- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:36 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:they diving for the knees
That last post by cubbies should dissolve any silly notion that she's my alter
1
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:37 am to SuperSaint
The funniest part is I chuckle about it, but I guarantee you it drives her nuts b/c she doesn't exactly like me, and never has 
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:41 am to SuperSaint
quote:
there is evidence of Neanderthals following religious beliefs
Yup nailed it, in fact most Mesolithic paintings, ritual burial, votive depositions, and indeed the animistic beliefs handed down very much represent a rather strong evidence for pre agricultural religions.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:45 am to Narax
quote:
Yup nailed it, in fact most Mesolithic paintings, ritual burial, votive depositions, and indeed the animistic beliefs handed down very much represent a rather strong evidence for pre agricultural religions.
My comment did not address religion on a personal level.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
My comment did not address religion on a personal level
The scale of votive deposits is large enough, especially as a measure of production time to show that there was organization, in a very tax/tithe like way by an entire community or multiple communities.
Not to mention the likelihood of the bodies being human sacrifices.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:50 am to SlowFlowPro
Democrats figured out if you give a man a fish and a shack, you own them for eternity.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:53 am to dgnx6
quote:
Democrats figured out if you give a man a fish and a shack, you own them for eternity.
Discussed in detail in this thread
quote:
"If you take the knee, we will give you the education for free, we will give you the child care for free... those promises... make people feel like the virtuous offerings will align with their individual needs... You do not get economic mobility if the government is giving you a job or giving you money. You lose economic mobility, you become indentured to the government"
quote:
"To enshroud yourself in this government burden thinking that it is a relief, well then that creates helplessness because you're always looking to the government to solve your problems. The threshold for learned helplessness is far, far lower than one may think"
Posted on 6/23/26 at 7:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:look no further than Louisianans Poverty Point culture that was a pre agricultural complex society. Fishing, hunting, gathering. My guess is the extreme abundance of resources throughout the Mississippi valley made it possible. One of the handful of regions in the world
but I don't think Neanderthals had societies.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:13 am to 4cubbies
quote:Yes, you’re begging the question. Harm isn’t wrong because it’s observable. What makes it wrong? Anyone who believes in objective morality will need to answer this question in some way. As a Christian, I’m able to answer this with scripture.
They cause observable harm. I realize this could get circular — why is causing harm wrong?
quote:It doesn’t. As stated in a previous post, you don’t own anything when you die. Ownership passes to someone else.
why would ownership survive death?
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:29 am to 4cubbies
The way I look at it is there is just Natural Law. Everything after that are just "acts" which are created to secure/protect the Natural Law. Mostly doesn't work that way, because politicians are largely megalomaniacal sociopaths, who use the coercive monopoly on force, government, to their own ends.
Most of the areas in society w the most problems are because of the perversion of Natural Law forced on us by politicians.
I know property is the part you taking issue w, but if Property isn't a part of Natural Law, that you do not have an innate right to own things created/earned by your work, or that was voluntarily traded to you, then it follows that you don't have a right to your own life, that you don't have the right to protect your life.
Most of the areas in society w the most problems are because of the perversion of Natural Law forced on us by politicians.
I know property is the part you taking issue w, but if Property isn't a part of Natural Law, that you do not have an innate right to own things created/earned by your work, or that was voluntarily traded to you, then it follows that you don't have a right to your own life, that you don't have the right to protect your life.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:37 am to texag7
quote:
Early laws were derived directly from biblical teachings.
no.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:41 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
How is it that you came to answer a post to her about being fat from her perspective...in her "voice," so to speak?
I'm pretty sure his response began with "the frick?" Totally my "voice."
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:44 am to 4cubbies
What came first the stolen bike or the homeless teenager?
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:48 am to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
Harm isn’t wrong because it’s observable. What makes it wrong? Anyone who believes in objective morality will need to answer this question in some way. As a Christian, I’m able to answer this with scripture.
