Copyright Notice - All original comments are Ã‚Â© Copyright 2004 by CodeWarrior. All rights are reserved. All quoted material unless in public domain, are the copyrighted works of the respective copyright holders, and all referenced trademarks are respectively owned by the relevant trademark holder. No attempt nor intention is made by this author to dilute any trademark or infringe any copyrighted material. All materials used on this page not copyrighted by CodeWarrior, are held to be used for non-commercial , personal, fair use purposes. All declaratoy statements not manifestly,contextually or perceptually, intended to be sarcastic, ironic, or parody in nature, are asserted to be true and correct by the author of this blog, as far as could be determined given the information available to the author at the time the post was written. Unauthorized reproduction of material on this page is prohibited, unless such limited reproduction falls under fair use, and such use is authorized if proper attribution of the source of the material, and author is credited in all instances of its usage.
SEARCH THIS SITE USING KEYWORDS
CodeWarriorz ThoughtsDay to day musings of free speech activist CodeWarrior.
CHECK OUT THE WEBSITE OF MY PAL SHMOO
Saturday, January 20, 2007
CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED - Another Fallacy Promoted by the CROP RAISERS
And those who have followed the blog know that I blame the cultivation of crops as the reason for the development of government.
Thus, for the foregoing, the reason for the title of this post.
Now, when we get into the discussion of things like government , human free will, etc., often, philosopher John Locke is invoked. Let me say on the outset that in my opinion, John Locke was "stunningly full of bullshit", to borrow a phrase from George Carlin.
One reason that his name is brought up is because allegedly, the development of the ideas of the American government (whatever the hell THAT is) was based in some degree on the writings of John Locke.
So, who WAS John Locke?
ohn Locke was a 17th-century English philosopher.
His contributions to philosophy include the theory of knowledge known as empiricism, which addressed the limits of what we can understand about the nature of reality. Locke held that our understanding of reality ultimately derives from what we have experienced through the senses.
Now, his association with empiricism, in my humble opinion, that ALONE is reason enough to brand him as being a boiling pot of bullshit. WHY? Well, let's assume that Locke baby is right, i.e. that reality and our understanding of it, comes from what we experience through our senses.
So, when was the last time you sensed a radio wave without a receiver. When was the last time you directly, through your senses, experienced photons, quarks, x-rays, or any tasteless, odorless, and invisible gas ? I would say NEVER.
If reality was limited to those things that we directly experienced through the senses, this would be a far different world. Furthermore, reality is often quite different than what we perceive with our senses. For example, optical illusions may be perceived by our senses as making us believe one thing is true, but upon measurement with rulers or using other metrics, we find our eyes deceived us, and that our perceptions are quite different from objective reality.
We know that in criminal trials, direct witness testimony, may convict people of crimes, but objective means, such as DNA evidence, may indicate the direct eye witness was COMPLETELY WRONG about the identiy of a murderer or rapist, and thus, the senses often mislead us and lead us to believe something other than reality is true.
Thus, to the extent John Locke believed that the arbiter of what is true and real, is sense data, he is full of bullshit. In fact, as an example of his bullshit, please see his quoted words :
"No man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience." -John Locke
If this were the case, there would be no building on what people had discovered before you or alleged was true, since you would have to experience anything firsthand yourself in order to believe it was real. What a hot stinking load of BS.
Of course, John Locke was Locke was personal physician and advisor to Anthony Ashley Cooper, the Earl of Shaftesbury, a leader in the parliamentary opposition to King Charles II.
This alone should nominate hm for inclusion in any "full of bullshit people" identification.
Locke was :
- Born: 29 August 1632
- Birthplace: Wrington, England
- Died: 28 October 1704
For more on "healthcare" (a loosely used term) in 17th century England,
visit these sites :
The title of the above is Knowledge and Practice in English Medicine, 1550–1680
As relates to his views on government, Locke's views on government, as the title will tell, are expressed in his work Two Treatises of Government. In summary, w Locke defended the proposition that government rests on popular consent and rebellion is permissible when government subverts the ends (the protection of life, liberty, and property) for which it is established.
