Socialized medicine. Contra Socialism and in praise of Capitalism.
A professor in the university in Uman in Ukraine knew that most people do what ever they can to go to a clinic in Kiev for gynecology. [The reason is that most doctors in the USSR were competent for external things. But when it comes to internal things like operations they simply were not very meticulous. It so happened that the head gynecologist in Uman was a acquaintance of this professor. So he did not want to insult his feelings and let him take care of the case of his daughter. she was pregnant. But she was thin and there was some type of problem I did not exactly understand. at any rate the gynecologist operated on the daughter and she lost her baby and the ability to ever have children.
[2] The wife of another fellow--her water broke. But it was towards the evening so the hospital shift did not want to deal with it until the next day so they gave the woman drugs to stop her from having contractions. But they gave too much so two days later (after the water had broken) they gave her more drugs to start the contractions!!! Oy VEH!!
[3] This is not a horror story but a simple statement of fact why a leading doctor in a hospital close to Uman--(a regional hospital that dealt with newly born children from zero to six months) simply refused the job of head of the hospital. Not because it deals with money and management--but rather because it deals with having to come up with new schemes how to make money by fraud and scams.
16.7.12
I have two acid tests to decide if any system is just. First I ask what is its concept of utopia. Next I ask what is its concept of human nature. I assume when given power they will act on their assumptions.
I start with the assumption of Socrates that people are different and that the essence of a just society is for people to mind their own business and to do what they are good at.
I have two acid tests to decide if any system is just. First I ask, "What is its concept of Utopia?" If its concept of Utopia is to murder millions of Jews and Christians, then I assume it is not just. I don't ask if they say they will do it- because some probably don't really know, and if the system demands murder, then there will always be found people more than willing to do. So I just look at what is their idea of an ideal society, and if this is it, then I assume when given power, they will act on their assumptions. I think the twentieth century has given us plenty of experience that it is dangerous to ignore what people say they will do.
The next test is to see what is their idea of nature --or human nature and the state of nature. If it is that some elite group is good and everyone else are created to serve them, then I assume there is something a bit off in their world view. [Unless there is evidence to support their view. See the book the Bell Curve. I.e. statistical evidence can be use to show some group is intellectually superior and or less prone to crime] And I look at their deeds to see if this is really what they believe and act on. If their actions contradicts their words, then I assume the actions are what shows what they are thinking.
So though the Talmud is a source of value and information, it is not the only source. And people that claim that it is do not actually believe it. What they know is they have comfortable existence which they gained by convincing naive Reform Jews to support them and they don't want their comfortable existence threatened. Truth and Justice has nothing to do with anything in their minds.
If you claim to have an ethical system then one must look at the consequences of the system and see if they seem right.
To give an example [which I picked up from professor Bryan Caplan], the French economist Frederic Bastiat noted that many people thought that labor-saving machinery was bad because it destroyed jobs. He suggested that it would therefore be a wise policy to destroy all machinery, and thereby create even more jobs. See how this works. We have an axiom and a conclusion. The conclusion no one accepts. Therefore the axiom must be wrong.
Starting with a decent axiom is important.
Sure, you can be "logical" in reasoning clearly from utterly misled premises (cf. Thomas Aquinas, or even Isaac Newton's writings on theology, etc.), but don't tell me there's any value in that except as an academic "practice exercise"? It doesn't count in real, reality-tested life. And it sure doesn't count as being a "rational human being" when the most-cherished ideas, upon which one builds his psychologist world-view, are derived from fairy tales and Grecian myths.
I have two acid tests to decide if any system is just. First I ask, "What is its concept of Utopia?" If its concept of Utopia is to murder millions of Jews and Christians, then I assume it is not just. I don't ask if they say they will do it- because some probably don't really know, and if the system demands murder, then there will always be found people more than willing to do. So I just look at what is their idea of an ideal society, and if this is it, then I assume when given power, they will act on their assumptions. I think the twentieth century has given us plenty of experience that it is dangerous to ignore what people say they will do.
The next test is to see what is their idea of nature --or human nature and the state of nature. If it is that some elite group is good and everyone else are created to serve them, then I assume there is something a bit off in their world view. [Unless there is evidence to support their view. See the book the Bell Curve. I.e. statistical evidence can be use to show some group is intellectually superior and or less prone to crime] And I look at their deeds to see if this is really what they believe and act on. If their actions contradicts their words, then I assume the actions are what shows what they are thinking.
So though the Talmud is a source of value and information, it is not the only source. And people that claim that it is do not actually believe it. What they know is they have comfortable existence which they gained by convincing naive Reform Jews to support them and they don't want their comfortable existence threatened. Truth and Justice has nothing to do with anything in their minds.
If you claim to have an ethical system then one must look at the consequences of the system and see if they seem right.
To give an example [which I picked up from professor Bryan Caplan], the French economist Frederic Bastiat noted that many people thought that labor-saving machinery was bad because it destroyed jobs. He suggested that it would therefore be a wise policy to destroy all machinery, and thereby create even more jobs. See how this works. We have an axiom and a conclusion. The conclusion no one accepts. Therefore the axiom must be wrong.
Starting with a decent axiom is important.
