My Daughter Went To A Ron Paul Rally

[Diogenes]

God personally makes every rock drop in exactly the same way... no wait, gravity does that. Well, surely he makes every electron flow in exactly the same way. No, wait, electro-magnetism does that.

Hmmm, I guess there is a higher law. It is called NATURAL law and it rules the universe and everything in it. What we need to do is IDENTIFY that law with respect to morality and ethics (two totally different things by the way). Then maybe we can make our civilization work as well as our machinery.

One theory suggests:

1. Sapient beings have the right to voluntary action.
2. You can't do good by doing wrong.
3. Like all toxic substances, government programs obey the J-Curve.

Slavery exists in that same "natural law" universe. The topic under discussion is not how non-sapient inanimate objects behave with no external influence, but how sapient intelligent minds react to opportunities which they see around them.

Eugenicists believe that the weak and inferior should be purged to conserve resources for the strong and superior. They also claim scientific principle is on their side.

Without a reference, the concept of "Wrong" is like other observational frames, "relative."

[KitemanSA]

[/quote]

One theory suggests:

1. Sapient beings have the right to voluntary action.
2. You can't do good by doing wrong.
3. Like all toxic substances, government programs obey the J-Curve.

Slavery exists in that same "natural law" universe.

Sorry, don't get your point. People do wrong. This is not an issue. YOUR prior statement was that without a "higher" athority, people would not behave well. I have just identified that "higher authority" without recourse to religion.

The topic under discussion is not how non-sapient inanimate objects behave with no external influence,

didn't suggst it was. Where do you infer that?

but how sapient intelligent minds react to opportunities which they see around them.

Yup.
You can lie to them and tell them the mighty Juju will turn them into purple pustules if they "misbehave" or you can find out what the TRUE higher authority (the universe) really holds in store if they do. The trouble with the "Big Juju" method is that if they ever figure out its a lie, they tend to think there IS no REAL higher athority and go wild.

Eugenicists believe that the weak and inferior should be purged to conserve resources for the strong and superior. They also claim scientific principle is on their side.

And all that thought makes no difference unless somehow they take charge of government. We have seen the results of that. Sig heil and all that tripe? Rule 3, "toxic substance"?

Without a reference, the concept of "Wrong" is like other observational frames, "relative."

Rule 1 is the reference. Sapient beings have the right to voluntary action. Defines wrong VERY simply and all inclusively. In case you didn't get it, here is the corrolary "it is WRONG to involve a sapient being in an action involuntarily". Got it?

If government were limited to protecting that single right, civilization would flourish.

[Betruger]

For people that do not believe their is a higher power to hold them accountable, there is no reason to be fair or truthful.

The BS just keeps on rollin

If you don't like BS, stop posting it.


Retribution is the basis for our criminal justice system. Are you suggesting that deterrence doesn't work? That negative freedback doesn't work?


Clarify your objection.

Move the goalposts why dont ya. IE, BS.

Who is it that asserted there was no reason to be fair nor truthful without a higher power to hold one accountable?

[Diogenes]

One theory suggests:

1. Sapient beings have the right to voluntary action.
2. You can't do good by doing wrong.
3. Like all toxic substances, government programs obey the J-Curve.

Slavery exists in that same "natural law" universe.

Sorry, don't get your point. People do wrong. This is not an issue. YOUR prior statement was that without a "higher" athority, people would not behave well. I have just identified that "higher authority" without recourse to religion.

But you have not explained how it will make people behave well. (because it won't. My example of Slavery is proof of this.)

The topic under discussion is not how non-sapient inanimate objects behave with no external influence,

didn't suggst it was. Where do you infer that?

What other purpose is there in suggesting the laws of nature have any obvious role in Human behavior? Gravity (Which you invoked) does not explain torture, or any other reason why people do "evil" things.

but how sapient intelligent minds react to opportunities which they see around them.

Yup.
You can lie to them and tell them the mighty Juju will turn them into purple pustules if they "misbehave" or you can find out what the TRUE higher authority (the universe) really holds in store if they do. The trouble with the "Big Juju" method is that if they ever figure out its a lie, they tend to think there IS no REAL higher athority and go wild.

