Politics

[Whiskeyjack]

Parents' authority over their children is part of natural law. State authority over citizens is arbitrary.

Merely asserting Kirk's position doesn't make it true. The state's authority over its citizens is of the same nature as a father's over his child. Aquinas in De Regno:

[3] In all things which are ordered towards an end, wherein this or that course may be adopted, some directive principle is needed through which the due end may be reached by the most direct route. A ship, for example, which moves in different directions. according to the impulse of the changing winds, would never reach its destination were it not brought to port by the skill of the pilot. Now, man has an end to which his whole life and all his actions are ordered; for man is an intelligent agent, and it is clearly the part of an intelligent agent to act in view of an end. Men also adopt different methods in proceeding towards their proposed end, as the diversity of men’s pursuits and actions clearly indicates. Consequently man needs some directive principle to guide him towards his end.

[4] To be sure, the light of reason is placed by nature in every man, to guide him in his acts towards his end. Wherefore, if man were intended to live alone, as many animals do, he would require no other guide to his end. Each man would be a king unto himself, under God, the highest King, inasmuch as he would direct himself in his acts by the light of reason given him from on high. Yet it is natural for man, more than for any other animal, to be a social and political animal, Footnote to live in a group.

[5] This is clearly a necessity of man’s nature.

For all other animals, nature has prepared food, hair as a covering, teeth, horns, claws as means of defence or at least speed in flight, while man alone was made without any natural provisions for these things. Instead of all these, man was endowed with reason, by the use of which he could procure all these things for himself by the work of his hands. Now, one man alone is not able to procure them all for himself, for one man could not sufficiently provide for life, unassisted. It is therefore natural that man should live in the society of many

...

[9] Indeed it is reasonable that this should happen, for what is proper and what is common are not identical. Things differ by what is proper to each: they are united by what they have in common. But diversity of effects is due to diversity of causes. Consequently, there must exist something which impels towards the common good of the many, over and above that which impels towards the particular good of each individual. Wherefore also in all things that are ordained towards one end, one thing is found to rule the rest. Thus in the corporeal universe, by the first body, i.e. the celestial body, the other bodies are regulated according to the order of Divine Providence; and all bodies are ruled by a rational creature. So, too in the individual man, the soul rules the body; and among the parts of the soul, the irascible and the concupiscible parts are ruled by reason. Likewise, among the members of a body, one, such as the heart or the head, is the principal and moves all the others. Therefore in every multitude there must be some governing power.

 

[wizards8507]

Merely asserting Kirk's position doesn't make it true. The state's authority over its citizens is of the same nature as a father's over his child. Aquinas in De Regno:

"In all things which are ordered towards an end..."

What is the telos of the United States or any modern state, whether in principle or practice? We murder hundreds of thousands of babies in their mothers' wombs every year, so forgive me if I summarily dismiss any argument built on the premise that we're somehow one people "ordered towards an end." If we are, it certainly ain't to know, love, and serve the Lord.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

"In all things which are ordered towards an end..."

What is the telos of the United States or any modern state, whether in principle or practice? We murder hundreds of thousands of babies in their mothers' wombs every year, so forgive me if I summarily dismiss any argument built on the premise that we're somehow one people "ordered towards an end."

Our nation was founded by heretics and Freemasons, so it's no surprise that America encourages that kind of evil today. But the existence of negligent mothers or abusive fathers isn't an argument against the natural authority of parents any more so than the existence of evil regimes is an argument against the natural authority of the state.

 

[wizards8507]

Our nation was founded by heretics and Freemasons, so it's no surprise that America encourages that kind of evil today. But the existence of negligent mothers or abusive fathers isn't an argument against the natural authority of parents any more so than the existence of evil regimes is an argument against the natural authority of the state.

...the natural authority of ONE state, i.e. the Holy Roman Empire.

 

[Irish YJ]

Isn't natural order and natural law more or less order and law derived from nature in the absence of man's construct of law? And if that's the case, a parent's relation to a child can be asserted "naturally", but man's relation to the state is based on certain constructs of law, and not natural at all? It's been a while since my Foolosophy days.

 

[wizards8507]

Isn't natural order and natural law more or less order and law derived from nature in the absence of man's construct of law? And if that's the case, a parent's relation to a child can be asserted "naturally", but man's relation to the state is based on certain constructs of law, and not natural at all? It's been a while since my Foolosophy days.

