Unless a man is given the natural ability to make a choice, he cannot justifiably be condemned for his vice or praised for his virtue. As Madison says in Federalist 51. "if men were angels, no government would be necessary." John Adams said that our Constitutional Republic was made for a righteous and a moral people and is unsuitable for any other. Why? Because the criminal's intent is to break law. Adding more laws to curb the criminal's desire for committing crime will do nothing but add to the list of crimes he may commit. Detainment, in the form of jails and prisons, were to be places wherein criminals would change their nature to no longer break laws. The Greeks defined good and evil largely in terms of knowledge and ignorance, and when a person was to have committed a crime against the polis or another individual they were sent to a mandatory schooling session in order to "educate" the person back into order. There must be an inner self-governing light within each individual to operate within a free society, else government corruption and tyranny expand to withdraw the ability of acting in individual liberty to the masses in order to curb the minority.

So, what defines good and bad? Are we all basically "good" or are we basically "bad"? One culture, group, religion, sect, creed, or individual will define different terms to good and bad-- So what then? My good is Waffler's evil, while my evil Waffler generally praises (sorry for pickin' on ya-- just for example sake). Are there any eternal/infinite absolutes whereby we may lay a "moral" judgment? Are ethics arbitrary? Society's views of good and evil derive from the evolution of religiosity within the group; the greatest of these being Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. China still says that it bases much of its political philosophy on Kung Fu-tse's teachings (even after Mao's redefinitions), but the rest of the world still looks at China as a human rights violator. Many of the "persecuted" of China actually stand up for Communism and their political regime, even though western civilization condemns the treatment of these citizens by a Communist lead tyranny. The perception of right and wrong is not quite so black and white as what we would wish. This statement, on its own, is arbitrary to what a "good" and "bad" man can associate to himself; it's what is known as a "philosophical Twinkie" (something that sounds, looks, and tastes good, but is completely void of any nutritional substance).

I second Archer's remarks...

It is a chestnut of the philosophy world to ask what came first: thought or language. Language is merely the ability to communicate an idea, whether this be through grunting, pointing, speaking, or acting. Ideas are funny things. Like the postulates of science, ideas are built on the past as well as perceived outcomes of the future. As the literal or figurative Adam and Eve took their first steps out of the Garden of Eden, they started the path of ideas upon which they passed to their children and their children's children, etc. While it is impossible to be purely objective in looking down the corridors of history to see things for how they actually were (it's hard enough for us to see our own day for how things ARE and not how we WANT them to be), we do, however, gain a better sense of who we are as individual's and groups in the grand-scale of things when we understand the evolution of thought that has proceeded us. The evolution of thought has rested and made leaps from generation to generation. Mozart influenced Beethoven who then single-handedly became the first and only accepted man to individually make a musical transition from one period (classical) into another (romantic). Beethoven cannot be truly understood, if you're actually seeking to studying and understand his music beyond amateur listening pleasure, unless you understand the evolution of music and philosophy before him. His music being as political as it was melodic, he transformed the way people saw the world. Not only could we not understand how Beethoven transformed music from one genre to the next without understanding his predecessors, but Beethoven himself would not have had the life experience to create his masterful works unless there had been a Mozart, Hayden, Handle, and Bach to come before him. For this reason, there becomes a necessary link we must make to our past and to our ancestors who handed us the world we now have. The problem, however, is when we put trust or fear in the man instead of the message. One man is the same as another, but the ideas that one man can carry forth from one to another are what has proven to make men great. For this reason, many people fall into the fallacy of disregarding truth because of the messenger who carries the message. Ad hominems become rampant as the ignorant find it easier to discredit/purport an idea by attacking/supporting the atrocities/grandness of the messenger, instead of the message itself.

