The Divine Inspiration of the Constitution of the USA

[McCulloch]

Were they [the US Founders ] ordained by God to frame an eternal and inspired constitution?

Uh, yes.

Were the US Founders ordained by God to frame an eternal and inspired constitution?

[Nickman]

John Locke was a proponent for the idea that people are generally good and left without government would govern themselves. This is far from the biblical idea that people are inherently sinful.

Hobbs would be more about where your coming from. His idea was that people are general bad and left without government would destroy themselves.

Given all the death and destruction caused by governments, I'd say Locke was right.

Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.

In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.

Hobbs was wrong.



Also, this didn't happen:

[center][/center]

I think we have such a reliance on government and its abilities to take care of us. I even shudder at the idea of no government. I wonder what the outcome would be?

[Darias]

I think we have such a reliance on government and its abilities to take care of us. I even shudder at the idea of no government. I wonder what the outcome would be?

Yes, currently, we are desperately dependent on government. Dependence is not a good excuse for addiction.

I'm a minarchist libertarian, so I believe that some minimal form of government is necessary, especially when it comes to the courts. I also think that the government is force, and I don't tend to claim that government is "violence." But aside from that, I must admit that volunterists (anarcho-capitalists) make compelling arguments. We make natural allies because at the moment we are both for limited government -- in the true sense of the word, not at all what the GOP mean when they use the phrase. Most of us are more concerned with preventing unconstitutional wars, expansion of executive power, and government's infringement of our rights, as outlined in the Constitution (or, rights as naturally reasoned, so the volunterists claim). Whether or not governments should pave roads, or if private security firms can provide adequate policing or military defense, or if the private sector can protect the environment better than the government (for the simple fact that people care for their property more than common areas -- is your bathroom cleaner than the public toilet?) are not the most pressing issues we face today. Nowadays we have to worry about illegal surveillance, unconstitutional imprisonment without trial -- and whether or not the government has the power to kill us.

When people hear "anarchism" they envision Fallout 3, or Mad Max. The problem with that comparison is that those worlds face conflict and mayhem because of the scarcity of resources like water and gasoline. I've seen people compare those worlds with libertarian ones -- and compare worlds like Star Trek with what socialism can bring us. The problem with that analogy is that in the world of Star Trek, you have limitless resources. You can ask a computer to make food from atoms for you.

I'm personally of the opinion that virtually anything the government can do, the private sector can do better -- except for regulate air pollution maybe.

I support the free-market -- not government subsidized monopolies. In truth monopolies would not exist long in a truly Darwinian marketplace. There'd be no such thing as too big to fail. I am not of the illusion that there aren't such things as market failures, or that governments do good things sometimes -- but I just like to think that things like the Pencil come together through a system of voluntary exchange and that you can't make things like that happen through oversight and regulation. I don't believe that the government is omniscient -- but I don't think the invisible hand is either -- the free market works like natural selection, no guidance needed.

If you're interested in minarchists or volunterist ideas, I can direct you to a few videos:

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]



[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

[WinePusher]

I would say that the US constitution was inspired more by John Locke and the Enlightenment than by the Christian God and Divine inspiration.

John Locke and the Enlightenment were greatly influenced by the Scriptures, as mass publication brought to light the contradictions between RCC doctrine and Sola Scriptura. The discoveries through the use of the scientific method did help fuel the enlightenment, but they were not the entire thrust of the enlightenment. It is my understanding that the conflicts were primarily with RCC doctrine and the Scriptures were used by many of the enlightenment philosophers in establishing the philosophies of that age.

I do not think that the Constitution is a sacred document. However, many of the priniples establlished in the Constitution were derived from thr Scriptures, including the concept of constitutional government.

John Locke was a proponent for the idea that people are generally good and left without government would govern themselves. This is far from the biblical idea that people are inherently sinful.

