On 1/10/14, 3:41 PM, glen wrote:
OK. So, as a descriptive fact: "He who has the gold rules." Now we go
back to Marcus' question: Does the aphorism mean "He who has the gold
_ought_ to rule"? At which point, I just reiterate my response, which
is: Since all we've ever known is "He who has the gold rules", what
basis can we possibly use to say that it ought to be any other way?
What other way is there?
Robert already mentioned a counter example: The Communists seizing
power from the Nationalists in China.
Similarly, greenbacks didn't make the difference in Vietnam. So another
way is spending lives and destroying things, not just employment and
bribery.
Ok, but going back to the thread about the proof of God's existence, one
of the conclusions in the proof was that "Everything that is the case is
so necessarily." And from that it can be concluded there is no free
will. If there is no free will, why talk about `ought'. That kind of
reasoning would make sense per the aphorism but I don't it is also a
descriptive fact. It's common but not universal -- even if the only
other time the aphorism doesn't hold true is in the during the part of
the suggested cycle where the wealthy are thrown up against a wall and
shot.
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