Geeze, you make it hard to explain distinctions to you. I get in trouble when I think people understand things as well as I do.

There is often a distinct difference between what is best for an individual and what is best for a group or species. Obviously it is best for an individual to not grow old, and to maintain a youthful vigor eternally, but it is detrimental to a species if such a thing were to occur, because this would leave the immortal in a position of advantage against all challengers who may never be permitted to advance to their own place in the sun.

By the same token, Individuals may see advantages to behaving in such a way that it is good for them but bad for the species. (Or Society.) Obviously, lying, cheating and stealing can bring momentary advantages to individuals. Indeed, that is why individuals lie cheat and steal. The same is true of Murder and Adultery. (which are really sort of opposites, insofar as murder is the termination of another's genes while adultery is the passing on of ones own. Both result in a relative genetic "one up" point score. )

If you are familiar with the Broken Window Fallacy, you will understand what I mean when I say there are concentrated local advantages but widely distributed disadvantages as the result of individuals behaving in an immoral fashion.

Any method which convinces individuals to act in the best interest of the community serves as a larger benefit to the overall group, though it may cost a local and specific benefit to a particular individual. A Belief in JuJu's purple pustules (your attempt to mock and ridicule the role of religion) can have very effective real world consequences if the population believes in the wrath of JuJu.

Again, Deterrence is a basic foundation of our system of Justice.

Eugenicists believe that the weak and inferior should be purged to conserve resources for the strong and superior. They also claim scientific principle is on their side.

And all that thought makes no difference unless somehow they take charge of government. We have seen the results of that. Sig heil and all that tripe? Rule 3, "toxic substance"?

What makes you think the Eugenicists are done?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2862011/posts

Without a reference, the concept of "Wrong" is like other observational frames, "relative."

Rule 1 is the reference. Sapient beings have the right to voluntary action. Defines wrong VERY simply and all inclusively. In case you didn't get it, here is the corrolary "it is WRONG to involve a sapient being in an action involuntarily". Got it?

Like every absolute, this one falls apart too. Were the nation unable to compel military service, it could cease to exist, only to be replaced by one which WILL compel involuntary action.

Same thing with taxes.

Evolution will Kill such a form of government as you suggest because it will be unfit to survive.

If government were limited to protecting that single right, civilization would flourish.

It would die quickly. See above.

[Diogenes]

The BS just keeps on rollin

If you don't like BS, stop posting it.


Retribution is the basis for our criminal justice system. Are you suggesting that deterrence doesn't work? That negative freedback doesn't work?


Clarify your objection.

Move the goalposts why dont ya. IE, BS.

Who is it that asserted there was no reason to be fair nor truthful without a higher power to hold one accountable?

All of human history. Next question.

[Diogenes]

This just showed up on my radar today.





How Does the Brain Secrete Morality?

Philosophers often frame arguments over the bases of ethics in terms of deontology (right v. wrong irrespective of outcomes) and utilitarianism (costs v. benefits of potential outcomes). Both utilitarians and deontologists would argue that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings. A utilitarian might tote up the costs of being caught in murder or the harms to a victim’s family, whereas a deontologist would assert it is moral duty to avoid killing the innocent. For most people, a utilitarian reckoning in this case seems cold and psychologically broken (e.g., the kind of calculation that a psychopath would make). The researchers define personal sacred values as those for which individuals resist trade-offs with other values, particularly economic or materialistic incentives.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/21/h ... e-morality

[Betruger]

If you don't like BS, stop posting it.


Retribution is the basis for our criminal justice system. Are you suggesting that deterrence doesn't work? That negative freedback doesn't work?


Clarify your objection.

Move the goalposts why dont ya. IE, BS.

Who is it that asserted there was no reason to be fair nor truthful without a higher power to hold one accountable?

All of human history. Next question.

Is that the name in the above quotes?

[Betruger]

Well for me it was Paul or Gingrich that could have even been worth a second thought.
I would definitely never vote for Romney or Santorum. They are both to stupid. One is a cultist, the other a religious nutbag. Both have views that belong into the middle ages.