This was not Locke's view. On the contrary, Locke is the first philosopher to provide intellectual justification for the existence of the government as an entity overseeing society. If you remember, Locke used the state of nature ideal to frame his argument in favor of government. People, left to themselves, would be subject to the law of reason, and in the absense of government people would not infringe upon other people's life liberty and property because to do so would be unreasonable, and would violate the law of reason that governs the state of nature. This was the ideal.

Locke recognized that in reality people would take advantage of one another and behave unreasonably, so your claim that Locke believed that people would be 'good' without government is false. He actually believed that people, left to their own devices, would behave unreasonably (aka: bad). Locke asserts that a government must exist to regulate unreasonable behavior, and that the sole duty of the government is to defend things like life, private property and contracts.

[Darias]

John Locke was a proponent for the idea that people are generally good and left without government would govern themselves. This is far from the biblical idea that people are inherently sinful.

This was not Locke's view. On the contrary, Locke is the first philosopher to provide intellectual justification for the existence of the government as an entity overseeing society. If you remember, Locke used the state of nature ideal to frame his argument in favor of government. People, left to themselves, would be subject to the law of reason, and in the absense of government people would not infringe upon other people's life liberty and property because to do so would be unreasonable, and would violate the law of reason that governs the state of nature. This was the ideal.

Locke recognized that in reality people would take advantage of one another and behave unreasonably, so your claim that Locke believed that people would be 'good' without government is false. He actually believed that people, left to their own devices, would behave unreasonably (aka: bad). Locke asserts that a government must exist to regulate unreasonable behavior, and that the sole duty of the government is to defend things like life, private property and contracts.

I haven't read lately about Locke, but I'll take your word for it. In any case, he's still more correct than Hobbes. When I think of Hobbes, the first thing that comes to mind is this:

[center][/center]

That may actually be a problem. I do need to read up on my philosophy, but I am familiar with this passage from Hobbs:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

This is his nightmare scenario without a strong authoritarian government.

However, despite the fact that Locke's ideas are preferable to Hobbes, they both assume that life without government is a Mad Max film. In essence, authoritarian statists and minarchists are in agreement; I honestly find that alliance disturbing.

This argument made by my fellow minarchists doesn't really convince me.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not assuming that all people will always be rational and act in their own best interest at all times. The voluntarist vision of an anarcho-capitalist society does not necessitate a more enlightened humanity like Communism does. Any political system could work in a utopian world where human beings would always listen to the better angels of their nature and abandon self-interest. A world without government would still have to deal with murder and theft; it would still need courts, policing and military defensive capabilities. What voluntarists argue for takes human nature (if it can be said that our species has a nature) into account.

As opposed to the common perception of anarchism, no one is advocating that we should sit on our porch all day with a gun protecting our property. Volunterists are of the persuasion that everything governments currently do, even the things minarchists specifically reserve for a limited government, can be done better by the free market. They also argue that voluntary taxation doesn't make sense and that any monopoly of force reserved for governments (such as police, military and court systems) will infringe upon the people in that minarchist society that prefer to opt out of that in favor of private services.

Personally, I disagree with voluntarists on a number of issues. First, I find it hard to imagine a neutral court system that relies on profit. I'm also concerned about vigilantism in the case where there are no affordable private security companies available. However, given the fact that private contracting companies are so successful, it's not at all difficult to imagine a privatized military and police force. The issue of profit driving policies remains a major concern -- though in the current state of affairs, we have a crony capitalistic system, where money influences politics and governments give hand outs to corporations. It would also be a mistake to label our current court system as bias-free, just, or sane.

I remain a minarchist because I think, not just as a matter of pragmatism, but in terms of neutrality, a minarchist system of governance with voluntary taxation is optimal and allows for the existence of communities that wish to be socialist, anarchist, or whatever.

However, I'll have to agree with Molyneux on the false assumption that certain roles can only be done effectively by the government and that the private sector cannot do those things. His analogy is right; it's a lot like saying science must progress no further and we must preserve this mystery as the handiwork of god.

