Suppression of Free Speech on Covid

[Ebionite]

I don't believe in natural rights.

What you believe isn't important. What matters is whether or not they are part of substantive law.

A naive and unscientific concept.

What advantage would sophistication bring? Science is the wrong domain for the evaluation of deity, since deity cannot be tested in conformity with the scientific method.

Good for atheists then. I am not an atheist of course, just a democratic socialist (or is it socialist democrat?). Parliament is sovereign, the Monarch can sign off on acts of parliament, but his majesty's royal assent however, is not required, by law. It's a constitutional formality.

Reciting the dogma doesn't address the inherent hypocrisy of claiming the benefit of making an oath while denying the correlative obligation of recognizing the role of the deity that is invoked by that oath.

 

[Little Dragon]

What you believe isn't important. What matters is whether or not they are part of substantive law.

Well it is to me. Good luck referring to "natural law'' instead of caselaw or legislation when representing a client or yourself in court.

 

[Little Dragon]

Science is the wrong domain for the evaluation of deity, since deity cannot be tested in conformity with the scientific method.

That's true, because your deity's existence is an untestable hypothesis and is thus ignored, by science.

 

[Little Dragon]

Reciting the dogma doesn't address the inherent hypocrisy of claiming the benefit of making an oath while denying the correlative obligation of recognizing the role of the deity that is invoked by that oath.

People are welcome to make oaths to deities if they wish. Not my business. As for the rest of us living in a secular society, we determine the law through democratic mandate.

 

[Ebionite]

Well it is to me.

Well, that's your problem, then. The ability to discard beliefs in the face on new information is a trait of a rational mind, and according to Coke reason is at the heart of the common law.

Good luck referring to "natural law'' instead of caselaw or legislation when representing a client or yourself in court.

It's about the law of the land aka common law. Natural law is something different.

That's true, because your deity's existence is an untestable hypothesis and is thus ignored, by science.

Thank you for conceding that, but you haven't shown why naivete would be relevant.

People are welcome to make oaths to deities if they wish. Not my business. As for the rest of us living in a secular society, we determine the law through democratic mandate.

Respecting the rights of minorities is what sets democracy apart from mob rule, which implies that natural rights are relevant for common law counties.

 

[Little Dragon]

Thank you for conceding that, but you haven't shown why naivete would be relevant.

Not really a concession bruh.
Naive because the idea that an abstract concept, a philosophical or religious view, is any more real or tangible than any other. Is infantile. They are just ideas in your mind, that is where they arise. Not from the natural world, certainly, which has only one law, eat or be eaten.

 

[Little Dragon]

Respecting the rights of minorities is what sets democracy apart from mob rule, which implies that natural rights are relevant for common law counties.

Constitutional laws protect people from the extremes of democratic representation. The price of democracy is eternal vigilance. You would advocate a theocracy possibly, the worst type of government of all. The most abusive.

 

[Unfettered]

I don't believe in natural rights. A naive and unscientific concept.

It is true that naturals rights are not "scientific." Do you believe that the laws of society should be based on things that are scientific?

 

[Little Dragon]

It is true that naturals rights are not "scientific." Do you believe that the laws of society should be based on things that are scientific?

Not wholly. They should however be based on objectivity and truth. They should be based on pragmatism and utilitarianism. They should be based on necessity. They should aspire to create an equitable functional and successful society.

 

[Unfettered]

Not wholly. They should however be based on objectivity and truth. They should be based on pragmatism and utilitarianism. They should be based on necessity. They should aspire to create an equitable functional and successful society.

If not wholly based on things that are scientific, that would mean in part. Can you give an example of something scientific on which the laws of society could, or should be based? I've just never heard this idea before and wonder what you might be thinking about.

I'm not sure what is being spoken of when "objectivity" is mentioned, but if you mean that the laws should be impartial, that makes sense and I agree. Did you mean impartiality? If not, what do you mean by "objectivity"?

I also agree with the idea of laws based on truth, though I cannot see how that could be without an agreed upon standard of truth. Not problematic; the US founders did it; just more difficult to accomplish than most probably believe. What is the standard of truth society should point to?

Basing laws on necessity seems to be in conflict with basing them on truth and objectivity. Exigency will cry constantly for truth and objectivity to yield, but will utterly scream for their submission when the threats are most dire. How would you say the three can coexist in the law?

I agree that the laws should be formulated to create an equitable, functional and successful society; these also require a standard of some kind, otherwise it can't be known whether or not society is equitable, functional or successful at any given time. What standard should be used?

Thanks!

 

[Ebionite]

Not really a concession bruh.

It's a concession because your claim implied that science was relevant to the testing of natural rights. You said: "I don't believe in natural rights. A naive and unscientific concept."

Naive because the idea that an abstract concept, a philosophical or religious view, is any more real or tangible than any other. Is infantile.