From the stranger than fiction dept: Santorum campaigns for porn prohibition. You just can't make this stuff up..

And this guy would be president of... The United States of America. What planet does this guy come from?

[KitemanSA]

But you have not explained how it will make people behave well. (because it won't. My example of Slavery is proof of this.)

Actually, it is fairly simple. I find it quite effective in that sort of circumstance to inform the person who is attempting to violate my right to vountary action that I do NOT volunteer and that their continued attempt to make me do whatever shall be taken as constituting THEIR permission to do whatever I choose to prevent it. Now it is true that I have not had to kill anyone to prevent them from enslaving me, but I would have no compunction against it. After all, they would have given me their permission.

The topic under discussion is not how non-sapient inanimate objects behave with no external influence,

didn't suggst it was. Where do you infer that?

What other purpose is there in suggesting the laws of nature have any obvious role in Human behavior? Gravity (Which you invoked) does not explain torture, or any other reason why people do "evil" things.

The reason is to inform you that the rules for morality and ethics have a natural basis, like gravity.
Some people do "evil" things because most religions are set up in such a way that they don't believe the "punishment after death" is real but their victims DO. Their victims therefore misunderstand their righteous reactions and let the "evil" ones get away with it. Thus, religions frequently CAUSE the very thing they claim to be against because the religion is based on an incorrect knowledge of morality and ethics.
I do find it interesting that the religious leader that most in the western world CLAIM to follow said a similar thing, but no one seems to understand that part so they don't understand his basic message.

but how sapient intelligent minds react to opportunities which they see around them.

Yup.
You can lie to them and tell them the mighty Juju will turn them into purple pustules if they "misbehave" or you can find out what the TRUE higher authority (the universe) really holds in store if they do. The trouble with the "Big Juju" method is that if they ever figure out its a lie, they tend to think there IS no REAL higher athority and go wild.

Geeze, you make it hard to explain distinctions to you. I get in trouble when I think people understand things as well as I do.

Or when you don't realize that your understanding is grotesquely awry.

There is often a distinct difference between what is best for an individual and what is best for a group or species.

So far, I've not really seen this to be so. I've read science fiction stories that posit it, but that is "fiction".

Obviously it is best for an individual to not grow old, and to maintain a youthful vigor eternally, but it is detrimental to a species if such a thing were to occur, because this would leave the immortal in a position of advantage against all challengers who may never be permitted to advance to their own place in the sun.

Why must I continuously tell folks like you that "utopia is not an option". Your magical condition is not true. If it ever DOES become true, that will be when an accurate SCIENCE of morality is most needed.
Till then, what is best for the human individual, at least so far, is to have a body programmed to die at about 70 years. Otherwise, they would die at more like 30. I've explained why elsewhere.

By the same token, Individuals may see advantages to behaving in such a way that it is good for them but bad for the species. (Or Society.) Obviously, lying, cheating and stealing can bring momentary advantages to individuals. Indeed, that is why individuals lie cheat and steal.

They do this because their victims are programmed by incorrect moral teaching to let them get away with it. As a result, society gets hurt, and they being part of society get hurt too. I never said folks were necessarily WISE, just that the have the CAPABILITY to be wise.

The same is true of Murder and Adultery. (which are really sort of opposites, insofar as murder is the termination of another's genes while adultery is the passing on of ones own. Both result in a relative genetic "one up" point score. )

IBID

Any method which convinces individuals to act in the best interest of the community serves as a larger benefit to the overall group, though it may cost a local and specific benefit to a particular individual.

Nope. What is in the best interest of the community, for civilization, is for people to be act morally. With morallity can come ethics, but not without. An you can fool folks into an APPROXIMATION of moral behavior for a while, but eventually it all comes acropper. That is why a science of morality is needed.

A Belief in JuJu's purple pustules (your attempt to mock and ridicule the role of religion) can have very effective real world consequences if the population believes in the wrath of JuJu.

Yup. But eventually they figure out it is tripe and are left with nothing. With a valid science of morality, this would end.

Again, Deterrence is a basic foundation of our system of Justice.

No, JUSTICE is the basic foundation of Justice. Justice involves the re-attainment of the voluntary condition.

