[MD] NAP

[X Acto]

Nick:
I don't reject culture.  Without culture then the law of jungle happens and 
people will be initiating physical coercion without a culture to stop them.

Ron:
But Nick, whats a more natural law? 

Ron prev:
Does this mean that coercion by lying is acceptable?

Nick:
Lying is unacceptable to honest people.  But law has nothing to 
do with this.  That's an issue that virtuous people try to 
handle themselves to counter.  Is that what you're asking?

Ron:
So far we have established that natural law is actually cultural law.

NAP is centered and justified on the principle of a natural universal law
which is culturally defined, by (western culture to be specific).

This is a serious flaw in the legitimacy of your arguement.

The second is the assumption that honost people can not
be un truthful.

We have a social ideal based on a culturally derrived notion of truth
which may or maynot be verifyable by it's citizens.

The question of truth has it's problems also it's universal meaning
in relation to your theory, main pillars in your thesis. Which translates
to main problems.

Remember you asked to test your theory for soundness in relation to the MoQ
I am not attacking you.

I know you have well meaning concepts but often the best of well-meaning systems
are often hi-jacked by the most ruthlessly evil people (just ask Karl Marx).









 



________________________________
From: blue-jay maple <libertytree at mail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2009 11:29:04 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] NAP


> Ron:
> I said unbias opinions do not exist.
> 

N

> Ron prev:
> > That law is inherent in nature
> > obvious to anyone.
> 
> Nick previously:
> It doesn't have to be obvious.  Criminals exist.  just saying 
> criminals cause they
> are the only violators of liberty according to the natural law of 
> human nature.
> 
> Ron:
> There is no natural law of human behaviour Nick.

Nick:
Ron, according to natural law free will is exists.  This is why there 
are virtuous people and people of vice.  People that are virtuous have 
surmised a law, natural law, that tolerates people of vice up to a certain 
people.  Once those people have crossed a certain line, then a law of justice 
steps in.  First, it is innocent until proven guilty.  I think that's just enough.  
Now what counts as criminal activity.  Stealing, murder, and fraud (fraud violates 
property rights cause in a economic transaction the seller promises a product.  The 
buyer seals what is called a natural contract by purchasing the product.  In 
other words the buyer paid for a certain product but if the seller doesn't give 
the product that the buyer paid for, then it is called fraud.  It is not the property 
that the buyer paid for and thus the natural contract that naturally happened in the 
exchange without any papers that need to be signed was broken.  It is understood, 
no papers need signed that the trade was to involve a specific product and when it 
doesn't then fraud occurs.  The same could go the other way.  The money is illegal 
tender let's say.  And is worthless and counterfeit.  Now the buyer is a fraud in the 
natural exchange.)  Yes, these are natural ways of people interacting.  In a civil 
society the exchanges involve reason, negotiation, and discourse.  This minimizes 
conflict as people inevitable get together in groups.  When they are together in 
groups the inquiry is:  How are we to act towards each other?  When is it acceptable 
for the group to point out that somebody has crossed the line too far and reasonable 
repercussions are necessary.  Stealing is one.  When this happens it is reasonable to 
go and get the stolen good back and possibly have the thief pay extra in restitution 
for other costs involved and hardship.  It is reasonable for the group to go after a 
murderer and stop him or her.  It is not reasonable to make somebody pay restitution 
in accord with a law because you lied.  That's not reasonable.


> Ron prev:
> > Nature is everchanging which means that natural law is everchanging
> 
> Nick previously:
> Show me how how liberty is a crime?  Show me how initiating physical coercion
> is justice.  Give me an example.

> Ron:
> Show me where I stated these things? you are bending the discussion Nick.

Nick:
No, I'm not bending the discussion.  You said natural law is everchanging.  If liberty 
is everychanging that means I can go and initiate physical coercion upon another 
person cause now the law has changed and it is ok to murder somebody.  No.  The 
law has not changed.  It is not ok to murder somebody.  Don't you agree?


> Ron prev:
> > the expereincer is part of experience, everchanging.
> > If ideas of"Justice" and "Liberty" are everchanging they are 
> > universally meaningless.
> 


Nick


-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com

Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/