So, eh, global warming (as caused by CO2 emissions) is not necessarily "absolute" science-- there ARE legitimate claims against the hypothesis: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb What is there to gain politically from global warming? Besides the fact that it has turned into a billion dollar industry, the repercussions of the global warming hype and/or scare can serve to unite a global networking system of globalist alliances (politics). It would be nice to assume that treatise, alliances, laws, and bills only contained exactly what was purported; however, this simply isn't true. Politicians constantly throw in irrelevant clauses into unsuspecting bills to obtain other ends -- this is merely politics, everyone does it. Global warming as a science is irrelevant, because as a science it will either live or die with time and evidence; however, once you get politics involved into the mix, you have an entirely different story. If global warming (as caused by co2 emissions and not solar activity) wanted to stay a scientific endeavor, I'd have no problem supporting it as evidence came forward; however, a monster has been created with global warming above and beyond what science can legitimately make of it. Do-gooder politicians (with legitimate good intentions) often take hold of such an idea, as they find a new tool by which they can pass what they think are necessary legislations in other fields. For instance, many globalist (one world/one government) supporters have taken hold of global warming, not because it's what they are passionate about, but because they can use global warming to push their other agendas. This is simple politics, and has already been discussed at length in Universities all over America. This is not a conspiracy-- there is nothing evil in this-- merely politics, it happens all the time. I happen to disagree with these politicians, but not on a moral stance, but because I disagree with globalism in general.

Absolute bull shit in Democracy-- Because there are no "indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible rights" in a Democracy (look at all of the other "Democracies" around the world that prohibit the same natural "unalienable" rights that our Republic specifically safeguards). This statement is VERY much influenced by the Enlightenment of Hume, Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire... The Social Contract had to begin at some point; Rousseau really helped move this theory forward.

LoL, Waffler, are you REALLY using a slippery slope argument? Nice fallacy. Some fall for the propaganda of the neoconservative and neoliberal movements that the "Income Tax is involuntary" and that "The US is a democracy" etcetera-- and they fall for it based on certain fallacies that they have accepted through their life. They do not see things for how they are, but for how they want to see them.

Waffler, your statement does not correlate accurately to the evolution of thought, language, ideology, political laws, and culture. Any political science or philosophy professor will explain to you that a "Republic" IS a form of government. A Constitution IS a contract, yes, but a Constitutional Republic is more than just "an entity with a written contract"-- it is a form of government as structured by contractual laws as expressed and agreed upon by the people. There are several types of Republics-- some good, some bad-- and some that follow the will of the people by their social contract and some that just pretend to (China and N Korea, for example)... As with all things, the foundation (philosophy) of what their government wishes to accomplish is key (individual freedom vs group freedom (political concept), trade, industrialization, liberty and freedom expressly, etc.); every Republic does not have the same ends, nor are they built on the same principles, history, ideas, understandings, or foundational philosophies of law. Our Republic was specifically founded on natural laws, because the founders expressly desired a foundation of government that would transcend majoritarian influence (groupthink), tyrannical oppression, or societal hype (The Greeks called this endeavor finding the static amidst the "flux" of the polis). While the direction of government would be run on a type of democratic voting, it was not to be merely a Majoritarian Rule (yes, there IS a difference). The original Constitution fought hard to protect against a Majoritarian Democracy, becuase Natural Law states that there are some eternal absolutes that the majority has no right to vote against. Most people know "will of the people" to be defined as "Democracy", but, as I have explained ad nauseum, this does mean that such is exactly the case. Republics are based on rule of the people as established by a proposed set of laws (in the case of our system, the people agreed to adhere to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"-- this does not mean, however, that other Republics have been built on the same foundation); whether legitimacy (rule of law) follows is another argument entirely. A Republic IS a form of government, but its foundations can't be seen if you can't look past the paradigm of Democracy.

This is the single basic philosophical basis of the neoconservative thought: A country needs to always be faced with a dichotomy of good vs. evil to keep moral integrity; if such a dichotomy does not exist, one must be created/fabricated.