Obviously, as we see with what is going on with the BUSH administration, the majority of people do NOT agree with increasing the number of troops in Iraq, and thus, Bush's actions are NOT stemming from the consent of the governed, unless you believe that evidence of consent of the governed is evidenced by elections.
This is preposterous because VOTING indicates you are participating in a governmental process because you are by default assuming the validity of the government.
I assert that the way one would indicate that they do NOT give consent to the government to exist, and to show they do NOT agree it is a valid government, is NOT to vote, and indeed, the majority of people in the United States do NOT vote.
In my mind, perhaps the most BULLSHIT laden thing about Locke, and the most objectionable thing he did, was come up with this BULLSHIT idea of "natural law".
"Locke's Two Treatises of Civil Government were published after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 brought William of Orange and Mary to the throne, but they were written in the throes of the Whig revolutionary plots against Charles II in the early 1680s. In this work Locke gives us a theory of natural law and natural rights which he uses to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate civil governments, and to argue for the legitimacy of revolt against tyrannical governments."
What exactly is this "natural law" bullshit idea ?
" The term "natural law" is ambiguous. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, but the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent. It does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science aims to describe. According to natural law ethical theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings.
According to natural law legal theory, the authority of at least some legal standards necessarily derives, at least in part, from considerations having to do with the moral merit of those standards. There are a number of different kinds of natural law theories of law, differing from each other with respect to the role that morality plays in determining the authority of legal norms."
"1. Two Kinds of Natural Law Theory
At the outset, it is important to distinguish two kinds of theory that go by the name of natural law. The first is a theory of morality that is roughly characterized by the following theses. First, moral propositions have what is sometimes called objective standing in the sense that such propositions are the bearers of objective truth-value; that is, moral propositions can be objectively true or false. Though moral objectivism is sometimes equated with moral realism (see, e.g., Moore 1992, 190: "the truth of any moral proposition lies in its correspondence with a mind- and convention-independent moral reality"), the relationship between the two theories is controversial. Geoffrey Sayre-McCord (1988), for example, views moral objectivism as one species of moral realism, but not the only form; on Sayre-McCord's view, moral subjectivism and moral intersubjectivism are also forms of moral realism. Strictly speaking, then, natural law moral theory is committed only to the objectivity of moral norms.
The second thesis constituting the core of natural law moral theory is the claim that standards of morality are in some sense derived from, or entailed by, the nature of the world and the nature of human beings. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, identifies the rational nature of human beings as that which defines moral law: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts" (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I). On this common view, 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. Thus, Aquinas derives the moral law from the nature of human beings (thus, "natural law").
But there is another kind of natural law theory having to do with the relationship of morality to law. According to natural law theory of law, there is no clean division between the notion of law and the notion of morality. Though there are different versions of natural law theory, all subscribe to the thesis that there are at least some laws that depend for their "authority" not on some pre-existing human convention, but on the logical relationship in which they stand to moral standards. Otherwise put, some norms are authoritative in virtue of their moral content, even when there is no convention that makes moral merit a criterion of legal validity. The idea that the concepts of law and morality intersect in some way is called the Overlap Thesis.
As an empirical matter, many natural law moral theorists are also natural law legal theorists, but the two theories, strictly speaking, are logically independent. One can deny natural law theory of law but hold a natural law theory of morality. John Austin, the most influential of the early legal positivists, for example, denied the Overlap Thesis but held something that resembles a natural law ethical theory.
Indeed, Austin explicitly endorsed the view that it is not necessarily true that the legal validity of a norm depends on whether its content conforms to morality. But while Austin thus denied the Overlap Thesis, he accepted an objectivist moral theory; indeed, Austin inherited his utilitarianism almost wholesale from J.S. Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Here it is worth noting that utilitarians sometimes seem to suggest that they derive their utilitarianism from certain facts about human nature; as Bentham once wrote, "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne" (Bentham 1948, 1). Thus, a commitment to natural law theory of morality is consistent with the denial of natural law theory of law.Conversely, one could, though this would be unusual, accept a natural law theory of law without holding a natural law theory of morality. One could, for example, hold that the conceptual point of law is, in part, to reproduce the demands of morality, but also hold a form of ethical subjectivism (or relativism). On this peculiar view, the conceptual point of law would be to enforce those standards that are morally valid in virtue of cultural consensus. For this reason, natural law theory of law is logically independent of natural law theory of morality. The remainder of this essay will be exclusively concerned with natural law theories of law. "
====== snip == End of Quote ====
Most of these "natural law" retards, posit that there natural law, comes directly from God (as if God, the all powerful creator of all that exists, would come up with such a moronic idea).
