The political situation of America and our need for a return to natural rights principles in our time reminds me of Lincoln’s answer to Douglas’s “popular sovereignty, the great principle of democracy” which amounted to unlimited majority rule. In effect Lincoln’s answer to that nihilism was that the consent of the governed - what we can and can’t vote for - must be governed by what we can rightfully consent to.
In a society based on consent of the governed that which can rightfully be consented to is the most fundamental political question of all as it is the limiting factor of limited government. This is why an understanding of natural rights and the return to the principles of the Declaration were so important to Lincoln’s time and to ours.
While no one doubts the religious origin of the idea of Natural Law, it is helpful of Jefferson in the Declaration to open the door, with "Nature and Nature's God," for agnostics who subscribe to no theology. I find it useful to think of the Natural Laws as axioms, or Postulates (in the Euclidean sense), from which we can logically construct the principles of a government that best enable and preserve the Natural Law Postulates. Yes, alternates can be imagined, but they can be shown to lead to governments that are contrary to Human Nature as we understand it, just as changing Euclid's Postulates lead to other geometries.
On the "yes" side, you're obviously right in what you say here.
On the negative, however, the paper seems to offer some descriptions of what progressives are
selling and how that's turning out along with some background on the origin and nature of
the nominally conservative reaction to it, but the occasional inclusion of minor references
to key figures like Obama and Burke don't suffice to place either process in the context
of western cultural evolution. If, in other words, you were to strip this paper of its
polemic exuberance you wouldn't have much left.
I am not an expert, but did try to do this (see telearb.net) to clarify in my own mind
what's going on - deciding, in the end, first that the values found in Exodus, the New Testament,
and the American constitutional documents constitute a broadening thread holding
western cultural development together; and, second, that the delusions driving today's
progressives (most of whom truly believe in human equality while dedicating their lives
to the imposition of feudalism) derive largely from a mistaken interpretation of the works of Thomas
Malthus by people like Hegel and Engels.
P.S. The argument is far too long and complex for a comment so, because google and Microsoft deprecate my telearb.net site, I have a few excerpts at paul530 on substack.
Now do Locke, svp.
The political situation of America and our need for a return to natural rights principles in our time reminds me of Lincoln’s answer to Douglas’s “popular sovereignty, the great principle of democracy” which amounted to unlimited majority rule. In effect Lincoln’s answer to that nihilism was that the consent of the governed - what we can and can’t vote for - must be governed by what we can rightfully consent to.
In a society based on consent of the governed that which can rightfully be consented to is the most fundamental political question of all as it is the limiting factor of limited government. This is why an understanding of natural rights and the return to the principles of the Declaration were so important to Lincoln’s time and to ours.
While no one doubts the religious origin of the idea of Natural Law, it is helpful of Jefferson in the Declaration to open the door, with "Nature and Nature's God," for agnostics who subscribe to no theology. I find it useful to think of the Natural Laws as axioms, or Postulates (in the Euclidean sense), from which we can logically construct the principles of a government that best enable and preserve the Natural Law Postulates. Yes, alternates can be imagined, but they can be shown to lead to governments that are contrary to Human Nature as we understand it, just as changing Euclid's Postulates lead to other geometries.
"we might add some humor pieces"
Just be careful no one is offended!
Well yes, but also a bit of no.
On the "yes" side, you're obviously right in what you say here.
On the negative, however, the paper seems to offer some descriptions of what progressives are
selling and how that's turning out along with some background on the origin and nature of
the nominally conservative reaction to it, but the occasional inclusion of minor references
to key figures like Obama and Burke don't suffice to place either process in the context
of western cultural evolution. If, in other words, you were to strip this paper of its
polemic exuberance you wouldn't have much left.
I am not an expert, but did try to do this (see telearb.net) to clarify in my own mind
what's going on - deciding, in the end, first that the values found in Exodus, the New Testament,
and the American constitutional documents constitute a broadening thread holding
western cultural development together; and, second, that the delusions driving today's
progressives (most of whom truly believe in human equality while dedicating their lives
to the imposition of feudalism) derive largely from a mistaken interpretation of the works of Thomas
Malthus by people like Hegel and Engels.
P.S. The argument is far too long and complex for a comment so, because google and Microsoft deprecate my telearb.net site, I have a few excerpts at paul530 on substack.