Just because I can't articulate what if any market solutions would look like, it doesn't mean there can't be market solutions for the problems that are left for governments to deal with today.

Yet, I don't think a voluntarist world is possible without minarchist principles becoming more mainstream. The current trend, or the ongoing age-old trend is the march towards statism and authoritarianism.

As a minarchist, the only practical thing I can do is challenge society's embrace of statist policies by advocating for limited government and smaller government. I think CATO does this quite well. As a minarchist I'm of the opinion that you have to work with the current system, that means vote and support limited government; you do what little you can to slow the slide towards bigger government and fewer freedoms. Before I can ever hope to debate whether or not voluntary taxation could work, how about we not increase taxation today -- or god forbid, reduce taxes -- dare we say eliminate certain taxes.

Advocating for no government might actually be a more moral and justified argument, but you first have to convince people that progressivism (in terms of statism and authoritarianism) isn't a great thing. I have a feeling that if we can't even convince the GOP to actually embrace the principles of limited government they always pay lip service to -- then we're going to stay in the 1% for quite some time longer. Honestly I agree with Glenn Beck in that the Republican Party is a lost cause. That won't stop me from voting for libertarian republicans in the primary, but I don't have much hope for the two party system as it operates today. Even Reagan, the limited government guy, did a heck of a lot of things that betrayed minarchist ideals.

I don't know how much headway we can make, given that so many people think that governments should have a monopoly on force, that taxes are okay -- and more taxes are better, that it's okay for government to endorse and enforce your views when you think you are right -- even if that silences stupid people with obscure opinions. I don't understand why so many assume that the government is neutral or that government funded studies are bias free or that government solutions and government regulations are necessary -- but no one need hold government accountable because government knows best. 99% of people adhere to this line of reasoning, if you could call it that. That's kinda scarey.

[center][/center]

[Goat]

[Replying to post 14 by Darias]

Your straw man cartoon reminds me of what Christopher Hitchens said about
libertarianism

Christopher Hitchenson:

“I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement [Libertarians] in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.�

and of course, there is the recent Bill Maher rant about it recently. While he is rude, crude, and just too smug for my taste, he does have a point
[youtube][/youtube]

[Nickman]

This was not Locke's view.

Sure it was. It has been taught in collegiate classrooms for years. Ill show why below.

On the contrary, Locke is the first philosopher to provide intellectual justification for the existence of the government as an entity overseeing society. If you remember, Locke used the state of nature ideal to frame his argument in favor of government. People, left to themselves, would be subject to the law of reason, and in the absense of government people would not infringe upon other people's life liberty and property because to do so would be unreasonable, and would violate the law of reason that governs the state of nature. This was the ideal.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
John Locke (b. 1632, d. 1704) was a British philosopher, Oxford academic and medical researcher. Locke's monumental An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) is one of the first great defenses of empiricism and concerns itself with determining the limits of human understanding in respect to a wide spectrum of topics. It thus tells us in some detail what one can legitimately claim to know and what one cannot. Locke's association with Anthony Ashley Cooper (later the First Earl of Shaftesbury) led him to become successively a government official charged with collecting information about trade and colonies, economic writer, opposition political activist, and finally a revolutionary whose cause ultimately triumphed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Among Locke's political works he is most famous for The Second Treatise of Government in which he argues that sovereignty resides in the people and explains the nature of legitimate government in terms of natural rights and the social contract. He is also famous for calling for the separation of Church and State in his Letter Concerning Toleration. Much of Locke's work is characterized by opposition to authoritarianism. This is apparent both on the level of the individual person and on the level of institutions such as government and church. For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition. He wants us to proportion assent to propositions to the evidence for them. On the level of institutions it becomes important to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate functions of institutions and to make the corresponding distinction for the uses of force by these institutions. Locke believes that using reason to try to grasp the truth, and determine the legitimate functions of institutions will optimize human flourishing for the individual and society both in respect to its material and spiritual welfare. This in turn, amounts to following natural law and the fulfillment of the divine purpose for humanity.