Strawman. My claim is that natural rights are part of substantive law, and is support of that I've shown supporting text from Blackstone, Black's dictionary of law, King Alfred's dooms/judgements, associations in language, heraldry (Daniel's lion), and a prophecy that connects Ephraim (grandson of Jacob/Israel) to the Commonwealth. You haven't argued against that other than to say (more or less) that you prefer the opinion of a Professor.

Constitutional laws protect people from the extremes of democratic representation.

constitution (n.) mid-14c., "law, regulation, edict," from Old French constitucion (12c.) "constitution, establishment," and directly from Latin constitutionem (nominative constitutio) "act of settling, settled condition, anything arranged or settled upon, regulation, order, ordinance," from constitut-, past participle stem of constituere (see constitute).

This of course relates to the Act of Settlement which is endorsed by the coronation oath. The religious prejudice of Article 9 doesn't protect people from the extremes of government, it promotes it.

The price of democracy is eternal vigilance. You would advocate a theocracy possibly, the worst type of government of all. The most abusive.

I'm not advocating a theocracy, I'm advocating the observance of the common law and the knowledge of its flaws.

 

[Little Dragon]

It's a concession because your claim implied that science was relevant to the testing of natural rights

Scientific objectivity at the very least. The natural world, nature, is red in tooth and claw, so whatever natural law is, it does not arise from the natural world. It is not connected to objective reality.

 

[Little Dragon]

I'm not advocating a theocracy

Thank the Gods. That is a good thing.

 

[Little Dragon]

Can you give an example of something scientific on which the laws of society could, or should be based?

Lockdown restrictions and vaccine mandates for example. These require legislation and legal settlements, so there we would require laws that are founded on scientific study. Same goes for all kinds of public health issues. Whenever we can apply the utmost objective method of inquiry, when determining how society should be managed. Whether building more nuclear power stations instead of coal stations, or legalizing cannabis or designing new transit systems or introducing environmental regulations...we must always look at what the science is telling us. The most objective method of inquiry available. If it's applicable. Some areas of law are wholly unconnected with scientific information. Such as employment rights or inheritance law. Just whenever they can be applied. They should.

 

[Unfettered]

Lockdown restrictions and vaccine mandates for example. These require legislation and legal settlements, so there we would require laws that are founded on scientific study. Same goes for all kinds of public health issues. Whenever we can apply the utmost objective method of inquiry, when determining how society should be managed. Whether building more nuclear power stations instead of coal stations, or legalizing cannabis or designing new transit systems or introducing environmental regulations...we must always look at what the science is telling us. The most objective method of inquiry available. If it's applicable. Some areas of law are wholly unconnected with scientific information. Such as employment rights or inheritance law. Just whenever they can be applied. They should.

Still working on wrapping my mind around this. And to maintain focus, I'm asking about the laws upon which the society is founded, not the laws that pertain to a transitory collection of circumstances. Unless, for example, we assume that lockdowns are not the law-established default, then they are the law-established default.

So I'm still not sure I understand what scientific thing(s) would undergird the laws of your society.

 

[Little Dragon]

I'm asking about the laws upon which the society is founded, not the laws that pertain to a transitory collection of circumstances.

There are many areas of law. Many of which are founded purely on pragmatic necessity and political expedient. Society is founded on social contracts and taboos and historical accidents and religious doctrine etc, which were slowly and gradually codified into law. Such as the criminal law. Those would probably benefit if re established with anthropological science and psychology and sociology etc all taken into consideration.

 

[Unfettered]

There are many areas of law. Many of which are founded purely on pragmatic necessity and political expedient. Society is founded on social contracts and taboos and historical accidents and religious doctrine etc, which were slowly and gradually codified into law. Such as the criminal law. Those would probably benefit if re established with anthropological science and psychology and sociology etc all taken into consideration.

Understood. I'm asking you to detail all of that so I can understand it. I might want to choose your society over the one I live in, but I have to be able to understand the law first. As yet, I don't really understand it.

 

[Little Dragon]

Understood. I'm asking you to detail all of that so I can understand it. I might want to choose your society over the one I live in, but I have to be able to understand the law first. As yet, I don't really understand it.

Right. My ideal society. It's legal system. It wouldn't be founded on preserving the interests of the people in power, as it so often is. It would be founded on, equity and fairness (Justice), which are not really scientific concepts in of themselves. I am saying I think, that whenever we seek to create a new law, or alter an existing one, the goal should be to improve the functionality and success of society and the state, as a holistic whole. I would found my law on justice, informed, by scientific knowledge and other objective methods of inquiry.

 

[Ebionite]

Scientific objectivity at the very least

Science requires repeatability, and phenomena involving deity in general is not repeatable.

 

[Ebionite]

Thank the Gods. That is a good thing.

Technically England already has a de-facto theocracy if a priest is considered synonomous with a presbyter. The English king has fulfilled that role by his public act of swearing to uphold the "laws of God".

Democracy is meaningless when every vote is a vote for an agent of the Crown and the Crown has prejudice against the natural rights of the people.