Sure, you can be "logical" in reasoning clearly from utterly misled premises (cf. Thomas Aquinas, or even Isaac Newton's writings on theology, etc.), but don't tell me there's any value in that except as an academic "practice exercise"? It doesn't count in real, reality-tested life. And it sure doesn't count as being a "rational human being" when the most-cherished ideas, upon which one builds his psychologist world-view, are derived from fairy tales and Grecian myths.
15.7.12
But I tend to agree with Isaac Luria that people are souls.-not selves
Soul is a difficult concept. But I tend to agree with Isaac Luria that people are souls. The modern self seems to me to not have succeeded very well as an explanation of what people are about. So far I have not heard a rational account of the self. Though John Locke used the part of the self that he needed to create a just society but he did not deny the deeper aspects of the soul.
The thing which i need to figure out is the idea of Socrates of a third element of the soul. the first two are the well known rational part and the desire part. (Kabalah divides both of these into ten.) But to Socrates there is a third element--the spirit or passion. and as usual he proves it it is not desire and usually opposed to desire. So what is this third part?\
E. Spodek: The soul is a rider that can steer when given the chance, when she calls out. Only through this world can she attain her true perfection. Although the soul initially loathes the body, it can transform it to receive the soul's full-potency, which will come at the time the soul re-enters the body at the level of Adam before the sin.
A. Rosenblum: That seems like the scheme of the Ramchal (Moshe Chaim Lutzato) which is a development of the Ari (Isaac Luria). That is an Okay scheme, but I still am not sure it is satisfactory. To me it seems there is a definite conflict between the concept of soul and the concepts of self and I am at this point not ready to accept either one. To me it seems that the soul is in the realm of the "thing in itself" (Dinge als sich alein) that is simply not open to human understanding--and that trying to use reason to understand it generates contradictions.
E. Spodek: One cannot grasp the infinite nature of the soul. It is only through our emotions, thoughts, and feelings that we have a hint of our souls.
That is why the soul is like a different entity. It exists outside of the self, but it is inside of oneself and definitely has influence on the self. It is the real understanding of being a "servant of G-d", not for reward. It's all about kindness for your soul. She's going to live on and take part of a most awesome regeneration. Whether it will be with you, or be with your re-incarnation, there is a fixing of soul that will take place. We're all in it together. G-d is ultimately leading everything towards perfection. It's a matter of how you want your name remembered. It's a matter of self-respect.
The thing which i need to figure out is the idea of Socrates of a third element of the soul. the first two are the well known rational part and the desire part. (Kabalah divides both of these into ten.) But to Socrates there is a third element--the spirit or passion. and as usual he proves it it is not desire and usually opposed to desire. So what is this third part?\
E. Spodek: The soul is a rider that can steer when given the chance, when she calls out. Only through this world can she attain her true perfection. Although the soul initially loathes the body, it can transform it to receive the soul's full-potency, which will come at the time the soul re-enters the body at the level of Adam before the sin.
A. Rosenblum: That seems like the scheme of the Ramchal (Moshe Chaim Lutzato) which is a development of the Ari (Isaac Luria). That is an Okay scheme, but I still am not sure it is satisfactory. To me it seems there is a definite conflict between the concept of soul and the concepts of self and I am at this point not ready to accept either one. To me it seems that the soul is in the realm of the "thing in itself" (Dinge als sich alein) that is simply not open to human understanding--and that trying to use reason to understand it generates contradictions.
E. Spodek: One cannot grasp the infinite nature of the soul. It is only through our emotions, thoughts, and feelings that we have a hint of our souls.
That is why the soul is like a different entity. It exists outside of the self, but it is inside of oneself and definitely has influence on the self. It is the real understanding of being a "servant of G-d", not for reward. It's all about kindness for your soul. She's going to live on and take part of a most awesome regeneration. Whether it will be with you, or be with your re-incarnation, there is a fixing of soul that will take place. We're all in it together. G-d is ultimately leading everything towards perfection. It's a matter of how you want your name remembered. It's a matter of self-respect.
13.7.12
Natural Law and the Ninth Amendment of the USA Constitution.Here I defend the idea that there is natural moral law. The result of this is that the social so called "safety net" in the USA is theft. Just because you can use your numbers and voting power to take money from others does not give you the right to do so.
Here I defend the idea that there is natural moral law.
I need to go into the issue of natural law and the ninth amendment of the USA Constitution.
In short: Natural rights come from the concept of natural law-which in turn comes from the idea that human beings can perceive objective morality.]
To defend the idea that there is natural law is a two fold project. I need to prove that universals exist and (2) that moral laws are universals that are perceived by reason. [This fact is what caused Kant to try to find one a priori universal rule for morality.] I will quote Huemer to add me in this project.
"What is a universal? I have here two white pieces of paper. They are not the same piece of paper, but they have something in common: they are both white. What there are two of are called "particulars" - the pieces of paper are particulars. What is or can be common to multiple particulars are called "universals" - whiteness is a universal.
First: Universals exist necessarily. For instance, yellow is a universal. It is something that lemons, the sun, and school buses, among other things, all have in common. Yellow is 'abstract' in the sense that it is not a particular object with a particular location; you will not bump into yellow, just sitting there by itself, on the street. Nevertheless, yellow certainly exists.
