| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley |
|
||||||||||||||
| Challenge sent | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30th, 2005 01:21 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz38.html People write and people read. Some people add a link to the bottom of thier pages that read: [send him mail] I send mail. The motive behind my mail goes like this: I challenge you. That is the short version. The more accurate version and still short version goes like this: I have an idea that challenges your idea. Do you want to compete, head to head, to see which idea wins? My specific concern with this example challenge involves an idea that proposes to place value on paper. A document that records words written in 1788 is the example in question. Anyone who values such a document, as the one written in 1788, is someone who shares a popular viewpoint. My contention concerns the accuracy of the stated reasons why people share a popular viewpoint. Some people say: “It is Law” and people share an appreciation for “Law”. The document is “Law”. Other people say: “It is crime”. The proof is in the pudding. My challenge is to prove a viewpoint in real time against a contending viewpoint in real time. The actors are mere appliances. The ideas are the stuff from which man made “Law” is made into pudding. Natural Law remains what it is, in real time, if we like it or not. One more link for me to close this example challenge: http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=11095.0 10 paces back Turn and fire: What was the intent behind the Constitution according to Alexander Hamilton?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Current time is 12:07 pm | |
| Power Independence > Fight Night > Debate > Challenge sent | Top |