Here's another link/ source on natural law:
The precepts of the natural law are binding by nature: no beings could share our human nature yet fail to be bound by the precepts of the natural law. This is so because these precepts direct us toward the good as such and various particular goods (ST IaIIae 94, 2). The good and goods provide reasons for us rational beings to act, to pursue the good and these particular goods. As good is what is perfective of us given the natures that we have (ST Ia 5, 1), the good and these various goods have their status as such naturally. It is sufficient for certain things to be good that we have the natures that we have; it is in virtue of our common human nature that the good for us is what it is.
The precepts of the natural law are also knowable by nature. All human beings possess a basic knowledge of the principles of the natural law (ST IaIIae 94, 4). This knowledge is exhibited in our intrinsic directedness toward the various goods that the natural law enjoins us to pursue, and we can make this implicit awareness explicit and propositional through reflection on practice. Aquinas takes it that there is a core of practical knowledge that all human beings have, even if the implications of that knowledge can be hard to work out or the efficacy of that knowledge can be thwarted by strong emotion or evil dispositions (ST IaIIae 94, 6)."=== snip----------End of Quote---------
OK...what did we learn from this? We learned that St. Thomas Aquinas was full of bullshit, and that any claim that it was John Locke who invented the notion of natural law is wrong, because apparently, Aquinas spouted this drivel long before Locke.
More from ibid,
The center of Aquinas's natural law view as described thus far concerns what we might call the metaphysics of morals: its role in divine providence and the universally authoritative character of its norms. What, though, of the normative content of Aquinas's natural law position? Is there anything distinctive about the normative natural law position? Here it is difficult to say much that is uncontroversial, but we can say a sufficient amount about Aquinas's natural law theory to make clear that it is an interesting alternative to utilitarian (and more generally consequentialist) ethics, Kantian views, and standard Aristotelian positions. (For a magisterial treatment of Aquinas's natural law ethic, see Rhonheimer 2000.)
Aquinas says that the fundamental principle of the natural law is that good is to be done and evil avoided (ST IaIIae 94, 2). This is, one might say, a principle of intelligibility of action (cf. Grisez 1965): only action that can be understood as conforming with this principle, as carried out under the idea that good is to be sought and bad avoided, can be understood as an intelligible action. But no one can in acting simply pursue good -- one has to pursue some particular good. And Aquinas holds that we know immediately, by inclination, that there are a variety of things that count as good and thus to be pursued -- life, procreation, knowledge, society, and reasonable conduct (ST IaIIae 94, 2; 94, 3) are all mentioned by Aquinas (though it is not clear whether the mentioned items are supposed to constitute an exhaustive list).
So on Aquinas's view it is the good that is fundamental: whether an action, or type of action, is right is logically posterior to whether that action brings about or realizes or is some good. The good is, on Aquinas's view, prior to the right. But on Aquinas's view we are, somehow, able to reason from these principles about goods to guidelines about how these goods are to be pursued. Aquinas's thoughts are along the following lines: first, there are certain ways of acting in response to the basic human goods that are intrinsically flawed; and second, for an act to be right, or reasonable, is for it to be an act that is in no way intrinsically flawed (ST IaIIae 18, 1).
The important task, then, is to identify the ways in which an act can be intrinsically flawed. Aquinas does not obviously identify some master principle that one can use to determine whether an act is intrinsically flawed (though for an attempt to identify such a master principle in Aquinas's work see Finnis 1998, p. 126), though he does indicate where to look -- we are to look at the features that individuate acts, such as their objects (ST IaIIae 18, 2), their ends (ST IaIIae 18, 3), their circumstances (ST IaIIae 18, 4), and so forth. An act might be flawed through a mismatch of object and end -- that is, between the immediate aim of the action and its more distant point.