Here is an argument for that:
1. The following statement is true: (Y) Yellow is a color. 2. The truth of (Y) requires that yellow exist. 3. Therefore, yellow exists. Therefore universals exist.
The reason this needs to be proven is because scientism is the primary ideology of our age. It is the belief that only atoms and their properties exist. "It hardly need be pointed out that the illusions scientism engenders are so pervasive and so insidious that it is practically impossible to get anyone who is subject to them to consider the possibility that they might be illusions." (Peter van Inwagen)
"It would be very difficult to actually argue that the discoveries of modern science show that there is no such subject as ethics. Exactly what experimental result does or could possibly lend support to such a conclusion is hard to say." (Huemer)
Some of the problem about the existence moral values comes from Hume and the "is- ought" problem. [You can't derive a ought from a "is".]: However this is wrong. I can derive the value judgment that Hitler was evil from the fact that he had eleven million people murdered.
Now let me show that reason perceives moral values.
Let me give some examples of things that reason perceives. "1+1=2" and "the shortest path between any two points is a straight line". A metaphysical intuition, "The number of planets in the solar system is a contingent matter." As physical intuitions, try "Forces cause motion" and "Physical causes are local; there is no action at a distance." Finally, as a moral intuition, consider "Torturing people just for the fun of it is wrong."
It seems to many people that moral values are strange. They don't exist in any particular place. We don't bump into them as we walk down the street. But the same could be said for the number "2." Saying that ethical (or mathematical) statements are true or false does not imply that there exist some ethereal substances that are values (or numbers). Rather that some things have quantities (for mathematics) or some things are good or bad (for ethics).
The reason that many people have not noticed that stealing (welfare) is forbidden in the Torah is that what radical ideologues are most interested in is political power. This means that people will continue to be used as the necessary bait to bring about the "changes" that radical ideologues deem important for power.
An essay about the United States must deal with the problem of disinformation -- a formidable and perhaps Sisyphean task of persuasion, since the disinformation in question is not the result of pardonable, correctable mistakes, but rather of a profound psychological need. This is why you never hear of the basic principles that the U.S.A. was founded on and why these principles are ignored today by the very government elected to safeguard them.
In sum: Universals exist. Moral principles are universals that are perceived by reason. Natural rights are a negative way of saying the Ten Commandments of the Torah. One of them is "Thou shalt not steal." (These are called negative rights just like "Thou shalt not steal" is called a negative commandment.--a "Thou shalt not" is a negative commandment. In the Torah there are many of these. But there are also positive commandments like, "Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother." The Bill of Rights is a like a negative commandment. It is a limitation on the government not to interfere with peoples' lives- and not to steal their property. An example of something forbidden by the Constitution of the U.S.A. is to promise a sector of voters free money in return for their votes. This would be considered stealing by the Torah and the Constitution. Thus Welfare is against the Constitution. [See the Federal Papers for more information.]
The way people are duped into voting for the Democratic party which is the main source of this type of theft is the fact that people want to be nice guys. They think by voting to give other people's money away makes them nice. In the Jewish world this has a common name. It is called being frum (religious) at someones else's expense. This is very wide concept in the Jewish world. It can refer to a whole range of behavior like praying so loud in synagogue that it makes other people unable to concentrate on their own prayers. Or learning Talmud until late at night and then coming into your dorm room and waking up other people. But this is a great example of this type of behavior --in the worst way possible. If you want to be nice then give your own money away. You don't give other peoples money away, and then consider yourself generous.
I need to go into the issue of natural law and the ninth amendment of the USA Constitution.
In short: Natural rights come from the concept of natural law-which in turn comes from the idea that human beings can perceive objective morality.]
To defend the idea that there is natural law is a two fold project. I need to prove that universals exist and (2) that moral laws are universals that are perceived by reason. [This fact is what caused Kant to try to find one a priori universal rule for morality.] I will quote Huemer to add me in this project.
"What is a universal? I have here two white pieces of paper. They are not the same piece of paper, but they have something in common: they are both white. What there are two of are called "particulars" - the pieces of paper are particulars. What is or can be common to multiple particulars are called "universals" - whiteness is a universal.
First: Universals exist necessarily. For instance, yellow is a universal. It is something that lemons, the sun, and school buses, among other things, all have in common. Yellow is 'abstract' in the sense that it is not a particular object with a particular location; you will not bump into yellow, just sitting there by itself, on the street. Nevertheless, yellow certainly exists.
Here is an argument for that:
1. The following statement is true: (Y) Yellow is a color. 2. The truth of (Y) requires that yellow exist. 3. Therefore, yellow exists. Therefore universals exist.
The reason this needs to be proven is because scientism is the primary ideology of our age. It is the belief that only atoms and their properties exist. "It hardly need be pointed out that the illusions scientism engenders are so pervasive and so insidious that it is practically impossible to get anyone who is subject to them to consider the possibility that they might be illusions." (Peter van Inwagen)
"It would be very difficult to actually argue that the discoveries of modern science show that there is no such subject as ethics. Exactly what experimental result does or could possibly lend support to such a conclusion is hard to say." (Huemer)
Some of the problem about the existence moral values comes from Hume and the "is- ought" problem. [You can't derive a ought from a "is".]: However this is wrong. I can derive the value judgment that Hitler was evil from the fact that he had eleven million people murdered.
