Natural Law is best.

[Dr.Who]

The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law.

But lets debate this if anyone thinks that there are other foundations for government that are better. How about "might makes right"? Or maybe we should just say that the kings son is the next ruler and whatever he says goes? What about Godless communism? Maybe we should just use the popular vote for all governance?

 

[Idris]

Is it an option to rebel against the natural law?

 

[Dr.Who]

Is it an option to rebel against the natural law?

In physics a natural law would tell us that when you touch a hot pot you get burned. Is it an option to touch that hot pot and not get burned?

In economics there are natural laws that govern the way free people interact with each other.

Even in a communist ruled economy there are still natural rules that are playing out under the surface. Only because of the regulations imposed by a central authority things are not as free or efficient. No it is not an option. No matter what systems are in place we will still have forces of what people call capitalism under the surface. The desire of people to work and prosper and to help others or to be greedy cannot be stopped - they can only be channeled into more useful endeavors through freedom and competition or channeled into less useful endeavors through control and regulation.

 

[Openmind]

The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law.

But lets debate this if anyone thinks that there are other foundations for government that are better. How about "might makes right"? Or maybe we should just say that the kings son is the next ruler and whatever he says goes? What about Godless communism? Maybe we should just use the popular vote for all governance?

Well, apparently we are using your FIRST option, "Might makes right:" the wealthy makes the law!

How about that "natural law" that, a business man will not forgoe profit if he can avoid it. . .
How does that fit with that crazy idea that, If only the tax for "job creators" was lower, they would suddenly feel free to invest in hiring more people, but that because they "MIGHT have to give up and additional 3.5% of their profit if the Bush tax cuts were terminated, they just don't think it's worth making 60.5% profit, but will not hire unless they can keep their current 64% profit (on net income over $250,000, mind you!)

That is a "natural law" (that of people wanting to make profit, wether it be a 60% or a 65% profit) of the business men. . .and if these can forgoe the 60% profit, because they can't get 65% profit. . .they don't belong in business to begin with!

 

[dogtowner]

Well, apparently we are using your FIRST option, "Might makes right:" the wealthy makes the law!

How about that "natural law" that, a business man will not forgoe profit if he can avoid it. . .
How does that fit with that crazy idea that, If only the tax for "job creators" was lower, they would suddenly feel free to invest in hiring more people, but that because they "MIGHT have to give up and additional 3.5% of their profit if the Bush tax cuts were terminated, they just don't think it's worth making 60.5% profit, but will not hire unless they can keep their current 64% profit (on net income over $250,000, mind you!)

That is a "natural law" (that of people wanting to make profit, wether it be a 60% or a 65% profit) of the business men. . .and if these can forgoe the 60% profit, because they can't get 65% profit. . .they don't belong in business to begin with!

Never saw that refered to as a natural law before.

I'm not sure if even the Mafia makes the sort of profit you seem to think is normal.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well, apparently we are using your FIRST option, "Might makes right:" the wealthy makes the law!

Natural law the basis for our constitution is all about the rule of law. Might makes right is not at all about the rule of law - these are opposites.

How about that "natural law" that, a business man will not forgoe profit if he can avoid it. . .

It is his choice and if he chooses profit while violating no ones rights there is nothing wrong with that. Human nature tells us that people do desire profit. It also tells us that people desire many many other things too and often they will pursue other things instead of profit. yes businesses do sometimes prefer to give money to the little league team that could better be spent on something else.

How does that fit with that crazy idea that, If only the tax for "job creators" was lower, they would suddenly feel free to invest in hiring more people, but that because they "MIGHT have to give up and additional 3.5% of their profit if the Bush tax cuts were terminated, they just don't think it's worth making 60.5% profit, but will not hire unless they can keep their current 64% profit (on net income over $250,000, mind you!)

If they are taxed less they will have more money. And they very well might use that money to invest in their business. Which might mean hiring more people, or buying more supplies, or repairing the building...Whichever they choose they very well might choose it because they think it will result in even more profit. So yes spending that money on new employees and reducing their profit just might result in an even greater profit when those new employees are productive and help the company do better. Who should decide if the business spends that money on new employees or new supplies - the business owner alone.

That is a "natural law" (that of people wanting to make profit, wether it be a 60% or a 65% profit) of the business men. . .and if these can forgoe the 60% profit, because they can't get 65% profit. . .they don't belong in business to begin with!