Eugenicists believe that the weak and inferior should be purged to conserve resources for the strong and superior. They also claim scientific principle is on their side.

And all that thought makes no difference unless somehow they take charge of government. We have seen the results of that. Sig heil and all that tripe? Rule 3, "toxic substance"?

What makes you think the Eugenicists are done?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2862011/posts

I don't. I said that they will only be a problem if they control government.
Government's righteous purpose is to protect the human (aka sapient) right. Government's awful power and perversion is to become the fist of groups like eugenicists.

Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.
—George Washington, 1797 ...

Without a reference, the concept of "Wrong" is like other observational frames, "relative."

Rule 1 is the reference. Sapient beings have the right to voluntary action. Defines wrong VERY simply and all inclusively. In case you didn't get it, here is the corrolary "it is WRONG to involve a sapient being in an action involuntarily". Got it?

Like every absolute, this one falls apart too. Were the nation unable to compel military service, it could cease to exist, only to be replaced by one which WILL compel involuntary action.

Your knowledge of history seems a bit skewed. The time that this nation relied on slave labor for it's military, it almost fell. The only thing that keeps this country as free as it is it the all volunteer military.

Same thing with taxes.

Remember Rule 3: "Like all toxic substances, government programs obey the J-Curve." A little bo-tox, beneficial, too much, deadly. A few "taxes", some benefit, too much, deadly.

Evolution will Kill such a form of government as you suggest because it will be unfit to survive.

America is the pre-eminant country in the world because it most closely adheres to the three rules listed above. Our adherance has been slipping, so has our pre-eminance. Your way is taking, thru the best of intentions, straight to hell. Remember rule 2: "You can't do good by doing wrong. Others know this by the quip, the road to hell is paved with good "intentions".

If government were limited to protecting that single right, civilization would flourish.

It would die quickly. See above.

Learn the three rules and you may yet find yourself a CIVILIZED citizen rather than a cowed subject of the folks running the government.

[CaptainBeowulf]

You can lie to them and tell them the mighty Juju will turn them into purple pustules if they "misbehave" or you can find out what the TRUE higher authority (the universe) really holds in store if they do. The trouble with the "Big Juju" method is that if they ever figure out its a lie, they tend to think there IS no REAL higher athority and go wild.

Personal observation suggests to me that this has happened a fair bit over the last several decades, with deleterious effects, including such examples as:

1. Young people who lose faith in everything and run away from their communities to big cities, end up living debauched hedonistic lifestyles at best, end up dead of drug abuse or in prostitution at worst.

2. People who join the left and oppose conservatism because they associate it with religion and see themselves as liberators of others from "oppressive" conservative traditionalism - all the while being completely blind to the modes of oppression the left uses.

And so on. Of course in some situations religion is only a minor part of it - for example, as MSimon likes to tell us, something like child abuse can be a factor. In other cases it seems to me that religious disillusionment is a major factor, if not the motivating factor. However, as with a previous post in this thread - these are my subjective observations, I don't know of any reliable way to break this down statistically.

[CaptainBeowulf]

The above examples are, of course, homegrown problems. Situations like Russia in 1917 seem to be much larger scale examples of people going wild in a deleterious way because they found out that the previous societal system, including a powerful religious component, was a lie.

Russia 1917 is as much a possibility for, say, Iran, as Flintistan is for Michigan.

[CaptainBeowulf]

Also note that the debate on this thread is well into its second millenium (perhaps older). It seems in many respects to deal with natural law. I believe someone raised natural law in a post above; interpretations of it play a major role in jurisprudence:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/natlaw/

Apart from the lawyers, philosophers have had quite a go at it since the Enlightenment.

Interesting what the website above is able to do with Thomas Aquinas: set aside his religious role in Christianity, and sum up his approach to law as such: "since human beings are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature."

Now, maybe the Judeo-Christian religion was useful in percolating the ideas of people like Thomas Aquinas throughout western civilization, but it seems to me that at this point, the rationality argument can stand on its own, without needing to invoke God.