Locke recognized that in reality people would take advantage of one another and behave unreasonably, so your claim that Locke believed that people would be 'good' without government is false. He actually believed that people, left to their own devices, would behave unreasonably (aka: bad). Locke asserts that a government must exist to regulate unreasonable behavior, and that the sole duty of the government is to defend things like life, private property and contracts.

Bull, you have him confused with Hobbes. Please provide quotes from him that states the contrary. Locke vs Hobbes has been around since the 1700's so please show me one text that Locke stated other than what I said.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 15 by Goat]

Bill Maher is great. How dare you!

[Nickman]

@ winepusher

Comparing Hobbes and Locke

http://www.iun.edu/~hisdcl/h114_2002/Lo ... Hobbes.htm

Views toward the "state of nature"

Hobbes compared the English Revolution to the “state of nature�, which was brutal, and his negative view of the revolution led him to conclude that society needed a strong king.

John Locke, believed that the state of nature was good. Hence if governments could not do as much for people than they did for themselves in the state of nature, government could be dismantled. Views toward human nature

Hobbes has a negative view toward human nature “nasty, brutal….�;

John Locke’s view: the human mind is like a blank slate. Comparison and contrast of views on government

Hobbes: a contract exists between the king and the people; but once the king becomes king, he cannot be overthrown and obtains absolute power.

John Locke: government conditional and can be overthrown if it does not represent the people

[Darias]

[Replying to post 14 by Darias]

Your straw man cartoon . . .

In all fairness, the cartoon was a remake of the original the 24 types of libertarian, and I didn't make it:

[center]
[/center]

. . . reminds me of what Christopher Hitchens said about libertarianism

I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement [Libertarians] in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.

As much respect I have for Hitchens on his thoughts concerning totalitarianism and god and North Korea and religion in general, I think he was way off base with this. Keep in mind that Hitchens was in favor of a neoconservative foreign policy and he supported the Iraq war in part because his hatred of religion and his knowledge that he was right informed his politics. But force is not a good persuasion for liberty or democracy or whatever you want to call it. You can't spread secular values at the barrel of a gun. For someone who railed against the totalitarianism of religion and dictator-worship, I'm surprised he failed to recognize his own totalitarian views.

Hitchens aside, if being robbed is generosity, I'm fine with the "selfish" label. I simply cannot see how government theft of your money for all purposes both good and atrocious amounts to genuine generosity. If you want to pay more taxes, that is your prerogative. If you want to feed and clothe the poor, that is your prerogative; donate to your charity of choice, but don't call me selfish when I protest as you steal my wallet at the point of a gun so that you can afford to arrest the homeless man for smoking pot in the name of keeping our community drug free.

The government owes it's existence to those who consent. Nothing is owed to the government. Whenever I hear statists protest over the fact that so many people don't render unto Caesar what's due to Caesar, I literally want to vomit.

I'm not against charity. I'm not against education. I'm not against taking care of the elderly or the veterans. But it's hard to reason that mandatory taxation a free moral choice. Taxation is theft, and tax dollars are often wasted. Last time I checked, charities were operating just fine; it's a wonder what donations can do.

I wouldn't mind paying taxes if I could choose what program I wanted to support, or if paying taxes was voluntary. Under the current system, you don't have a choice.

I've posted this before, but it really needs posting here:

[center][/center]

and of course, there is the recent Bill Maher rant about it recently. While he is rude, crude, and just too smug for my taste, he does have a point

[youtube][/youtube]

I like Bill Maher; I put him in the same libertarian category as I put Glenn Beck -- they're at the outskirts.

The problem is, this too is a big straw man. I personally am not a fan of Ayn Rand. Her foreign policy was that of scorched earth -- and it completely contradicted her philosophy of the individual. How can you champion individual rights and then punish civilians in war time because you assume that they are responsible for their government's actions. That line of reasoning is very bin Laden-esque. She hated libertarians anyway.