Now let me show that reason perceives moral values.
Let me give some examples of things that reason perceives. "1+1=2" and "the shortest path between any two points is a straight line". A metaphysical intuition, "The number of planets in the solar system is a contingent matter." As physical intuitions, try "Forces cause motion" and "Physical causes are local; there is no action at a distance." Finally, as a moral intuition, consider "Torturing people just for the fun of it is wrong."
It seems to many people that moral values are strange. They don't exist in any particular place. We don't bump into them as we walk down the street. But the same could be said for the number "2." Saying that ethical (or mathematical) statements are true or false does not imply that there exist some ethereal substances that are values (or numbers). Rather that some things have quantities (for mathematics) or some things are good or bad (for ethics).
The reason that many people have not noticed that stealing (welfare) is forbidden in the Torah is that what radical ideologues are most interested in is political power. This means that people will continue to be used as the necessary bait to bring about the "changes" that radical ideologues deem important for power.
An essay about the United States must deal with the problem of disinformation -- a formidable and perhaps Sisyphean task of persuasion, since the disinformation in question is not the result of pardonable, correctable mistakes, but rather of a profound psychological need. This is why you never hear of the basic principles that the U.S.A. was founded on and why these principles are ignored today by the very government elected to safeguard them.
In sum: Universals exist. Moral principles are universals that are perceived by reason. Natural rights are a negative way of saying the Ten Commandments of the Torah. One of them is "Thou shalt not steal." (These are called negative rights just like "Thou shalt not steal" is called a negative commandment.--a "Thou shalt not" is a negative commandment. In the Torah there are many of these. But there are also positive commandments like, "Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother." The Bill of Rights is a like a negative commandment. It is a limitation on the government not to interfere with peoples' lives- and not to steal their property. An example of something forbidden by the Constitution of the U.S.A. is to promise a sector of voters free money in return for their votes. This would be considered stealing by the Torah and the Constitution. Thus Welfare is against the Constitution. [See the Federal Papers for more information.]
The way people are duped into voting for the Democratic party which is the main source of this type of theft is the fact that people want to be nice guys. They think by voting to give other people's money away makes them nice. In the Jewish world this has a common name. It is called being frum (religious) at someones else's expense. This is very wide concept in the Jewish world. It can refer to a whole range of behavior like praying so loud in synagogue that it makes other people unable to concentrate on their own prayers. Or learning Talmud until late at night and then coming into your dorm room and waking up other people. But this is a great example of this type of behavior --in the worst way possible. If you want to be nice then give your own money away. You don't give other peoples money away, and then consider yourself generous.
11.7.12
There is no such thing as a right to receive money, goods, or services from anyone else. Social benefits and health care are charities, not rights. (Steven Dutch) The Communists teach an ideal state of humanity, but in fact are no less bloodthirsty than the Nazis. But the liberals were the most dangerous of all modern ideologies. Ready to do battle with Fascism, the liberals are blind to the (true nature of communism) Ben Zion Wacholder
[1] In defense of limited government.
To show that the Democratic Party in the USA is problematic it is necessary to bring together these ideas:
(1) The contrast between "positive" freedom, the right to exercise political power, from "negative" freedom, the right to be left alone by others exercising political power.
I need to show that John Locke idea of the State of Nature not only does not depend on his empiricism, but in fact contradicts it. In terms of the State of Nature, John Locke is a thoroughbred rationalist. Laws of reason exist for him in the state of nature.
(The state of nature and the reality of people wanting to preserve their life and property is not a imaginary state, but rather the state of every person that gets up in the morning as they race to get their first bowl of cereal.)
I don't need to refute Rousseau's State of Nature and the basic Noble Savage paradigm. A simple visit to Somalia will do that for anyone in doubt. [From Doubt to Danger.]
[The reason why the State of Nature is ignored by intellectuals today is because their "State of Nature" (benign ) turned out to be false. So instead of accepting the truth of John Locke, they ignore the idea completely.]
[2] John Locke admits a Torah government is different. So after we get the John Locke democracy, we still have to deal with Torah law for Jews. John Locke admits this. Right now I am simply trying to get to John Locke. Locke says: "The Jewish commonwealth to which the laws of Moses were issued was an absolute theocracy, in which the magistrate—the chief legislator—was God. So there was there no distinction
between religious law and civil law; there could be capital punishment for religious offenses because the latter were also civil offenses. This doesn't hold for any Christian commonwealth.)(Toleration. Section 7)
The way I deal with this is Rabbi Shimon Ben Yochai-- (that is dorshin taama dekra--). He holds that we use the reason for the verse the determine how the verse is applied. I.e. an early version of natural law. (note [1])
--in this area I need to deal with the fact that natural law is not the same as Kant's moral autonomy (John Locke's natural law is heteronomous; Kant's is autonomous.); plus the issues involved in the fact that freedom which I am defending here has nothing to do with democracy at all; and even less to do with equality. Freedom and equality are exact opposites. I am going to have to work this out later. This will take some time.--In fact today I skipped learning Talmud in the morning because I wanted to start this long process already.