I can rationally say that if I murder someone I don't like, I'd prefer not to be punished for it. However, taking rational thought a set further, I find that if I live in a society where I can get away with murdering someone, I'll likely eventually be murdered myself. Same goes for theft, sleeping with someone else's spouse, and so on. So, rationally I must support a society in which it is considered wrong to commit murder - presuming that I have a rational instinct of self-preservation. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" is a rational statement, it becomes ingrained in the psyche, and I feel crappy if I don't adhere to it. (These are the rational human's more complex versions of what the crocodiles learn in my game theory comments on an earlier post - don't eat the bird that cleans your teeth, or something bad will happen later.)

Maybe the difference is that we can now see that all sorts of other things happen for rational reasons. Thunderbolts are the result of electrical charge in the atmosphere when air masses of different temperatures meet, not the wrath of God. Volcanic eruptions, with the destruction of cities like Pompeii, are the result of tectonic activity, not the wrath of God. You can get humans because they evolved from primitive life forms through natural selection, not because God had to sit down and plan out where every muscle, bone and nerve goes in detail. Once you understand the world around you rationally, you can also rationally understand that laws reflecting some universal standards of morality and ethics are necessary to avoid anarchy.

To take Diogenes' slavery example: you don't support slavery because, at a rational level, you don't want any chance that you could legally be made a slave yourself. You internalize that to the point that you have a visceral gut reaction against slavery, but the derivation of that moral position is actually rational.

Edited just after posting to clarify reference to earlier game theory comments.

[Skipjack]

You know, I think that people that need a god to tell them that stealing from people, betraying or murdering them is wrong, are very sad specimen. I would stay away from them as far as I can.
Personally, I have a very strong feeling for justice and fairness and I dont need some higher authority to tell me. If I hear about people being treated badly, I get very upset.
I also want to point out that we have larger amount of atheists in Europe and strangely enough, we have less crime here. Also one could argue that christianity facilitates crime, because all the criminal has to do is repent right before he dies and he will be saved, no matter what crimes he committed the rest of his lifetime. So basically people can do whatever they want, then pray a couple of Ave Marias and enjoy heaven afterwards, no hell, purgatory and other punishment.

[Diogenes]

You know, I think that people that need a god to tell them that stealing from people, betraying or murdering them is wrong, are very sad specimen. I would stay away from them as far as I can.

As would we all, but for the fact that they are born into our homes. What is your next solution?

Personally, I have a very strong feeling for justice and fairness and I dont need some higher authority to tell me. If I hear about people being treated badly, I get very upset.

And this is what I find HILARIOUS about you. You can't seem to realize that your objection to people getting treated badly has been TAUGHT to you! It is absolutely not a universal or instinctive characteristic of mankind.


Plenty of people throughout history grew up learning that it was normal and proper to ABUSE other people! You seem to think that because your own current feelings are strong, that everyone must share them. THEY DO NOT! Look about you! The Evidence of what I am saying is all around you!

I also want to point out that we have larger amount of atheists in Europe and strangely enough, we have less crime here.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy. You also until recently had few minorities. I believe it was Charles Murray (The Bell Curve, et al) who pointed out that if you Remove Minorities from America's crime statistics, crime in the United States is far less than in Europe. It's a dirty little secret that we are not permitted to speak of for fear of being called a racist. Shhhh....!


Europe (Until recently) has been rather homogenous. Is it not true now that your imported minorities are at the forefront of your burgeoning crime wave?

Also one could argue that christianity facilitates crime, because all the criminal has to do is repent right before he dies and he will be saved, no matter what crimes he committed the rest of his lifetime. So basically people can do whatever they want, then pray a couple of Ave Marias and enjoy heaven afterwards, no hell, purgatory and other punishment.

I think that depends on what flavor (denomination) of Christianity to which you adhere. I would suggest that anyone who is likely to believe that they can be forgiven of their sins at the last minute is also likely enough to believe that they should follow the Christian teachings the rest of the time as well.

[Diogenes]

Actually, it is fairly simple. I find it quite effective in that sort of circumstance to inform the person who is attempting to violate my right to vountary action that I do NOT volunteer and that their continued attempt to make me do whatever shall be taken as constituting THEIR permission to do whatever I choose to prevent it. Now it is true that I have not had to kill anyone to prevent them from enslaving me, but I would have no compunction against it. After all, they would have given me their permission.