Among many of our rights, in our Republic, is the right to be left alone. This right, in a Democracy, does not exist, because society's majority is forced upon the individual. We have moved towards being a Democracy (away from what our founders originally intended), but still have some semblances of Republican (form of government, not the party) virtues wherein such societies as the Amish are largely left alone. We can get into the whole Rousseau transcendence of how society both frees and enslaves us, but the fact remains that we have freedom to be left alone. We've all heard it before, but the scariest 9 words ever uttered are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." The sincerity of those leaders who wish to help the people is quite real, this is to be sure; however, sincerity does not equate to knowledge of how to keep freedom and liberty alive. Even Caesar's attempt to create a moral government ended in him proclaiming himself the "magnus parens mundi" (the great parent of man) and the "virtutum rector" (director of virtue). His sincere attempt to save his empire from moral degradation is praiseworthy, but his forced virtue served to further the actual destruction of his empire. Such examples from history are nearly endless.

Waffler, I question how much "liberty and justice" we're actually taking to these other countries. If you actually look at the numbers between what casualties we've caused in Iraq versus Saddam, you'd probably be surprised. Saddam was held accountable for killing some 80,000 people (high estimate) and torturing some 120,000-150,000 people over his 20 year stint as dictator. The United States, to date, has killed (that is, US missiles, bullets, bombs, etc.) over 400,000-550-000 innocent civilians in Iraq (collateral damage) and has wounded some 300,000-450,000 more in our brief 5 year tour. What freedom did we bring? Freedom from fear? No. Freedom from oppression? No, they're still oppressed by each other (the minorities by the majority) and terrorist cells that are now recruiting beds that were never so before we went in there. Freedom to vote? Well, maybe. Of all the "freedoms" we've possibly given them, this is probably the greatest one. But at what cost? What is the purpose of voting? Basically, if you read any comparative politics text book, it is to create more legitimacy. But what does legitimacy really mean if you're country is war-torn because of it? So what that the people voted? The "Democracy" that is supposed to keep them safe is simply oppressing the minorities (which makes sense if you know ANYTHING about the middle east and sectarianism). No, we seriously have to reconsider our "leadership" that was "thrust" on us. Being a global hegemon doesn't entail being the world dictating empire.

The basis of the neoconservative theory... No thanks.

I would include another supposition and that is of the slave mentality. It has been said that Americans are so enamored with equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom. There is a third choice wherein people accept the world around them for the corruption they see, and merely "go along" because that's what society tells them to do. Retaliation for abuse and plunder is often worse than the original harm. The Aristotelian model describes largely the same premise; the poor will typically seek to regain their rights at the expense of the wealthy's property-- the wealthy respond by securing their property at the expense of the poor's rights. This ultimately makes both classes "plundered" as they seek retribution at the expense of their perceived tormentors. Such plunder WILL increase, until at such a time when it will suddenly stop. This is difficult to do, however, because when was the last time anyone saw government shrink in size? It is the nature of government (especially bad government) to create exponential government. America has lost the moral center wherein were used to teach and abide by correct and civil principles and left people alone to govern their own lives. John Adams was right, our Constitution was made for a religious and a moral people and it will not survive with any other -- as it has also been said, if men were angels, there would be no need for government; however, what happens when government becomes the criminal? Bastiat talks a lot concerning "legalized plunder"; this is the real danger when government becomes the perpetrator of plunder. Leave me alone, don't tread on me, and I'll fight along side you to stop unlawful plunder.

There are several things that we have discovered are harmful to the public health: second hand smoke, the act of breathing, automobile exhaust, certain pesticides, sneezing, trans fats (and fatty processed foods in general), coughing, commercial/factory pollution, lack of daily exercise, etc. Does this mean, Waffler, that people who drive cars should all be killed as well? It is documented that certain fatalities in heavy metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles and Hong Kong are directly correlated/caused by long exposure to automobile pollution. Do you drive your solar paneled energy car to work? Or do you crank in the gas like the rest of us? Call it what you want, but your logic is ridiculous. The only legitimate cause for the death penalty comes down to intent--the law requires justice to be attributed to the nature of the crime and for the equity to be restored. If there was obvious intent to harm/murder, and murder was committed, then there is cause for a death penalty. Sad little world that Waffler lives in.