If one were, for example, to regulate one's pursuit of a greater good in light of a lesser good -- if, for example, one were to seek friendship with God for the sake of mere bodily survival rather than vice versa -- that would count as an unreasonable act. An act might be flawed through the circumstances: while one is bound to profess one's belief in God, there are certain circumstances in which it is inappropriate to do so (ST IIaIIae 3, 2). An act might be flawed merely through its intention: to direct oneself against a good -- as in murder (ST IIaIIae 64, 6), and lying (ST IIaIIae 110, 3), and blasphemy (ST IIaIIae 13, 2) -- is always to act in an unfitting way. Aquinas has no illusions that we will be able to state principles of conduct that exhaustively determine right conduct, as if for every situation in which there is a correct choice to be made there will be a rule that covers the situation. He allows for the Aristotelian insight that the particulars of the situation always outstrip one's rules, so that one will always need the moral and intellectual virtues in order to act well (Commentary on NE, II, 2, 259). But he denies that this means that there are no principles of right conduct that hold everywhere and always, and some even absolutely.
On Aquinas's view, killing of the innocent is always wrong, as is lying, adultery, sodomy, and blasphemy; and that they are always wrong is a matter of natural law. (These are only examples, not an exhaustive list of absolutely forbidden actions.)"
-==== snip===End of Quote ========
Now, you notice that according to that retard Aquinas, "sodomy" is against natural law.
Hmmm, now "sodomy" is not always a homosexual act. Heterosexual couples also engage in anal intercourse. Now, think about it for a second. According to this notion, God , who created both vaginas AND anal orifices, according to the idiot Aquinas, has decided that one hole is OK to insert the male organ into, but the other is a sin. Huh?For those wanting to find out more on the life and thoughts of this retard, Thomas of Aquin,
aka St. Thomas Aquinas, check these links "
Now, WHAT pray tell, is the nexus, the binding commonality between these two retards besides this BULLSHIT about natural law?
Easy answer, both were alloathic physicians.
Aha, NOW you start seeing the character and nature of these feebleminded morons and why they had a predisposition not only to generate such staggering amounts of BULLSHIT, but also the obsession of spreading this intellectual feces around, painting the world with it, and spreading the smell of this stinking pile of natural law BULLSHIT far and wide.
But, this movie of course was fiction. Many people talk about the current administration in Washington operating in Star Chamber fashion.
So, what the heck is this STAR CHAMBER ?
One Star Chamber was the Court of Star Chamber
|Star Chamber - The Facts|
|The Court of Star Chamber was named for the star pattern painted on the ceiling of the room at Westminster Palace where its meetings were held.|
The Court of Star Chamber 1487-1641
The Court of Star Chamber was a court of law which evolved from meetings of the king's royal council. Although its roots go back to the medieval period, the court only became powerful as a separate entity during the reign of Henry VII. In 1487 the court became a judicial body separate from the king's council, with a mandate to hear petitions of redress.
In a sense the court was a supervisory body; its members oversaw the operations of lower courts. As well, its members could hear cases by direct appeal. Members of the court were either privy councillors (i.e., members of the king's advisory body) or judges drawn from the courts of common law.
The mandate of the court expanded under the Tudors to include instances of public disorder. Judges would receive petitions involving property rights, public corruption, trade and government administration, and disputes arising from land enclosures. Although the court was initially a court of appeal, Henry VIII and his councillors Wolsey and Cranmer encouraged plaintiffs to bring their cases directly to the Star Chamber, bypassing the lower courts entirely.
Although the court could order torture, prison and fines, it did not have the power to impose the death sentence. Under the Tudors, Star Chamber sessions were public.
The power of the Court of Star Chamber grew considerably under the Stuarts, and by the time of Charles I it had become a byword for misuse and abuse of power by the king and his circle. James I and his son Charles used the court to examine cases of sedition, which, in practice, meant that the court could be used to suppress opposition to royal policies. It became used to try nobles too powerful to be brought to trial in the lower courts. Court sessions were held in secret, with no right of appeal, and punishment was swift and severe to any enemy of the crown.
======SNIP== (The above excerpted from http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/star-chamber.htm
So, in general, it implies a secret court or secret meeting of those associated with the government to make decisions.