[3] One challenge to Liberal Democracy comes from Muslims. Personally I spent years living in an Arab village and was friendly with the two muftis [sheiks] and their children. One of their children had gotten a law degree from the University of Cairo and with him I discussed politics and religion at length, (every day over a few years.) So you could say I understand something about the danger and threat of Islam to Western Civilization and all humanity.
I know about what Muslims actually do, not just what they say In America most people know what Muslims say. That is not the same as what they do.
John Locke: "An evil that is less visible but more dangerous to the
commonwealth occurs when men [i.e. Muslims] claim for themselves and
their co-religionists some special prerogative that does in fact
conflict with the civil right of the community but is covered
over with a glittery show of deceitful words. For example: a
sect that teaches explicitly and openly that men aren’t obliged to keep their promises (to infidels)." I might add that Islam holds that a all non Islamic governments should be overthrown by force. They hold there is no crime in murder of Jews and Christians.
These beliefs are threats to civil society. According to John Locke people with such beliefs should not be tolerated.
[4] I need also to defend John Locke democracy from the challenges from Nietzsche and Freud. That is: I need to refute Nietzsche and moral relativism.
(He held there are no objective moral values. You make your own values)
Moral objectivity is proven by Professor Michael Huemer thus:
Moral objectivity (like objectivism in general) is entailed by the law of excluded middle and the correspondence theory of truth, along with a couple of what seem equally obvious observations about morality:
(1) There are moral propositions.
(2) So they are each either true or false. (by law of excluded middle) (3) And it's not that they're all false. Surely it is true, rather than false, that Josef Stalin's activities were bad. (Although some communists would disagree, we needn't take their view seriously, and moreover, even they would admit some moral judgement, such as, "Stalin was good.")
(4) So some moral judgments correspond to reality. (from 2,3, and the correspondence theory of truth)
(5) So moral values are part of reality. (which is objectivism)
Also the basic claims of the Democrats is that: (1) all truth is relative to the interests and perspective of the person. (2) There are no universally valid truths.
(3) There are no absolute truths.
It looks like in each case you have to exempt the claim itself from the scope
of its application. But then you have given up the claim, for the
claim was supposed to be universal in in its application.
As for Freud. There is no reason to challenge him because everything he says is pure pseudo science. There is no conceivable observation that could refute him. He can explain everything with his theory. Therefore it is the very essence of pseudo science.
[5] Also I need to refute the idea that perception determines reality.
People who profess "perception determines reality" don't actually believe it or act on it. We never hear "George W. Bush has his reality about the Iraq War which is is valid in its own way as my own," we hear "George W. Bush lied about the Iraq War." If perception really determined reality, the easiest route to social justice would be to condition disadvantaged groups to perceive their realities differently.
[6] I also need to refute legal positivism as opposed to natural law--against Mill.
Now Mill claims the principle of utility to be the first principle of morality and itself not in need of proof. But if the principle that we ought to promote happiness is acceptable as a first principle--if, that is, it does not require to be proved--then why the principles of justice (we ought not to steal, to break agreements, to punish the innocent, etc.) should not equally be accepted as first principles becomes obscure. Why does the utilitarian feel that just action needs to be justified while benevolent action does not?
[7] To see how the principle of limited government of John Locke was incorporated in the Constitution of the USA, you need to see the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That means the USA government can not take more power that that which is given to it by the constitution.
Dr. Kelly Ross writes: "This (the Tenth Amendment) was regarded by ..[many] involved in the writing of the Constitution as the capstone of the whole project, affirming that the federal government had only limited and enumerated powers. It was the ultimate principle preventing the United States government from acquiring absolute and unlimited powers. It is thus the ultimate nightmare to the partisans of tyranny, of statism, of absolute power, of a police state, of socialism and communism, of social engineering (whether secular or religious), or of those who simply want to be able to do anything to buy their way into power and pay off their friends."
[8] The basic concept of natural rights is written in the Constitution in the 9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Dr Ross writes: "Here it is obvious that just because a right is not listed in the Constitution, that does not mean that it does not exist. Indeed, it cannot even be argued that rights listed in the Constitution are more important than the ones not listed, for this would be to "disparage" the others."
Many Jews sadly feel that rights are granted by government.It is just the opposite. Rights are inherent. Just that because people want to live in a civil society they give up certain rights --like the right to punish criminals--in order to form a perfect society.they do not give up any rights or powers to the government except what they have stated. This makes me wonder what most Jews did during American History class.
[9] I will also have to show the reason can perceive values. In this I will have to deal with the apparent conflict between Kant and Michael Huemer. But for a long time I have held this is really no conflict. Kant had been stuck in a concept from Hume that reason can perceive only contradictions. This is clearly not true--since as Kant noticed right away--we have synthetic a priori knowledge. So Kant made structures in perception. But the basic approach of Hegel Michele Huemer and Brian Caplan is with Kant himself--that reason perceives a lot of stuff besides contradictions!!
Just with Kant reason places structure on what it perceives.
