thanks for reply Sir BTW.
dissagree i think there are millions of americans that not only do not understand NL concepts, and if they did they would reject them.
- i welcome a disscusion about this -- your view is all amers respect NL though some do not abide.
i say they not both.
so we can talk about it.
I love NL myself, as i think you do - we are in the same mentality here, only saying many millions of americans are not in our camp (where you assume they are - but somehow rejecting this NL mentality)
BTW there have always been thinkers and persons of conscience, to even in the heartland of the Congo say 500 yrs ago - or today - there were the few 1-percenters that shared our mindset and affirmed NL - if not on works or as working in their shitty culture - but in mindset those 1-percenters are our brothers, only born in an area not amaible to NL championing via their headhunter cutlure.
agreed, in general NL concept/mentality is not just an American mendset, but a Brit one prior to American Independance - Locke/etc predate "american independance" NL mindset is was born in the Enlightment - so to 1400's in most of Europe (and maybe from Greek though - when the Europeans re-found what was lost via the dark ages, from the arabs that preserved the old works. (in 1200 Arab Culture was the enlightened one, and the Europeans were the in the Dark ages - today the roles are reversed - Arab culture today is fully in the dark age, but "Soft Power" is a hope for them to move out of the dark age "We" had a millian prior.
not sure on this - i'm not a learn scholar of Socratise/Arostotle/Plato - just saying the concept of NL might date to that time in that culture.
we know for sure NL dates to BEFORE 1776 - and why America saw a violation of it as British persons living in North America move to revolt from the motherland. I.E the Brits become more thugger post the 17th century, negating their own Parlement and championing their Monarch - prob due to the civla war (Charles 1). somehow the Brits that formally affirmed NL - by 1650's lessen valuing them, and by 1740's we had a full dissconect bet the colony and the motherland on the valuing of NL and the role of the monarch.
agreed, i too prefer the DOI in its spirited lanquage over our US Constitution.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 2:49 pm Consider the Constitution: by itself, it's a rather flavorless exercise, a blueprint for limited government and an assurance that power should reman in the hands of the people. All well and fine but lackin' context. You have to couple the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence for the context.
9th is still my fav Amendment - and the mindset of the over doc/ as well as that of DOI.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 2:49 pm Simply: the Crown failed to the recognize natural law/rights, the Declaration codifies this abuse, codifies natural law/rights, and the declares the break of colonists from the Crown because of the abuse. The Constitution codifies what the Framers viewed as an appropriate prophylactic against such abuses.
agreed fully, when the Brit colonies were founded, the Brit Empire affirmed NL, but later became more Empircal, and so the Colonists affirming the earlier view of the British Empire - i.e. affirm the precepts of NL - when they understood the motherland had backslide and not longer affirm what they did a century earlier, were forced to revolt.
I don't follow but know you have a point/view - so maybe rephrase/ small works for the dumb like me - to understand and so discuss.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 2:49 pm No, the problem isn't that cops must hold to, and fail to hold to, a higher standard; the problem is: some cops are insulated from the consequences of not holdin' to the standard a private citizen is held to which -- again -- is simply respectin' the life, liberty, and property of the other.
yes. and want do you think about that double standard? - for me i hate it.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 2:49 pm ??????? truly don't understand, but i know you have point, and if willing can to clarify it so i can understand and converse with you about it?
Don't know how to be clearer. Mebbe an example will help...
If I shoot someone: I'm arrested, my weapon confiscated, and there's an investigation. If the shooting is found just (self-defense, defense of another), the charges are dropped and I (should) get my gun back. If the shooting is found unjust (murder) then I go to trial where, if found guilty, I'm sentenced to the Big House.
If a cop shoots someone: he's taken off duty, he surrenders his service weapon (but not any of his personal weapons), he is not arrested, there's an investigation (enacted by his fellows, who may be inclined to favor him). Even if the shoot is found unjust, the cop may never be indicted or face trial.
The cop is insulated from consequence. Strip away that insulation.