Justin writes:
> I am not sure what you mean here, John -- are you saying that the
liberal faces a problem when someone doesn't agree on the minumum
of basic procedures, and in that case is forced to shoot or imprison
that person?
Is the disagreement also possibly based on the number and types of rights a person is conceived to have? Even the very notion of what it means to be a person?
> Liberal regimes have been the only societies in human history that have
systematically opposed persecution and injustice as a matter of principle.
&
> They set the standard; no other kind of actually existing society has ever
made social equality, political and civil freedom, and justice its central goals.
Asoka anyone?
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/asoka.html
> Liberalism started as a way of avoiding religious persecution
And has morphed into a method for the religious to persecute others.
> Liberalism was a response to that: its original advocates advocated tolerance for
different religious viewspoints. Over the centuries liberal goals have expanded to
include a very radical vision of justice, freedom, and equality.
Huh? LBO cannot even agree that sexual freedom is important and you say that liberalism has embraced a "very radical vision of justice?" With respect, I do not agree and see little empirical evidence to back this up. If liberalism had embraced so radical a vision of justice, 50% of all Black men would not be involved with the (in)justice system at one point in their lives.
> Liberalism has not guaranteed results
I think this is part of liberalism's slickness. It never guarantees anything, so when injustice arises, it can shrug its shoulders and say: "Well, I never promised you a ___________ (fill in desired example of justice).
When liberalism was first formulated it did offer a tangible and better alternative to what existed, but it now has become the creator of a new set of problems that it lacks an answer for. (This is my understanding of the posts about historical and material circumstances.) It is better than tyranny and theocracy, but to me it is just a step on a path. Keep it going for what it is worth, but I think it is foolish to regard it as the endpoint.
ravi writes:
> let me explain: by well-defined, i was thinking of something similar to an
axiomatic system with atomic rules of inference. it seems something close would be
required for judges to be able to blindly apply the law to available evidence.
Okay, Stupid Alert # 2 -- I don't understand what you mean by "atomic rules of inference."
Carrol writes:
> As incoherent as are Brian's and (I'm afraid) Charles's responses to Justin . . .
Charles gets a parenthetical "I'm afraid" and I don't? Chuck B is your dawg and I'm a scrub?
> Brian's surreal desire for judges to act on the basis of individual moral principle.
Most of my desires are surreal, but that is another e-list. I haven't made myself clear. My apologies. Let me try again. The Constitution outlines the goods it believes in, the rights citizens have, and the procedures that will be followed by government/society.
Some of those procedures pertain to making laws. My question is: if a law is passed (in a procedurally correct way) that works against the goods the Constitution has enumerated and/or the rights of citizens listed therein, is it right for a judge to strike it down, or should a law only be invalidated when it has been enacted in a procedurally incorrect manner?
Ted writes:
> The ethical value individuals are said to have discovered in this "practical process"
must have existed in some sense prior to their discovery of it, no? Perhaps it's a
sense derivable from, heaven forbid, Plato.
Could it not exist within the matrix of their brains/life experiences, where they discovered that certain actions reduced suffering and others increased it?
What do we need Plato for?
Brian Dauth Incoherent Surreal Queer Buddhist Resister