A Liberty Based Political System

Reading a book called "The Ethics Of Liberty" about how to build out a legal system that promotes liberty and encourages people to a live according to natural law. Just finished chapter 1.

The Ethics Of Liberty - Natural Law And Reason

 

Natural law isn't well defined in the chapter. It really doesn't even discuss the importance but I think it is critical to building a truly free society and political system. There is enough freedom in it for it to appeal to libertarians, and the book is written by one of their superstars. It should also appeal to conservatives of all different flavors. Natural law proposes a conservative vision of the world. Of course it would it was formulated by Thomas Aquinas, one of the great Western thinkers of all history.

 

Natural law attempts to define what human nature is by observing what gives humans the best life possible. That is covered a bit more in chapter 2.

 

Chapter 2 starts argues that there is a definable human nature, and that natural law can be understood in light of that. Rothbard addresses several critiques natural law theory, some convincing some not so much. I just think there is a better way to defend.

The Ethics Of Liberty - Natural Law As "Science"

 

The big question is, does human nature exist? Or are humans completely blank pages and mutable to do and think anything?

Thomas Sowell called this the constrained view vs. the unconstrained view. The constrained view believes the human nature exists. The subject has a variety of implications. I comment on one important one here.

 

Who ordered a book report?

 

It's called commentary.

 

I didn't know where to put this but the title of the thread sounded good.

My claim: Sotomayor is a bald-faced racist. Here is more proof (and proof of activist Liberal judges):

U.S. Supreme Court declines to extend federal benefits to Puerto Rico

 

bystander, it fits because the underlying principle is the same. What should be the basis of laws? Should it be based on racial discrimination, positive or negative? Should it be on the whims of rulers? Or should laws be based on some sort of objective standard. Sotomayor is example par excellence of someone who rules based on subjective, moral relativity. The book is about how to base laws on the objective standard of natural law and then what that type of legal system would look like.

The US started closer to a natural law ethic but is rapidly sliding away from it.

 

What? Sotomayor's argument was not in any way "racist." In the Puerto Rico case she argued that residency in Puerto Rico was not a rational basis for denying a U.S. citizen living in poverty in a US territory the same rights as similar citizens living in states, that is, that there is not a rational basis for treating that citizen differently from citizens living in states on the issue of individually based benefits. She further argued that Congress' general power to "make Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory" did not permit it to make rules that violated constitutional rights of citizens living there (equal protection rights). She doesn't write a word about race.
One may disagree with her conclusions, or ***** about prevailing law concerning Fifth Amendment rights, but just exactly how do you turn her arguments into "bald-face racism?"

 

Yes. It is. 8-1. She is clearly there for one reason and that is to cover for her race. Period. She has always been like this.

You don't have to write about race. You have to write about the outcome you silently decided on before hand because of race.

 

I read her opinion, and I have to agree with TS. It's not a racist opinion, and she didn't adopt a racist p position. She's simply arguing that the equal protection requirement of the Fifth Amendment prohibits discrimination among US citizens on the basis of territory status. I think she's wrong, but it's not because her analysis is crazy. It's because the equal protection requirement of the Fifth Amendment is ******** and has no constitutional basis whatsoever. However, she's relying on a 68-year old Supreme Court case that's settled law, even if it's stupid and massively illiterate, so it's hard to fault her too hard.

 

@Horn6721 , so I just get pooped with no explanation? What did I get wrong here?

 

Since I have to defer to your legal training I won't argue the merits of her opinion. I am definitely looking high level and believe she will always reach for something to protect her people. He "wise Latina" comment tells me she is steeped in it along with other things she had done. I don't trust her. 8-1 means something to me. Does her lone opinion make her some sort of visionary or an activist showboat?

 

Deez
I have no explanation
I thought I hit winner
I am going to stop trying to hit emojis when using phone. .

 

I'm not telling anyone to trust her. She is an activist showboat. I'm simply looking at this one opinion. I disagree with her analysis, but if you apply the VA equal protection requirement, the outcome she reaches isn't crazy. What's crazy is thinking the equal protection requirement even exists, but that craziness was adopted by the Court in the 1950s. I can't blame Sotomayor for it. It happened about a month before she was born.

 

Couldn't this sort of reasoning destroy the no-federal-income-tax for Puerto Rico residents benefit?

There may be an argument that income taxes are only to come from persons in the "several States" based on the 16th Am text?:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

But back to the original purpose of the thread:

Our Declaration of Independence is based squarely on Natural Law.

 

Yes. Natural rights come from natural law which are explicitly stated too.

 

Yes.

Not gonna fly. This change was made to make apportionment among the states not important. Basically, any income made in the United States can be taxed. It was stupid language to adopt, but it's what we chose - one of the biggest mistakes we've ever made.

 

Chapter 3 is about the problems with positive law and how natural law provides an objective, harsh critique of it.

The Ethics Of Liberty - Natural Law versus Positive Law

 

Chapter 4 describes the relationship between natural law and natural rights and the great importance of natural rights.

The Ethics Of Liberty - Natural Law and Natural Rights

 

In the next section Robinson Crusoe is used as a thought experiment to develop a liberty based political system. The discussion starts with a discussion of property rights and freedom of choice.

The Ethics Of Liberty - A Crusoe Social Philosophy

 

Apparently Liberty needs to be protected by the government controlling and deciding what can be posted on social media.

Meet the Ex-CIA Agents Deciding Facebook's Content Policy

 

Hey. The opposite of liberty.

 

What ownership, exchange, and wealth looks like within a free society.

The Ethics Of Liberty - Interpersonal Relations: Voluntary Exchange

 

What system makes us free and prosperous? One based on "Economic means" or on "Political means" ?

The Ethics Of Liberty - Interpersonal Relations: Ownership And Aggression

 

Is that a trick question?

 

How many times are we going to hear that? Been four months and it STILL happens...we are going to chip in and get you some glasses LOL!

 

Just attribute to my charming eccentricities.