[10] "Natural rights"
Dr. Kelly Ross: Another recent conception of "positive" liberty, which gets confused with the "natural rights" advocated by Locke and Jefferson, are "welfare rights" such as a right to a job, a right to medical care, a right to adequate housing, a right to disability payments, a right to child support (from the government in default of a "deadbeat" parent), a right to be cared for in retirement, etc. The problem with "welfare rights" as positive "liberties" is that, while they might enable the beneficiary to do what he wants, they must be applied by the threat or the use of force against the freedom and/or property of others. A "right to a job" means that somebody else must be required to provide the job. A "right to medical care" means that somebody else, doctors and nurses, must be required to provide that care. These kinds of rights thus will either effect "involuntary servitude" on the part of employers, doctors, nurses, etc."
[11] The use of force is not a natural right in the state of nature. Sorry it took me this whole essay to get to that one simple point. In the state of nature you have the right to protect your life and your possessions from the force of others. And you can use force to protect yourself and your possessions. But you can't use force to get the possession of others. And that is why the Democratic party in the USA is Satanic. It uses force or the threat of force to get possessions of people to redistribute them. And do so in the name of Justice. This is pure Marxist Socialism.
In the state of nature to get possession one has to work--not use force applied against others.
note [1] Natural rights come from the concept of natural law- which in turn comes from the idea that human beings can perceive objective morality.]
Bibliography
Von Mises
Kant
John Locke, Two Treaties and Toleration.
Hobbes
Professor Kelly Ross
Professor Brian Caplan
Professor Micheael Huemer.
Professor Searle
Habermass.
Professor Steven Dutch
Isaiah Berlin
To show that the Democratic Party in the USA is problematic it is necessary to bring together these ideas:
(1) The contrast between "positive" freedom, the right to exercise political power, from "negative" freedom, the right to be left alone by others exercising political power.
I need to show that John Locke idea of the State of Nature not only does not depend on his empiricism, but in fact contradicts it. In terms of the State of Nature, John Locke is a thoroughbred rationalist. Laws of reason exist for him in the state of nature.
(The state of nature and the reality of people wanting to preserve their life and property is not a imaginary state, but rather the state of every person that gets up in the morning as they race to get their first bowl of cereal.)
I don't need to refute Rousseau's State of Nature and the basic Noble Savage paradigm. A simple visit to Somalia will do that for anyone in doubt. [From Doubt to Danger.]
[The reason why the State of Nature is ignored by intellectuals today is because their "State of Nature" (benign ) turned out to be false. So instead of accepting the truth of John Locke, they ignore the idea completely.]
[2] John Locke admits a Torah government is different. So after we get the John Locke democracy, we still have to deal with Torah law for Jews. John Locke admits this. Right now I am simply trying to get to John Locke. Locke says: "The Jewish commonwealth to which the laws of Moses were issued was an absolute theocracy, in which the magistrate—the chief legislator—was God. So there was there no distinction
between religious law and civil law; there could be capital punishment for religious offenses because the latter were also civil offenses. This doesn't hold for any Christian commonwealth.)(Toleration. Section 7)
The way I deal with this is Rabbi Shimon Ben Yochai-- (that is dorshin taama dekra--). He holds that we use the reason for the verse the determine how the verse is applied. I.e. an early version of natural law. (note [1])
--in this area I need to deal with the fact that natural law is not the same as Kant's moral autonomy (John Locke's natural law is heteronomous; Kant's is autonomous.); plus the issues involved in the fact that freedom which I am defending here has nothing to do with democracy at all; and even less to do with equality. Freedom and equality are exact opposites. I am going to have to work this out later. This will take some time.--In fact today I skipped learning Talmud in the morning because I wanted to start this long process already.
[3] One challenge to Liberal Democracy comes from Muslims. Personally I spent years living in an Arab village and was friendly with the two muftis [sheiks] and their children. One of their children had gotten a law degree from the University of Cairo and with him I discussed politics and religion at length, (every day over a few years.) So you could say I understand something about the danger and threat of Islam to Western Civilization and all humanity.
I know about what Muslims actually do, not just what they say In America most people know what Muslims say. That is not the same as what they do.
John Locke: "An evil that is less visible but more dangerous to the
commonwealth occurs when men [i.e. Muslims] claim for themselves and
their co-religionists some special prerogative that does in fact
conflict with the civil right of the community but is covered
over with a glittery show of deceitful words. For example: a
sect that teaches explicitly and openly that men aren’t obliged to keep their promises (to infidels)." I might add that Islam holds that a all non Islamic governments should be overthrown by force. They hold there is no crime in murder of Jews and Christians.
These beliefs are threats to civil society. According to John Locke people with such beliefs should not be tolerated.
[4] I need also to defend John Locke democracy from the challenges from Nietzsche and Freud. That is: I need to refute Nietzsche and moral relativism.
(He held there are no objective moral values. You make your own values)
Moral objectivity is proven by Professor Michael Huemer thus:
Moral objectivity (like objectivism in general) is entailed by the law of excluded middle and the correspondence theory of truth, along with a couple of what seem equally obvious observations about morality:
(1) There are moral propositions.
(2) So they are each either true or false. (by law of excluded middle) (3) And it's not that they're all false. Surely it is true, rather than false, that Josef Stalin's activities were bad. (Although some communists would disagree, we needn't take their view seriously, and moreover, even they would admit some moral judgement, such as, "Stalin was good.")