I'm also a Christian, but I prefer not to rely on supernatural explanations for philosophical questions when possible, mostly because there's so much disagreement already there.
quote:
It doesn’t. As stated in a previous post, you don’t own anything when you die. Ownership passes to someone else.
Why should a living person's decisions continue to control property after that person ceases to exist?
Posted on 6/23/26 at 9:49 am to 4cubbies
Oh, and glad you started this thread. Didn't realize until like 20 min ago this was a new one.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 10:00 am to 4cubbies
quote:It is not possible to ascribe a different cause outside of God to morality or the creation of goodness and order if you are a Christian.
I'm also a Christian, but I prefer not to rely on supernatural explanations for philosophical questions when possible, mostly because there's so much disagreement already there.
ETA: As Christians, we should distinguish between how morality is known and what its source is. We can know many moral truths through reason alone, and don’t need to appeal to scripture in every instance. But if Christianity is true, goodness itself ultimately exists because all being and order derive from God. We can explain morality through natural law, human flourishing, and rational nature, but those realities themselves are grounded in God’s creative act.
quote:What, specifically, are you talking about? Can you give an example?
Why should a living person's decisions continue to control property after that person ceases to exist?
This post was edited on 6/23/26 at 10:07 am
Posted on 6/23/26 at 10:00 am to stuntman
quote:
The way I look at it is there is just Natural Law
Rooted in divinity.
I'm realizing that my fundamental beliefs and personal philosophies stem from schools of thought that are compatible with Natural Law (like Kant's categorical imperative), it's just hard for me to impose them on the the world at large. I use them to guide my own actions and judgements, but it's hard for me to accept that everyone else must hold themselves to the same standards.
quote:
I know property is the part you taking issue w, but if Property isn't a part of Natural Law, that you do not have an innate right to own things created/earned by your work, or that was voluntarily traded to you, then it follows that you don't have a right to your own life, that you don't have the right to protect your life.
The having a right to the fruits of your labor is bit more complex than private property. You're describing societal norms more so than innate rights, imo.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 10:13 am to 4cubbies
quote:Kant’s categorical imperative is ultimately opposed to natural law, though they have some overlap such as objective morality and the ability to use reason to determine moral truth.
I'm realizing that my fundamental beliefs and personal philosophies stem from schools of thought that are compatible with Natural Law (like Kant's categorical imperative)
Posted on 6/23/26 at 10:14 am to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
What, specifically, are you talking about? Can you give an example?
My grandfather owned a lot of land, mineral rights, and hunting leases. He died 15 years ago. My mother and uncle now own those things as his heirs. My grandfather is the person who originally acquired the land. My mother and uncle's claim derives entirely from his wishes regarding its disposition. He may have willed it to his descendants, but why should a deceased person's wishes determine the disposition of property after that person no longer exists? Again, I'm not proposing an alternative to succession or wills, merely questioning their premise.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 10:15 am to 4cubbies
/Rooted in divinity/
Imo it's rooted in the survival instinct. It's there before we learn about religion or the devine.
Totally agree that those views, the way we interpret/secure rights cannot be imposed on others. This is why I'm an Ancap, philosophically. I do believe, however, that if people were allowed to protect their natural rights, they would have much more peaceful, respectful, and prosperous societies over time. Others, not all of course, but others would recognize those principles work and would create systems that try to emulate it. Again, though, it does take a critical mass of a society to recognize these simple principles.
Imo it's rooted in the survival instinct. It's there before we learn about religion or the devine.
Totally agree that those views, the way we interpret/secure rights cannot be imposed on others. This is why I'm an Ancap, philosophically. I do believe, however, that if people were allowed to protect their natural rights, they would have much more peaceful, respectful, and prosperous societies over time. Others, not all of course, but others would recognize those principles work and would create systems that try to emulate it. Again, though, it does take a critical mass of a society to recognize these simple principles.
Page 10 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News