Were your conflicts always to consist of one on one, your methodology might well work. However, the usual method is for the bad guys to gang up on you and give you a choice between death and submission.

The reason is to inform you that the rules for morality and ethics have a natural basis, like gravity.

This I believe as well, and I have been making this argument to others since 1991. There is a natural objective morality, and it's tenets constrain the acts of individuals and their species. For example, killing one's own offspring is a severe violation of natural morality.

Some people do "evil" things because most religions are set up in such a way that they don't believe the "punishment after death" is real but their victims DO. Their victims therefore misunderstand their righteous reactions and let the "evil" ones get away with it. Thus, religions frequently CAUSE the very thing they claim to be against because the religion is based on an incorrect knowledge of morality and ethics.
I do find it interesting that the religious leader that most in the western world CLAIM to follow said a similar thing, but no one seems to understand that part so they don't understand his basic message.

And here we are back to the previous issue of what is beneficial to the individual may not be beneficial to the group, and what is beneficial to the group may not be beneficial to the individual.

I recall that the Teachings of Christianity require that "if a man makes you walk a mile, walk twain. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also."

One would think this is absolutely NOT the way to invoke beneficial change in a society, but this philosophy transformed the Roman Empire and created a legacy that is still powerful today.

Yes, individuals may suffer, but the group prospers. It is counter intuitive, and that is why it is so diabolically clever. You need to widen your scope to see this pattern.

Or when you don't realize that your understanding is grotesquely awry.

The more usual case is that someone else's understanding is grotesquely awry.

There is often a distinct difference between what is best for an individual and what is best for a group or species.

So far, I've not really seen this to be so. I've read science fiction stories that posit it, but that is "fiction".

Let me give you an example in nature.

Dinoflagellates are small ocean creatures that emit light when they are disturbed by predators. (Such as shrimp) This makes the individual creatures easy to see for the predator, but protects the larger group because the flashing light attracts larger predators by showing where is the smaller predator.

Out at sea, dinoflagellates use bioluminescence as a sort of 'burglar alarm': when disturbed, the plankton flash or light up, essentially creating a glowing trail that leads right to their assailant. This silent signal alerts predators higher up in the food chain about the dinoflagellates' nemesis. '[The burglar alarm] is a scream for help,' Widder says. 'The best chance you have when you're getting attacked is to attract something bigger than what is eating you.'" (Hadhazy 2009)

http://www.asknature.org/strategy/d851e ... 73da169c29

Emitting light is not good for the individual, but it protects the group. In a way, we are all cells in a larger body.

Why must I continuously tell folks like you that "utopia is not an option". Your magical condition is not true. If it ever DOES become true, that will be when an accurate SCIENCE of morality is most needed.

This response is incomprehensible to me, so I cannot comment on it.

Till then, what is best for the human individual, at least so far, is to have a body programmed to die at about 70 years. Otherwise, they would die at more like 30. I've explained why elsewhere.

I don't know what you've "explained", but I believe we die because we are programed to do so, BECAUSE evolution has resulted in this being the best way to allow the species to survive.

They do this because their victims are programmed by incorrect moral teaching to let them get away with it.

Nonsense! They do this because their victims are weaker than are they. Do you think Genghis Khan's victims were programmed to let him get away with it? Your statement is ridiculous on it's very face. The stronger have ALWAYS abused the weaker, and it has NOTHING to do with what the Weaker has been taught.

As a result, society gets hurt, and they being part of society get hurt too. I never said folks were necessarily WISE, just that the have the CAPABILITY to be wise.

Not if they believe that people are TAUGHT to be victims. Victimhood is always the unfortunate consequence of dealing with someone from a position of weakness.

Nope. What is in the best interest of the community, for civilization, is for people to be act morally. With morallity can come ethics, but not without. An you can fool folks into an APPROXIMATION of moral behavior for a while, but eventually it all comes acropper. That is why a science of morality is needed.