(4) So some moral judgments correspond to reality. (from 2,3, and the correspondence theory of truth)
(5) So moral values are part of reality. (which is objectivism)
Also the basic claims of the Democrats is that: (1) all truth is relative to the interests and perspective of the person. (2) There are no universally valid truths.
(3) There are no absolute truths.
It looks like in each case you have to exempt the claim itself from the scope
of its application. But then you have given up the claim, for the
claim was supposed to be universal in in its application.
As for Freud. There is no reason to challenge him because everything he says is pure pseudo science. There is no conceivable observation that could refute him. He can explain everything with his theory. Therefore it is the very essence of pseudo science.
[5] Also I need to refute the idea that perception determines reality.
People who profess "perception determines reality" don't actually believe it or act on it. We never hear "George W. Bush has his reality about the Iraq War which is is valid in its own way as my own," we hear "George W. Bush lied about the Iraq War." If perception really determined reality, the easiest route to social justice would be to condition disadvantaged groups to perceive their realities differently.
[6] I also need to refute legal positivism as opposed to natural law--against Mill.
Now Mill claims the principle of utility to be the first principle of morality and itself not in need of proof. But if the principle that we ought to promote happiness is acceptable as a first principle--if, that is, it does not require to be proved--then why the principles of justice (we ought not to steal, to break agreements, to punish the innocent, etc.) should not equally be accepted as first principles becomes obscure. Why does the utilitarian feel that just action needs to be justified while benevolent action does not?
[7] To see how the principle of limited government of John Locke was incorporated in the Constitution of the USA, you need to see the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That means the USA government can not take more power that that which is given to it by the constitution.
Dr. Kelly Ross writes: "This (the Tenth Amendment) was regarded by ..[many] involved in the writing of the Constitution as the capstone of the whole project, affirming that the federal government had only limited and enumerated powers. It was the ultimate principle preventing the United States government from acquiring absolute and unlimited powers. It is thus the ultimate nightmare to the partisans of tyranny, of statism, of absolute power, of a police state, of socialism and communism, of social engineering (whether secular or religious), or of those who simply want to be able to do anything to buy their way into power and pay off their friends."
[8] The basic concept of natural rights is written in the Constitution in the 9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Dr Ross writes: "Here it is obvious that just because a right is not listed in the Constitution, that does not mean that it does not exist. Indeed, it cannot even be argued that rights listed in the Constitution are more important than the ones not listed, for this would be to "disparage" the others."
Many Jews sadly feel that rights are granted by government.It is just the opposite. Rights are inherent. Just that because people want to live in a civil society they give up certain rights --like the right to punish criminals--in order to form a perfect society.they do not give up any rights or powers to the government except what they have stated. This makes me wonder what most Jews did during American History class.
[9] I will also have to show the reason can perceive values. In this I will have to deal with the apparent conflict between Kant and Michael Huemer. But for a long time I have held this is really no conflict. Kant had been stuck in a concept from Hume that reason can perceive only contradictions. This is clearly not true--since as Kant noticed right away--we have synthetic a priori knowledge. So Kant made structures in perception. But the basic approach of Hegel Michele Huemer and Brian Caplan is with Kant himself--that reason perceives a lot of stuff besides contradictions!!
Just with Kant reason places structure on what it perceives.
[10] "Natural rights"
Dr. Kelly Ross: Another recent conception of "positive" liberty, which gets confused with the "natural rights" advocated by Locke and Jefferson, are "welfare rights" such as a right to a job, a right to medical care, a right to adequate housing, a right to disability payments, a right to child support (from the government in default of a "deadbeat" parent), a right to be cared for in retirement, etc. The problem with "welfare rights" as positive "liberties" is that, while they might enable the beneficiary to do what he wants, they must be applied by the threat or the use of force against the freedom and/or property of others. A "right to a job" means that somebody else must be required to provide the job. A "right to medical care" means that somebody else, doctors and nurses, must be required to provide that care. These kinds of rights thus will either effect "involuntary servitude" on the part of employers, doctors, nurses, etc."
[11] The use of force is not a natural right in the state of nature. Sorry it took me this whole essay to get to that one simple point. In the state of nature you have the right to protect your life and your possessions from the force of others. And you can use force to protect yourself and your possessions. But you can't use force to get the possession of others. And that is why the Democratic party in the USA is Satanic. It uses force or the threat of force to get possessions of people to redistribute them. And do so in the name of Justice. This is pure Marxist Socialism.
In the state of nature to get possession one has to work--not use force applied against others.
note [1] Natural rights come from the concept of natural law- which in turn comes from the idea that human beings can perceive objective morality.]
Bibliography
Von Mises
Kant
John Locke, Two Treaties and Toleration.
Hobbes
Professor Kelly Ross
Professor Brian Caplan
Professor Micheael Huemer.
Professor Searle
Habermass.
Professor Steven Dutch
Isaiah Berlin
10.7.12
Negative liberty of John Locke.
The 9th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This affirms that the federal government had only limited and enumerated powers. The principles of civil rights have now been corrupted as part of the process by which, as Jefferson said, the power of government is expanded.
In both cases, the corruption is effected with specious principles that confuse the role of government with that of private individuals: that private individuals may be identified instead of government as adversaries of civil rights.
