Your manner of teaching is so clear and in-depth. You’re such a brilliant teacher! Thank you for making such texts and ideas accessible to people like me. Love from India.
From my experience, I'm still holding out that without a valid legal contract, there are no rights, only courtesies and fewer of those everyday, usually at the hands of those insisting I have a right until I appear to attempt to use it. Then it's all like, "Well that wouldn't be fair...", "...to others...", "...feel uncomfortable...", "...maybe dangerous...", "...terrorist!"
"we have the duty to do .....to our fellow human being.." This is abstract, so a French revolutionary could have seen him as one of their own. In the year of 189x French hold a general election, in order to vote, one had to pay a minimum threshold of tax. So they didn't believe universal suffrage either.
legal contracts and all the rights need a state to protect, arbitrage and enforce. If we don't believe the state to come to exists by its own merits, glorious tradition, or God's grace as Burke did(perhaps I misunderstand him), then perhaps we have to justify the state by delivering these functions, and see the rights as "natural", and first principle. Burke’s English fellow country man believe the country is a big family, the state was the parents. But for later societies that have lost the innocence, people may have no choice to "go French way".
1st, why do "we" "have to" do anything let alone "justify" fraud? 2nd, how does one use a fraud (ie: "the state") to enforce a non fraud (ie: "valid legal contract")? 3rdly, the country is the land. The nation is the family. Propaganda and violence are the parents of "the state". Nobody alive here today has had a choice about whether or not there should even be government, let alone what kind. Those men that fooled the world into believing the United States of America propaganda write about the duty and necessity of creating ones own government, but they seem to have failed spectacularly in promoting that particular idea to their posterity. Any guesses why?
Your manner of teaching is so clear and in-depth. You’re such a brilliant teacher! Thank you for making such texts and ideas accessible to people like me. Love from India.
From my experience, I'm still holding out that without a valid legal contract, there are no rights, only courtesies and fewer of those everyday, usually at the hands of those insisting I have a right until I appear to attempt to use it. Then it's all like, "Well that wouldn't be fair...", "...to others...", "...feel uncomfortable...", "...maybe dangerous...", "...terrorist!"
@@Barklord Pick a subject.
"we have the duty to do .....to our fellow human being.." This is abstract, so a French revolutionary could have seen him as one of their own. In the year of 189x French hold a general election, in order to vote, one had to pay a minimum threshold of tax. So they didn't believe universal suffrage either.
legal contracts and all the rights need a state to protect, arbitrage
and enforce. If we don't believe the state to come to exists by its own
merits, glorious tradition, or God's grace as Burke did(perhaps I
misunderstand him), then perhaps we have to justify the state by
delivering these functions, and see the rights as "natural", and first
principle. Burke’s English fellow country man believe the country is a
big family, the state was the parents. But for later societies that have
lost the innocence, people may have no choice to "go French way".
1st, why do "we" "have to" do anything let alone "justify" fraud?
2nd, how does one use a fraud (ie: "the state") to enforce a non fraud (ie: "valid legal contract")?
3rdly, the country is the land. The nation is the family. Propaganda and violence are the parents of "the state".
Nobody alive here today has had a choice about whether or not there should even be government, let alone what kind. Those men that fooled the world into believing the United States of America propaganda write about the duty and necessity of creating ones own government, but they seem to have failed spectacularly in promoting that particular idea to their posterity. Any guesses why?