They might forgo the 65% because they think that next month they will get 70% by doing that. They might also forgo the 65% just because they are altruistic. It is their choice and no one else's. You have no right to decide that a business makes too much money or spends it the wrong way.

 

[Dr.Who]

I'm not sure if even the Mafia makes the sort of profit you seem to think is normal.

here are some 2007 data:

Network and Other Communications Equipment 28.8
2 Mining, Crude-Oil Production 23.8
3 Pharmaceuticals 15.8
4 Medical Products and Equipment 15.2
5 Oil and Gas Equipment, Services 13.7
6 Commercial Banks 12.6
7 Railroads 12.4
8 Entertainment 12.4
9 Insurance: Life, Health (stock) 10.6
10 Household and Personal Products 10.2
11 Securities 10.1
12 Insurance: Property and Casualty (stock) 9.9
13 Real Estate 9.9
14 Scientific, Photographic, and Control Equipment 9.8
15 Financial Data Services 8.7
16 Food Services 7.9
17 Publishing, Printing 7.9
18 Utilities: Gas and Electric 7.9
19 Industrial and Farm Equipment 7.6
20 Electronics, Electrical Equipment 7.6
21 Hotels, Casinos, Resorts 7.3
22 Aerospace and Defense 7.2
23 Beverages 7.2
24 Chemicals 7.0
25 Internet Services and Retailing 7.0
26 Food Consumer Products 6.5
27 Telecommunications 6.4
28 Health Care: Insurance and Managed Care 6.2
29 Petroleum Refining 6.2
30 Computers, Office Equipment 6.0
31 Metals 5.5
32 Packaging, Containers 5.5
33 Home Equipment, Furnishings 5.3
34 Wholesalers: Diversified 4.3
35 Specialty Retailers 3.8
36 Information Technology Services 3.8
37 Energy 3.7
38 Airlines 3.6
39 General Merchandisers 3.5
40 Health Care: Medical Facilities 3.3
41 Pipelines 3.1
42 Engineering, Construction 2.8
43 Health Care: Pharmacy and Other Services 2.6
44 Food and Drug Stores 2.1
45 Wholesalers: Electronics and Office Equipment 1.6
46 Automotive Retailing, Services 1.1
47 Wholesalers: Health Care 1.1
48 Motor Vehicles and Parts 1.1
49 Food Production 1.0
50 Semiconductors and Other Electronic Components 0.6
51 Diversified Financials -0.9
52 Homebuilders -9.5

Who should decide who makes too much? How many laws would it take to re-order that list in the way that the gov wants?

 

[GenSeneca]

Well, apparently we are using your FIRST option, "Might makes right:"

Are you saying you disagree with the concept of "might makes right"... Shouldn't the 99% be able to enslave the other 1%, to whatever degree you deem necessary, in order to ameliorate the suffering of people forced into poverty and struggling survive?

 

[dogtowner]

here are some 2007 data:

Network and Other Communications Equipment 28.8
2 Mining, Crude-Oil Production 23.8
3 Pharmaceuticals 15.8
4 Medical Products and Equipment 15.2
5 Oil and Gas Equipment, Services 13.7
6 Commercial Banks 12.6
7 Railroads 12.4
8 Entertainment 12.4
9 Insurance: Life, Health (stock) 10.6
10 Household and Personal Products 10.2
11 Securities 10.1
12 Insurance: Property and Casualty (stock) 9.9
13 Real Estate 9.9
14 Scientific, Photographic, and Control Equipment 9.8
15 Financial Data Services 8.7
16 Food Services 7.9
17 Publishing, Printing 7.9
18 Utilities: Gas and Electric 7.9
19 Industrial and Farm Equipment 7.6
20 Electronics, Electrical Equipment 7.6
21 Hotels, Casinos, Resorts 7.3
22 Aerospace and Defense 7.2
23 Beverages 7.2
24 Chemicals 7.0
25 Internet Services and Retailing 7.0
26 Food Consumer Products 6.5
27 Telecommunications 6.4
28 Health Care: Insurance and Managed Care 6.2
29 Petroleum Refining 6.2
30 Computers, Office Equipment 6.0
31 Metals 5.5
32 Packaging, Containers 5.5
33 Home Equipment, Furnishings 5.3
34 Wholesalers: Diversified 4.3
35 Specialty Retailers 3.8
36 Information Technology Services 3.8
37 Energy 3.7
38 Airlines 3.6
39 General Merchandisers 3.5
40 Health Care: Medical Facilities 3.3
41 Pipelines 3.1
42 Engineering, Construction 2.8
43 Health Care: Pharmacy and Other Services 2.6
44 Food and Drug Stores 2.1
45 Wholesalers: Electronics and Office Equipment 1.6
46 Automotive Retailing, Services 1.1
47 Wholesalers: Health Care 1.1
48 Motor Vehicles and Parts 1.1
49 Food Production 1.0
50 Semiconductors and Other Electronic Components 0.6
51 Diversified Financials -0.9
52 Homebuilders -9.5