Forcing others to provide benefits is a behavior merely directed against the negative freedom of classical liberty, the basic right to be left alone
I think it would be a good idea for me to go into the important subject of the basic principles of negative rights that are enumerated in the Constitution of the USA.
They are based on the State of Nature and the reality of people wanting to preserve their life and property. This is not a imaginary state but rather a state that every person that gets up in the morning as they race to get their first bowl of cereal. This is opposed to the imaginary scheme proposed by Rawls. But Habermas already blew Rawls clear out of the sky with his critique.
This affirms that the federal government had only limited and enumerated powers. The principles of civil rights have now been corrupted as part of the process by which, as Jefferson said, the power of government is expanded.
In both cases, the corruption is effected with specious principles that confuse the role of government with that of private individuals: that private individuals may be identified instead of government as adversaries of civil rights.
Forcing others to provide benefits is a behavior merely directed against the negative freedom of classical liberty, the basic right to be left alone
I think it would be a good idea for me to go into the important subject of the basic principles of negative rights that are enumerated in the Constitution of the USA.
They are based on the State of Nature and the reality of people wanting to preserve their life and property. This is not a imaginary state but rather a state that every person that gets up in the morning as they race to get their first bowl of cereal. This is opposed to the imaginary scheme proposed by Rawls. But Habermas already blew Rawls clear out of the sky with his critique.
9.7.12
My impression is that there are too many books. I think the minute a person has finished shas (talmud) with rashi then he is fit to be a rav.
(1) My impression is that there are too many books. I think the minute a person has finished Shas (Talmud) with Rashi then he is fit to be a rav. (no pseudo semicha needed. In fact anyone with semicha is by definition a fraud since semicha itself is a pretense. Everyone know the type of semicha recognized in the Talmud is no longer in existence. So people that get the title rabbi today are people that do willful fraud.)
All the other books don't add much to this.
often the other books give people the feeling that they know halacha because they learned in the Shulchan Aruch how to kill animals and to salt them. This goes for the other books also.
I don't mean to belittle the greatness of the Shulchan Aruch but without shas it seems to do little for people.
(2) But then you could ask what about Halacha and Hashkafa [kosher world view]? What about modern issues in keeping Shabat etc? I plead like the Maharshal- better a wrong halacha based on Shas than a right halacha based on the poskim-authorities.
[3] After Shas I think people should
learn the two basic halacha books, Rambam and Shulchan Aruch with the Beer heiTeiv straight from beginning to end-from the first page to the last. And then start again.
Do like Maimonides said- learn Aristotle and Kant for hashkafa. And Modern Physics for what the Rambam called Physics. Though to the Rambam, Chemistry would also fit into what he called Physics.
[] Kabalah I would drop. True that philosophy does not get anyone very far (Modern philosophy is a desert.) but that probably better than Kabalah. Despite the great insights of people like the Ari-Isaac Luria, kabalah has one basic drawback- the Zohar. Not only do people that learn it consistently start to believe that they are the messiah.--but also the basic words "im kol da" show it is a medieval forgery.
A little real spirituality that is true is better than a lot that is based on a lie.
[] All this brings me to a good question: what would a Judaism based on Talmud be --if after all I claim that orthodox Judaism is not it. I would have to admit that conservative Judaism is much closer to what I think Talmudic Judaism would be. They have a lot of basic points that I think are necessary for a true to Talmud Judaism, e.g. support for Israel, Monotheism, an application of the delicate dance between Talmud and reason. I am sorry to say it but there is nothing from the Talmud I can see in the insane religious world today. It all looks to me like one sick fraud.
All the other books don't add much to this.
often the other books give people the feeling that they know halacha because they learned in the Shulchan Aruch how to kill animals and to salt them. This goes for the other books also.
I don't mean to belittle the greatness of the Shulchan Aruch but without shas it seems to do little for people.
(2) But then you could ask what about Halacha and Hashkafa [kosher world view]? What about modern issues in keeping Shabat etc? I plead like the Maharshal- better a wrong halacha based on Shas than a right halacha based on the poskim-authorities.
[3] After Shas I think people should
learn the two basic halacha books, Rambam and Shulchan Aruch with the Beer heiTeiv straight from beginning to end-from the first page to the last. And then start again.
Do like Maimonides said- learn Aristotle and Kant for hashkafa. And Modern Physics for what the Rambam called Physics. Though to the Rambam, Chemistry would also fit into what he called Physics.
[] Kabalah I would drop. True that philosophy does not get anyone very far (Modern philosophy is a desert.) but that probably better than Kabalah. Despite the great insights of people like the Ari-Isaac Luria, kabalah has one basic drawback- the Zohar. Not only do people that learn it consistently start to believe that they are the messiah.--but also the basic words "im kol da" show it is a medieval forgery.
A little real spirituality that is true is better than a lot that is based on a lie.
[] All this brings me to a good question: what would a Judaism based on Talmud be --if after all I claim that orthodox Judaism is not it. I would have to admit that conservative Judaism is much closer to what I think Talmudic Judaism would be. They have a lot of basic points that I think are necessary for a true to Talmud Judaism, e.g. support for Israel, Monotheism, an application of the delicate dance between Talmud and reason. I am sorry to say it but there is nothing from the Talmud I can see in the insane religious world today. It all looks to me like one sick fraud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)