Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"First, they are to govern by promulgated established laws, not to be varied in particular cases, but to have one rule for rich and poor, for the favorite at court, and the countryman at plow.
Secondly, These laws also ought to be designed for no other end ultimately, but the good of the people.
Thirdly, they must not raise taxes on the property of the people, without the consent of the people, given by themselves or their deputies. And this properly concerns only such governments where the legislative is always in being, or at least where the people have not reserved any part of the legislative to deputies, to be from time to time chosen by themselves.
Fourthly, The legislative neither must nor can transfer the power of making laws to any body else, or place it any where, but where the people have.…"
Natural law has totally gone down the tubes in this country. This^^^^ is completely non-existent in America. Why? Does anyone see anything wrong with this? I don't. People I know don't. Just wondering if and/or why anyone would have a problem with what he wrote.
"First, they are to govern by promulgated established laws, not to be varied in particular cases, but to have one rule for rich and poor, for the favorite at court, and the countryman at plow.
Secondly, These laws also ought to be designed for no other end ultimately, but the good of the people.
Thirdly, they must not raise taxes on the property of the people, without the consent of the people, given by themselves or their deputies. And this properly concerns only such governments where the legislative is always in being, or at least where the people have not reserved any part of the legislative to deputies, to be from time to time chosen by themselves.
Fourthly, The legislative neither must nor can transfer the power of making laws to any body else, or place it any where, but where the people have.…"
Natural law has totally gone down the tubes in this country. This^^^^ is completely non-existent in America. Why? Does anyone see anything wrong with this? I don't. People I know don't. Just wondering if and/or why anyone would have a problem with what he wrote.
It is basically a philosophical guideline when discussing the proper role of government. Obviously, all men will never respect the natural rights of others so government is needed.
It is basically a philosophical guideline when discussing the proper role of government. Obviously, all men will never respect the natural rights of others so government is needed.
Doesn't seem very inalienable or universal when those rights are not universally recognized, and are very alienable (and in fact, were quite alienated by those natural law scholars who penned the constitution).
If you think there's gridlock in Washington now, try applying Lockean principles without exception. I happen to agree with and admire Locke as a political philosopher, and there is much of what you quote that sounds good and appealing.
"First, they are to govern by promulgated established laws, not to be varied in particular cases, but to have one rule for rich and poor, for the favorite at court, and the countryman at plow." Couldn't agree more-- so by that measure, we need to abolish the lower capital gains tax rate. And since it is income, it needs to be taxed. Just one example.
"Secondly, These laws also ought to be designed for no other end ultimately, but the good of the people." Again, sounds great, until you acknowledge that on every major political topic, there's a variety of opinions on what constitutes "the good of the people." Notice that Locke didn't say "the good of the majority."
"Thirdly, they must not raise taxes on the property of the people, without the consent of the people, given by themselves or their deputies. And this properly concerns only such governments where the legislative is always in being, or at least where the people have not reserved any part of the legislative to deputies, to be from time to time chosen by themselves." We already have this. You could make arguments that administrative agencies impose fees that you might construe as taxes, but one of the classic ways to challenge a fee is to argue to a court that it's really a tax. If the court agrees, it'll strike down the fee. Again, you may not agree with the definitions of "tax" and "fee," but they're there.
"Fourthly, The legislative neither must nor can transfer the power of making laws to any body else, or place it any where, but where the people have.…" This is, as a practical matter, impossible. Congress has, of its own free will, delegated much power both to the executive, the judiciary, and to administrative agencies. Congress can't find its own shadow on a sunny day these days, and you want them to micromanage the country, to approve how much asphalt is used for a repaving job on a 10-mile stretch of interstate highway?
There's a lot of Locke in the foundational documents of the United States, and those documents are still the law of the land (except the Declaration of Independence).
If you think there's gridlock in Washington now, try applying Lockean principles without exception. I happen to agree with and admire Locke as a political philosopher, and there is much of what you quote that sounds good and appealing.
"First, they are to govern by promulgated established laws, not to be varied in particular cases, but to have one rule for rich and poor, for the favorite at court, and the countryman at plow." Couldn't agree more-- so by that measure, we need to abolish the lower capital gains tax rate. And since it is income, it needs to be taxed. Just one example.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
"Secondly, These laws also ought to be designed for no other end ultimately, but the good of the people." Again, sounds great, until you acknowledge that on every major political topic, there's a variety of opinions on what constitutes "the good of the people." Notice that Locke didn't say "the good of the majority."
"Thirdly, they must not raise taxes on the property of the people, without the consent of the people, given by themselves or their deputies. And this properly concerns only such governments where the legislative is always in being, or at least where the people have not reserved any part of the legislative to deputies, to be from time to time chosen by themselves." We already have this. You could make arguments that administrative agencies impose fees that you might construe as taxes, but one of the classic ways to challenge a fee is to argue to a court that it's really a tax. If the court agrees, it'll strike down the fee. Again, you may not agree with the definitions of "tax" and "fee," but they're there.
"Fourthly, The legislative neither must nor can transfer the power of making laws to any body else, or place it any where, but where the people have.…" This is, as a practical matter, impossible. Congress has, of its own free will, delegated much power both to the executive, the judiciary, and to administrative agencies. Congress can't find its own shadow on a sunny day these days, and you want them to micromanage the country, to approve how much asphalt is used for a repaving job on a 10-mile stretch of interstate highway?
You answered your own question, congress delegates because it would be impractical for it to micromanage a country spanning a continent and populated by 350,000,000 people. There are limitations and requirements congress must follow when delegating.
There's a lot of Locke in the foundational documents of the United States, and those documents are still the law of the land (except the Declaration of Independence).
1. I'm familiar with Anatole France's aphorism, but it's not entirely true when it comes to, say, tax law. Anyway, France was being ironic. But it's nice to see an old friend.
2. My question was rhetorical. I'm sympathetic to the OP's position, but was making the point that like all simple philosophical ideas (Communism, Objectivism, theocracies, direct democracy), they can't only be applied imperfectly in a complex world.
If you want to read a relatively short and sharp case "against" natural rights, the writer L.A. Rollins wrote an essay on that subject a couple years ago ("The Myth of Natural Rights"). I'm not even sure how our modern legal framework would be different if we tried to reform it alongside some kind of Lockean natural rights approach, since just about everything within it could be ex post facto justified using slightly different forms of argumentation than that we may have heard before.
Which is to say, for any given law, we could probably cook up a justification for that law which proceeds from some interpretation of "natural rights" principles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
