Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (25978)	9/5/2001 12:03:19 AM
From: gao seng	Respond to of 82486

Negative form from Confucius: And what you hate, do not do to anyone. <The men at the Constitutional Convention were educated, intelligent men.> And they didn't use the term Creator lightly. A link to Absolutism, something you seem to crave by having morality become a social construct. A political system in which there is no legal, customary, or moral limit on the government's power. The term is generally applied to political systems ruled by a single dictator, but it can also be applied to seemingly democratic systems that grant sweeping powers to the legislature or executive. C. Opposition to Absolutism: Locke and Jefferson Print section By the late 17th century, there was pressure for democracy in England's North American colonies, as well as in many parts of Europe. The advocates of democracy emphasized two main arguments: that human nature was basically good and that the social contract had significant limits. These ideas sharply contrasted with the view offered by Hobbes. He thought that people were motivated only by selfish interest, so that life in a state of nature would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Because of his pessimistic view of human nature, Hobbes argued that humanity was doomed to conflict and chaos unless controlled by an exterior and overwhelming force. In contrast, democratic theorists such as English philosopher John Locke believed in the essential goodness of people and argued that there was therefore no need for an all-powerful, absolutist government. Humans are rational and capable of comprehending some wider common good. If people are rational, Locke argued, then the only way to justify imposing government over people is through their consent. This meant that there was a limited social contract. Through this implied contract, people consent to certain governmental powers but retain basic rights that the government cannot invade. Based on Locke's reasoning, Thomas Jefferson and other American thinkers wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. encarta.msn.com And why should I care how or why good ideas came about? Why can't I just use them? It's a free country, and they are yours for the using. I frankly don't care if they are based on the Quran or the Tibetan Book of the Dead. There are good ideas in the Bill of Rights and I'm glad we've got it. You may be interested in this article on atheism. And yes, it is relevant. encarta.msn.com If you wish to play religious fanatic, go post to Chris Land; he likes it. amishrakefight.org