[Platt]
That's why I asked, "whose reason?" should prevail as the basis for
laws. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've answered that question.
[Arlo]
I don't think "reason" is subjective, so I think asking "whose
reason?" is an invalid question. Regarding "law", I think our courts
are charged with the task of determining which argument has a greater
quality, and ideally there are enough checks and balances along the
way that the reasonable position should be implemented.
Realistically, however, the appeals to emotion can sway the process
at points, and even in the end the less reasonable position is
sometimes implemented.
I can't think of a better basis for law than reason, can you? Appeals
to a Creator? Then "law" simply becomes the implementation of
Yahweh's will or Allah's will or Buddha's will. Do you want that?
[Platt]
Our system for making and enforcing laws isn't perfect my any means.
But, I know of no better one, certainly not the Islamic system.
[Arlo]
Well this gets back to the beginning of the conversation, namely that
our system is "better" because it is secular, it has a wall that is
supposed to keep out the legislation of religious decree. And towards
this I think we need to be quite vigilant, because I think the
evidence is quite abundant that many in this country would have
little problem dismantling this wall (provided the "church" being let
in was their own).
You mentioned Robert's Rules of Law (cited by Pirsig) as a good
foundation for law, as it maximizes DQ in a ground of stability. I
say... that's reason.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