But Maher is wrong about his assessment of libertarianism. Free market principles have always been part of the movement. When you argue for limited government, you don't simply leave it at that. Society still needs things and in the absence of government, you have private programs and systems that can fill those needs.

I'm also not a huge fan of Rand Paul. I don't think libertarianism is vested in a person or party. It has a rich history of philosophy and there's a heck of a lot more to libertarianism than "yeah, marijuana should probably be legal, and let's not invade Iran."

[WinePusher]

This was not Locke's view.

Sure it was. It has been taught in collegiate classrooms for years. Ill show why below.

On the contrary, Locke is the first philosopher to provide intellectual justification for the existence of the government as an entity overseeing society. If you remember, Locke used the state of nature ideal to frame his argument in favor of government. People, left to themselves, would be subject to the law of reason, and in the absense of government people would not infringe upon other people's life liberty and property because to do so would be unreasonable, and would violate the law of reason that governs the state of nature. This was the ideal.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
John Locke (b. 1632, d. 1704) was a British philosopher, Oxford academic and medical researcher. Locke's monumental An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) is one of the first great defenses of empiricism and concerns itself with determining the limits of human understanding in respect to a wide spectrum of topics. It thus tells us in some detail what one can legitimately claim to know and what one cannot. Locke's association with Anthony Ashley Cooper (later the First Earl of Shaftesbury) led him to become successively a government official charged with collecting information about trade and colonies, economic writer, opposition political activist, and finally a revolutionary whose cause ultimately triumphed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Among Locke's political works he is most famous for The Second Treatise of Government in which he argues that sovereignty resides in the people and explains the nature of legitimate government in terms of natural rights and the social contract. He is also famous for calling for the separation of Church and State in his Letter Concerning Toleration. Much of Locke's work is characterized by opposition to authoritarianism. This is apparent both on the level of the individual person and on the level of institutions such as government and church. For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition. He wants us to proportion assent to propositions to the evidence for them. On the level of institutions it becomes important to distinguish the legitimate from the illegitimate functions of institutions and to make the corresponding distinction for the uses of force by these institutions. Locke believes that using reason to try to grasp the truth, and determine the legitimate functions of institutions will optimize human flourishing for the individual and society both in respect to its material and spiritual welfare. This in turn, amounts to following natural law and the fulfillment of the divine purpose for humanity.
[/quote]

You didn't address a single thing I said. All you did was link a quote that has nothing to do with the subejct matter.

Locke recognized that in reality people would take advantage of one another and behave unreasonably, so your claim that Locke believed that people would be 'good' without government is false. He actually believed that people, left to their own devices, would behave unreasonably (aka: bad). Locke asserts that a government must exist to regulate unreasonable behavior, and that the sole duty of the government is to defend things like life, private property and contracts.

Bull, you have him confused with Hobbes. Please provide quotes from him that states the contrary. Locke vs Hobbes has been around since the 1700's so please show me one text that Locke stated other than what I said.

First of all, I probably have a far greater understanding of Locke (and political philosophy in general) than you do so please don't patronize me. Second of all, I already explained my position pretty thoroughly. You just ignored everything I wrote, and responded by copying and pasting an irrelevant quote with absolutely no commentary on your part.

Locke did not believe that humans, left to their own devices, would behave reasonably under all circumstances without government. That is complete and utter nonsense. Locke provided an intellectual argument for government by using an example of society without any government. This society is referred to as the state of nature. In the state of nature, Locke asserts that an individual who infringes upon the life, liberty or property of another individual has violated the law of reason (which governs the state of nature). So, he doesn't believe that left to themselves that humans would also behave reasonably (aka: good). Which is why his conclusion is that an exogenous institution must exist in order to regulate society, and defend life, liberty and property. And he calls this institution government.