An APPROXIMATION is optimal when no other method works. To the Victims, they don't care WHY they aren't being victimized, they are only glad that they are not being victimized.

Yup. But eventually they figure out it is tripe and are left with nothing. With a valid science of morality, this would end.

Not at all. It will be rejected by true believers of a different stripe who come in to fill the vacuum left by scientific determinism and replace it with a more stringent meme of their belief.

i.e. the Muslims don't respect atheists or their arguments, and will eventually have the numbers to FORCE the atheists to accept Islamic doctrine or die. In the evolution of memes the violent and Oppressive Islamic meme will defeat the weaker Christian meme which is apparently too weak to even fight for itself. The Agnostic/Athiest meme won't even get out the gate because people are born ignorant, not educated and knowledgeable.

Evolution, thy will be done.

I for one, Welcome our new Islamic Overlords!

No, JUSTICE is the basic foundation of Justice. Justice involves the re-attainment of the voluntary condition.

You talk of "utopia" in a demeaning fashion, and here we see that you are actually a believer in it.

What makes you think the Eugenicists are done?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2862011/posts

I don't. I said that they will only be a problem if they control government.
Government's righteous purpose is to protect the human (aka sapient) right. Government's awful power and perversion is to become the fist of groups like eugenicists.

I fear you have a serious misunderstanding of the nature and origin of government. Government originated with the Strong man who would see his will done. It started as tyranny and evolved (based on the philosophers of natural law) towards what we regard as serving a civil purpose, but make no mistake, Totalitarianism is government's natural condition, and the Liberals are trying to evolve us away from Republican government back to the Aristocracy/Monarchy form of government, where THEY (Media elites, University Elites, Legal Elites, etc.) are the new Aristocrats.

The Founding of THIS nation was a BREAK from the normal form of Human government. It was a wonderful experiment in natural philosophy that was only made possible by having a common moral foundation based on Judeo-Christian teachings. Had we believed in a God-King as many societies did, we could not have broken from it.

Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.
—George Washington, 1797 ...

Exactly.

Like every absolute, this one falls apart too. Were the nation unable to compel military service, it could cease to exist, only to be replaced by one which WILL compel involuntary action.

Your knowledge of history seems a bit skewed. The time that this nation relied on slave labor for it's military, it almost fell. The only thing that keeps this country as free as it is it the all volunteer military.

Do not equate conscripted with slave. It is not the same thing at all. My point is that people had to be COMPELLED (conscripted) to fight as an army. They may have been willing to fight for their own property, but if it came to that it would have been too late.

Same thing with taxes.

Remember Rule 3: "Like all toxic substances, government programs obey the J-Curve." A little bo-tox, beneficial, too much, deadly. A few "taxes", some benefit, too much, deadly.

Doesn't address the point. Taxes are compulsory, and therefore violate your rule of involuntary compulsion. You have just now acknowledged (by your response) that Taxes are a necessary exception. In this case, the exception disproves the rule. Governments do NOT exist to prevent involuntary action. They RELY on involuntary action in order to exist at all!

A better argument is that it is the Duty of government to create and maintain a MONOPOLY on the use of compulsion towards others.

Evolution will Kill such a form of government as you suggest because it will be unfit to survive.

America is the pre-eminant country in the world because it most closely adheres to the three rules listed above. Our adherance has been slipping, so has our pre-eminance. Your way is taking, thru the best of intentions, straight to hell. Remember rule 2: "You can't do good by doing wrong. Others know this by the quip, the road to hell is paved with good "intentions".

It is not my "way". ( if you are referring to what I am advocating) We departed from that a long time ago. In my thinking, our departure was a byproduct of prosperity.

Poor people cannot afford to be foolish, while rich people can't seem to help themselves.

If government were limited to protecting that single right, civilization would flourish.

It would die quickly. See above.

Learn the three rules and you may yet find yourself a CIVILIZED citizen rather than a cowed subject of the folks running the government.

Moses gave us Ten rules which don't seem to be remembered anymore. Why should anyone pay any attention to your three rules?

I think what is coming is both predictable and inevitable, and is the consequence of us becoming drunk with prosperity.

"Money" is going to enslave us all.