About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Monday, June 10 - 8:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I see the current administration has completely thrown "A)" out the window via PRISM I do hope the class action lawsuit sticks!

http://redwolf.newsvine.com/_news/2013/06/10/18887885-former-us-prosecutor-sues-obama-and-nsa-over-prism-scandal





Post 1

Friday, June 14 - 9:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed, at the end of your blog post, you wrote:

Note: Notice how it is that the primary virtue of the administration of monarchy is restraint (e.g., "refraining from ...").

You meant minarchy, not monarchy.  It is true that a monarchy could be a minarchy.  England is an example of that.  The Crown is limited in its powers. Parliament hires the monarch.  That is different other other constitutional monarchies where the king (duke, etc.) convenes the assembly as advisory group of nobles.  In the case of Poland, for instance, the nobles chose one of their own by election to be king.  I believe, also, that is why the king of Prussia was called "The Elector of Brandenburg": he was a member of an imperial council. 


If your OATS is followed, the details of the constitution are less important.  It is truly a matter of culture.  That is why our constitution works (worked) to keep government small, whereas most other places on Earth with great charters just fell into different forms of strongman-strongarm rule. 

Pakistan is another interesting place.  They have a long history of complex culture as different peoples came in and stayed, from the Greeks, to Moghuls, to British and everything inbetween. They have Muslim fundmantalist extemists, obvioulsy.  But unlike Saudi Arabia, they actually have elections and truly do elect women to high office.  It is a matter of culture, not constitution.

One brief note, also, see the canonic works of Ayn Rand to be clear that objective law is not necessarily Objectivist law.  Rand pointed out that Rome brought the world objective law, even though many laws were unjust. 

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 6/14, 9:04am)




Post 2

Friday, June 14 - 7:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oops!

Thanks for catching the mis-spell (or is mis-spell spelled misspell?), Mike. Good point about objective law not being sufficient. That was my point, too, however. The "accountability" mandate for monarchy (mandate for actualizing the potential of civilized humans) fills in some -- if not all -- of the gap left by having law be merely objective. When someone is accountable, a question is begged. The question is: "Accountable to what, or to whom?"

One slant would be that you have got to be accountable to everyone else's "personal feelings." Careful examination of this slant on things shows that it is wrong -- there is no way that you could ever be held accountable to everyone's "personal feelings." Another slant would be to be accountable to something more objective than this contradictory mish-mash of 'collective personal feeling.' It would be accountability to something that can be applied universally, to all humans.

What I mean by accountability is accountability to natural law, such as accountability to natural, inalienable, individual rights -- or NIIR, for short. Under accountability, I gave the counter-example of domestic spying, but that begs yet another question:

How does domestic spying violate anyone's rights?

Domestic spying is akin to an unlawful search or seizure. A lawful search or seizure would include authorities first having arrived at a suspicion of criminal behavior. Being a suspect of a crime, your property (even intellectual property) might be searched or seized -- at least until the matter is resolved. Action that does not comport with the above is unjust action and, if left unchecked, becomes a violation of the mandate of accountability.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/14, 7:36pm)




Post 3

Friday, June 14 - 7:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed, is sentence #2 in the post above still supposed to be about monarchy? :-)





Post 4

Friday, June 14 - 8:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aaaaaagh! My on-the-go spell-checking application does not recognize the word "minarchy" (and automatically changes it to monarchy). Bad programmers. Bad, bad programmers!

:-)

Ed




Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.