collapsing due to Social security or because some poor pregnant woman is collecting cheese at the grocery store.
It's collapsing because of a few reasons, but top of the list:
- The bank scam (not the local community banks)Which if you include the derivatives scam that proliferated from this it would be in the ball part of 50 Trillion.
- The Military Industrial Complex: Which is socialism for Males (mostly men are signed up) in a grand scale with illegal propagandizing to the American people. Iraq, alone, cost 3 trillion. That is 3 trillion over only 6 years time. That does not include funding for NASA, National Security Agency, CIA, FBI, HLS, TSA, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, 800 Military bases, Keeping Israel Armed, and so on. These are all very male oriented social systems. It is not just the elderly, developmentally disabled, and economically poor that are contributing to the problems.
- The off-shoring of Manufacturing: There is only about 9% manufacturing in U.S. now (probably a good portion of that is for the military industrial complex).
- The Pharmaceutical monopoly and scam that is costing tax payers and consumers probably several times more than if these companies were not controlling the market.
- The U.S. not investing in alternative and innovative energy sources some 30 years ago when there was obviously a growing problem.
I'm sure there are more reasons. but like I said before, humanity is a web; what one person does, whether they know or not, affects others. Unless you move to the mountains and live off the forest, which most people are not going to do.
I'm not against Libertarianism. I just don't see it the all encompassing answer for the world. I actually think a mixture would be better. I will never support something that calls for cutting millions off their Social Security (which would mean death for millions), which is after all THEIR money they have put into the system (for the most part). There are plenty of people who have said that social security was raided. It was taken out of its own fund and placed into the general fund.
I am just bringing this up to point out the contradiction of zeroing in on certain "programs" rather than others that actually are causing more problems.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Very good summary. Here are some points of dissent, as we believe government is mostly the PROBLEM rather than the solution.
----
"These are all very male oriented social systems."
DB: Hm-mm except for all those Tea Party gals and Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright ("children are collateral damage"), Nancy Pelosi, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, etc. It may be socialism for males, but it surely has a "Amen Choir" of females (at the top anyway).
----
"The U.S. not investing in alternative and innovative energy sources some 30 years ago when there was obviously a growing problem."
DB: Really? Who should be making these determinations if not the market. Nancy Pelosi? Barney Frank? Boehner? Obama? Did they do so well with GM?
----
"I will never support something that calls for cutting millions off their Social Security (which would mean death for millions), which is after all THEIR money they have put into the system (for the most part)."
DB: You will not have to "support it" as government will do the cutting anyway. Before this horrible epoch is over, government may have raised taxes to the ceiling, confiscated gold, inflated away savings and slashed SS to nearly nothing (while raising the retirement significantly). And that's if the current system even holds! If you believe Baby Boomers are going to get the social security at anywhere near the current paltry rates, you are probably dreaming. Sorry. You can be critical of free-market solutions but reality shows that government ones over time just don't work. No free lunch. Never.
|
|