Waffler, what it is supposedly that Mike and I admitted contrary to our earlier denials that the USA is a democracy or a majority ruled society? The USA does have a semblance of a democratic process in the fact that we vote. It is not a direct democracy, because we have representatives that vote in our behalf on certain issues. What distinguishes our federalist Republic from a Democracy is the premise of our laws. Are there things that a majority simply cannot decide or make moral by a majority vote? We've gone over this before, Waffler, and you've never answered the question: what is the ratio that makes rape or murder moral or legal? Democracy says it's 2:1; OUR Republic (as differentiated by other Republics) says there is no ratio; it violates "inalienable rights" that supercedes any majority's decision. Natural laws are to be established, not man's perceived truth; the majority can decide what natural laws it wants to enforce as a civil service, but where natural laws are violated, the majority (or minority for that matter) has no voice. Waffler, if you actually became a student of history (not just of historical facts, but of societal evolutionary thought) in trying to understand the premise of natural law, it's meanings, it's philosophies, it's evolutionary transcendence throughout cultures and societies-- then you might actually grasp what Mike, Archer, and several others on this blog have been talking about. As it is, you've misapplied (or misunderstood) generally everything we've said. You can go ahead and prohibit the speaking of any propaganda if you wish, just let me know where you do it so that I can either move or purport severe public civil disobedience. Again, please tell me when I have admitted that we're a Democracy?

Well said, Mike.

Utter BS, right Waffler? What is the Pulitzer Prize but what the majority thinks of it? It doesn't matter what a group of stingy old men who choose the recipient think, right? just the majority who ignorantly think fondly on the award?

A Duty of Civil Disobedience is an excellent work, but obsolete within an acting Democracy. The Grecian ideology of the polis goes to show that in such a social framework there is room for any type of disobedience. Once the minority raises up in civil disobedience against any portion of the majority, then anarchy ensues until the minority is physically taken under control. Our founders sidestepped this problem by creating a system of government where laws were paramount to the minority OR the majority. Under such an Aristotelian model the founders realized that the poor would always want to secure their rights at the expense of the rich man's property, and that the rich man would want to protect his property at the expense of the poor man's rights; by establishing a system based on LAWS (eternal absolutes/principles of conduct -- or rather, "natural laws") rather than on a mere majority vote. Civil disobedience is acceptable within such a system as created by our founders, because such disobedience is not against the majority, per say, but to the laws.

While I do not agree with a portion of Rand's "selfishness" paradigm, I agree with her outcome.

This is absolutely historically proven.

Amen, and Amen.

I wouldn't mind even carrying an ounce of gold home everyday from work. I agree, Waffler can have the paper.

Reston is correct. It is impossible to ever know exactly what is being said... but this is a dangerous slippery slope, because if this is true than it can be argued that every communicated word is immediately privy to scrutiny without even the author's clarification. Due to the author's increased life experience (which can be even a few seconds, depending on the situation) that has changed their perception on life, language, and thought process from the time they first spoke to when they try to explain exactly what they meant in that exact time and place-- it is impossible for even an author to reflect on EXACTLY what he meant to say. To get around this, we have to accept that a little subjection is given through each generation's interpretation of the founder's words. This being the case, we then have to argue whether or not we're going to decide to always go back to defining things according to the original standard (Constitution), or to the last defined standard (stare decisis). There are strengths and weaknesses of both; however, history has proven that a solid reflection upon the original standard has proven to prolong and strengthen a nation's self-identity, culture, and power much longer than a continuously redefined national identity.

I love truth when it's spoken! 10 stars! The massive amounts of empirical evidence that supports this statement stand for themselves! Undoubtedly, there will be some one this blog who cannot rap their minds around how a Democracy (majority rule all of the time, no exceptions) can naturally arrive at despotism. Such people merely need to read a history book, or take a political history class.

Gotta take a look at the US's PPP; it doesn't look so hot.