Who should decide who makes too much? How many laws would it take to re-order that list in the way that the gov wants?

First, thank you. Second, untold thousands.

 

[GenSeneca]

Who should decide who makes too much?

Progressives... They are, after all, the arbiters of what constitutes one's "fair share".

How many laws would it take to re-order that list in the way that the gov wants?

Totalitarianism. What did you think they were trying to Progress toward?

 

[Openmind]

Are you saying you disagree with the concept of "might makes right"... Shouldn't the 99% be able to enslave the other 1%, to whatever degree you deem necessary, in order to ameliorate the suffering of people forced into poverty and struggling survive?

Another extreme statement! Who talks about "enslaving" the 1%?

Or is it that the 1% is sooo weak that by requesting that they forgoe 5% of their income per year, during the duration of the economic downturn, this would "enslave" them?

But, yes, I believe that it would be perfectly in line with "natural laws" if a small portion of the excessive income of the 1% were to be used to keep from taking away the minimum survival assistance that is currently provided to the bottom 20%!

And that could easily be done without "enslaving" ANYONE!

Your dogmatic, emotional non-sense is unworthy of your apparent level of intelligence!

 

[Dr.Who]

Another extreme statement! Who talks about "enslaving" the 1%?

Or is it that the 1% is sooo weak that by requesting that they forgoe 5% of their income per year, during the duration of the economic downturn, this would "enslave" them?

But, yes, I believe that it would be perfectly in line with "natural laws" if a small portion of the excessive income of the 1% were to be used to keep from taking away the minimum survival assistance that is currently provided to the bottom 20%!

And that could easily be done without "enslaving" ANYONE!

Your dogmatic, emotional non-sense is unworthy of your apparent level of intelligence!

Requesting - You really dont think that when the gov taxes a person it is a request do you?

Enslave - You are right it is not slavery because slavery requires that a person be property not just that all of their property be subject to the will of the gov. The question is are there any limits on what the gov can tell a person to do? If there are limits then how do we know what those limits are?

natural laws - One natural law is that all people are treated alike under the rule of law, in other words fairness. If the gov can decide that one group owes more taxes than another then it can also decide that one group does must sit in the back of the bus.

Excessive - who are you to decide what is and what is not excessive? Now that is arrogance.

Taking away - Just how does it it unjust to take away from one person when another earns some money? Didn't the person who bought the record from Barbara Streisand get a record in exchange for his $5? It was a fair trade. Are you saying that the rich 1%ers are unjust to the 99%ers?

Minimum survival - In this country the bottom 20% are living lives that are better than kings did 100 years ago. They generally have big TV's, a house, a car, air conditioning...

Provided to - Since when is it the responsibility of anyone at all to provide things, things like houses, to people that are generally working and can save and buy them for themselves? Can you show me anywhere at all in the laws of the land where that is a law?

This is one of those times when I would like you to address each of the concerns that have been implied above. Do you really think each of those words is the most accurate?

Lets try it without the hyperbole:

"Another extreme statement! Who talks about "enslaving" the 1%?

Or is it that the 1% is sooo weak that by requiring that they give up 5% of their income per year, during the duration of the economic downturn, this would "enslave" them?

But, yes, I believe that it would be out of line with "natural laws" if a small portion of the income of the 1% worked for and acquired legally were to be used as a gift to to bottom 20% who would be better off if they used their own money.

And that could easily be done without "enslaving" ANYONE! Sure it would require coercion but not slavery.

Your dogmatic, emotional non-sense is unworthy of your apparent level of intelligence in the same way that what I said previously was non-sense."

There! Now that is more accurate.