tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4867113147194082160.post1816252918193304409..comments2024-01-27T07:32:09.377-05:00Comments on Flaming Fundamentalists For Peace: Reviewing The Cultural Case For Capitalism, Part 1 of 12Curt Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06086508660386800294noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4867113147194082160.post-30295953886004537722014-08-03T01:36:57.109-04:002014-08-03T01:36:57.109-04:00Matthew,
Eventually you have to talk about what is...Matthew,<br />Eventually you have to talk about what is practical. Yes, people decide what laws are valid and what ones aren't. And, in most cases, they are doing that for pluralistic societies, not monolithically religious ones. <br /><br />You are not touching earthy here and at some point, you have to because that is where you live.Curt Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06086508660386800294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4867113147194082160.post-83269624652966019862014-08-02T23:27:28.589-04:002014-08-02T23:27:28.589-04:00The reason that we are disagreeing on this point i...The reason that we are disagreeing on this point is that your comments implicitly assume that only men can decide whether laws are valid. In your second sentence, you ask, "Who is qualified to recognize the existence of such a law?" If transcendent law must be "recognized" by men before it can become law, it is no longer, in practice, transcendent; there is no fundamental difference between this and rules that men make up entirely on their own. The key idea of transcendent law is that it does not derive its validity from men; instead, it is valid because of something outside of, above, and beyond men. According to the Christian worldview, the only source of such law is God Himself.<br /><br />This assumption, that only men decide which laws are valid, or equivalently, that only men can make laws, relies on a humanistic worldview. The laws of a society embody its ultimate ideas of right and wrong, and how those ideas should be applied. To say that only men can make laws is to say that only men can determine the ultimate definitions of right and wrong. This is setting man in the place of God.<br /><br />Note that the primary concern here is not what men or groups of men have authority to make laws, corresponding to the vertical axis in your graph. The primary question is whether or not any men have any authority to make laws at all. I believe that God, not man, has the authority to make laws.Matthewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4867113147194082160.post-40757788545654998352014-07-14T08:45:38.520-04:002014-07-14T08:45:38.520-04:00Matthew,
One more point, it is rather oversimplist...Matthew,<br />One more point, it is rather oversimplistic to equate wealth with diligence and poverty with sloth. Such does not account for wealth that comes from exploiting others and poverty from being exploited. In all of this you have chosen an ironically far left position in quadrant III. Realize that as we go farther left, our descent is steeper. <br /><br />And yes, you are correct, it sounds harsh. <br />Curt Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06086508660386800294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4867113147194082160.post-56106029494200901722014-07-14T08:38:53.914-04:002014-07-14T08:38:53.914-04:00It seems that the question you are raising is whet...It seems that the question you are raising is whether the model I presented includes your concern for the transcendent law and rule by that law. But here, the question becomes who is qualified to recognize the existence of such a law? That again goes back whether power is distributed or consolidated. If power is consolidated, which it will more likely be when wealth is allowed to be consolidated, it is elites who are determining what laws are to be obeyed. If power is distributed, then it is the people who determine what laws should exist and be obeyed. And therein lies the difference.<br /><br />The difference being, of course, that under elite rule, elite concerns will be taken care of by law and sometimes at the expense of the welfare and rights of the masses. When power is distributed, then the masses will be making the laws. And that means more interests will be represented by those laws. At the same time, distribution of ownership becomes a secondary factor in determining what laws will exist. Here, recognizing individual rights vs stakeholder interests becomes a secondary factor in determining whether tyranny will exist and to what degree.<br /><br />As for your point, you must realize that you have 2 choices. The first choice is to favor the distribution of power as seen in democracy and the second choice is to favor elite-centered rule. If you minimize democracy, then you make it more likely, under your contention for a transcendent law, for elite-centered rule that claims to be a vanguard for transcendent law--this was seen with Lenin's hijacking of the Russian Revolution. Lenin dismantled the Soviets, which were the workers' councils, in favor a system where elites were the ones who had to teach the workers the orthodox ideology. This was considered to be a turn to the right, to the bourgeoisie and away from the Left--Lenin ridiculed the Left in the Russian Revolution. SO what you have in Lenin's hijacking of the Russian Revolution was a picture that points to the dilemma of your position here.<br /><br />Another example could be seen in the writing of the Constitution whose historical context points to interpreting the Constitution as an attempt to strengthen centralized power so that it could be used to protect the interests of financial elites (see Henry Knox's letter to George Washington, the Constitutional debates, and Federalist Paper #10).<br /><br />There is a democratic approach to transcendent law and that can partially be seen in Howard Zinn's comments on Law and Justice. The link is below:<br /><br /><a href="http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1517&context=ndjlepp" rel="nofollow">Law and Justice</a>Curt Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06086508660386800294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4867113147194082160.post-69974688500491356242014-07-13T22:58:56.813-04:002014-07-13T22:58:56.813-04:00I like your effort to model the various political ...I like your effort to model the various political movements today on a graph. Too often, people try to stuff everything on a one-dimensional line, or worse, into the Left and the Right, overemphasizing the differences between the two while obscuring those between parties on the same side.<br /><br />However, I think that having an axis that moves from Elite Centered to Democracy is oversimplified in that it neglects a third possibility: Lex Rex, or the rule of law. I can't speak for Witt, but I believe that society should be governed by a law-order which transcends the decisions of men; the purpose of government then becomes not to create law, but merely to enforce that which already exists. I think that the judges who decide individual cases and oversee the enforcement of the law should be chosen from the people by the people; but as long as they faithfully administer the law, this is relatively unimportant.<br /><br />"Witt will put himself squarely into quadrant III. And in quadrant III, while trying to pose as a champion for individual liberty, he will pose as an enemy of the liberty practiced in Democracy."<br /><br />If my argument here is valid, this statement is not necessarily true. I believe, as I hope Witt does, that the above, law-based system allows individual rights to flourish while limiting elite power.<br /><br />"The plans of the diligent lead surely to abundance" (Proverbs 21:5a), and "The hand of the diligent will rule, while the slothful will be put to forced labor" (Proverbs 12:24). This seems harsh, but think about this in terms of the fact that economic wealth is power. Who would you rather have power in society, the diligent, who have proven themselves competent, or the slothful, who have proven themselves incompetent? Remember also that, in the Bible and particularly Proverbs, diligence is often a trait of the righteous, while slothfulness belongs to the simple and foolish. Even if those with wealth do attempt to abuse their power, the law will hold them in check.Matthewnoreply@blogger.com