 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonbat
The term was originally rendered as 'Barking Moonbat', suggesting that certain issues seem to trigger a reflexive response from some people much like wolves howl at the moon (i.e. the term evokes the traditional association between the moon and insanity).
Hence:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/tennant/tennant10.html
Then there was the trial balloon that the resolution Congress had passed in the days following 9/11, granting the president the authority to go after those who had perpetrated the attacks, somehow also gave him the authority to violate the Fourth Amendment and FISA, which came as a distinct surprise to many members of Congress who had voted for the resolution. Besides, this was all being done in the name of fighting terrorism, and who but an anti-American commie moonbat could object to that?
There is, in my opinion, based upon my personal desire to appreciate life, a richness in language that opens up many avenues of exploration as one travels forward through the frontier of human thought.
The rule of law, or in other words, the common appreciation for natural and physical truer perception of social limits of good and moral conduct, expressly not punishment, but rather avoiding all need for punishment, by the constant demand for greater improvement in more accurate and efficient productive interaction, this human effort, the rule of law, is not, and never will be, rule by man.
The reality is, and continues to be, a seeking of, and practice toward, problem solving, treating causes, to avoid creating problems and in other words: To resist the temptation to become one's own worst enemy.
Authority, it seems, is synonymous with negotiated agreement or in other words: Liberty.
The means to that end is the human effort employed toward improving truth.
Since each individual is not 'up to the task', then, help is an obvious step solving that single, and most difficult, problem.
"How to" eliminate error?
One is tempted to make a rule.
Another is tempted to point out that the rule is false.
In time, after much conflict, a rule becomes obviously preferred over another rule.
Like this one:
Do not allow one person to make all the rules.
Fine, one might say, then, let everyone make all their own rules.
We are, after all, only human.
If the above two rules express two extremes concerning the rule of law, then, one might endeavor to find what actually happens in the space between the two extremes like asking: what happens in the space between the ears?
Conflict may be the right answer. One rule collides with another rule as rulers collide on the battlefields of ancient history. Now the rulers sit back and watch without having any greater interest in the results beyond a manic curiosity.
Garbage in = garbage out. Is this not the definition of duplicity?
Eventually the collisions subside and a winner emerges from the ashes.
Over time, after many collisions, and after many winners, the results show, over and over again, a systematic repetition of two separate and distinct winners.
One such winner can be identified as "Rule of Law"
the other:
Rule by man
In the first case; on the rule of law battle field, where the collisions occur, what remains, to a great degree, within the minds of men, in the space between each person's ears is space that is not splattered all over the battle field. The collisions work out between the ears before any weapons are drawn.
In the later case, rule by man, the conflicts are more violent, fraudulent, and measurably destructive.
One victor reaches for agreement.
The other victor destroys all disagreement.
No one can know who actually wins or which law loses without words or personal experience.
Personal experience communicated with words:
"Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE." Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn
If one is not privy to personal experience, then, one must trust in one's own ability to judge the value, the accuracy, and the truth communicated by other's who have been subjected to actual personal experience relative to any particular question concerning 'authority'.
Rulers, it seems, tend to rely upon falsehood, as they rule, if they rule, on the side of 'rule by man'.
On the other hand: Rule of law, as a common appreciation for it, does manage to win something if one is to learn the lessons taught by personal experience and authors who have studied the matter at length.
Like this:
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm
Well; that is a lot of stuff.
Which is easier?
Rule of law
Rule by man
Which costs more?
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
The War in Iraq Costs
$280,349,973,481