""""Gubmint is your daddy."
- Jesus"
- Whiskeyjack"
- Wayne Gretzsky"
- Michael Scott

 

[Irish YJ]

"""Gubmint is your daddy"
- Jesus"
- Whiskeyjack"
- Michael Scott

My favorite bumper sticker of all time

 

[Whiskeyjack]

...the natural authority of ONE state, i.e. the Holy Roman Empire.

Or the Catholic Empire of Our Lady of Guadalupe of the Americas. But to your point, an integrated Catholic state would be a more perfect authority than other sorts due to its orientation toward the fullness of the truth in the Church, but it's authority wouldn't be different in kind than other governments. Just as Christian parents should raise their children better, but the nature of their authority isn't different in kind from pagan parents.

Isn't natural order and natural law more or less order and law derived from nature in the absence of man's construct of law? And if that's the case, a parent's relation to a child can be asserted "naturally", but man's relation to the state is based on certain constructs of law, and not natural at all? It's been a while since my Foolosophy days.

Natural law is that which can be deduced by human reason alone, unaided by divine revelation. For instance, that human sexuality is primarily ordered toward procreation, and that marriage is primarily ordered toward the raising of children, are both truths that can be deduced without reference to the Bible. Contrast that with, say, the Trinity, which we never could have figured out without revelation. Plato and Aristotle are great examples of the former.

 

[Wild Bill]

Charlie Kirk: “No!!!!!! It is not government’s role to take care of it’s citizens.”

"In all things which are ordered towards an end..."

What is the telos of the United States or any modern state, whether in principle or practice? We murder hundreds of thousands of babies in their mothers' wombs every year, so forgive me if I summarily dismiss any argument built on the premise that we're somehow one people "ordered towards an end." If we are, it certainly ain't to know, love, and serve the Lord.

"Conservatives" - How did this happen?

 

[Irish YJ]

Or the Catholic Empire of Our Lady of Guadalupe of the Americas. But to your point, an integrated Catholic state would be a more perfect authority than other sorts due to its orientation toward the fullness of the truth in the Church, but it's authority wouldn't be different in kind than other governments. Just as Christian parents should raise their children better, but the nature of their authority isn't different in kind from pagan parents.



Natural law is that which can be deduced by human reason alone, unaided by divine revelation. For instance, that human sexuality is primarily ordered toward procreation, and that marriage is primarily ordered toward the raising of children, are both truths that can be deduced without reference to the Bible. Contrast that with, say, the Trinity, which we never could have figured out without revelation. Plato and Aristotle are great examples of the former.

The link you provided also says:

In philosophy, the natural order is the moral source from which natural law seeks to derive its authority. Natural order encompasses the natural relations of beings to one another in the absence of law, which natural law attempts to reinforce.

And I like Websters def

the orderly system comprising the physical universe and functioning according to natural as distinguished from human or supernatural laws

based on both defs, I'd say that natural law in no means purely supports the state's authority over man (unless you want to do mental gymnastics). i'd actually say natural order would simply say that the state's authority over man is a construct accepted by man, due to man's natural fear, man's natural need to seek community, or in some cases man's (those in power) natural need to dominate other men.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Or the Catholic Empire of Our Lady of Guadalupe of the Americas. But to your point, an integrated Catholic state would be a more perfect authority than other sorts due to its orientation toward the fullness of the truth in the Church, but it's authority wouldn't be different in kind than other governments. Just as Christian parents should raise their children better, but the nature of their authority isn't different in kind from pagan parents.

I weep in desire of this

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The link you provided also says:



And I like Websters def


based on both defs, I'd say that natural law in no means purely supports the state's authority over man (unless you want to do mental gymnastics). i'd actually say natural order would simply say that the state's authority over man is a construct accepted by man, due to man's natural fear, man's natural need to seek community, or in some cases man's (those in power) natural need to dominate other men.

See the bits I shared from Aquinas' De regno above. That's reasoning from natural law. He's not resorting to Scripture or dogma, but demonstrating how man is a political animal, always lives in community, and therefore requires some form of government to coordinate/ direct the body politic toward the Common Good.

It's also important to note that the "State of Nature" described by liberal philosophers never really existed, and the stateless utopia imagined by libertarians has never existed anywhere at any point in human history. Government is natural to human beings.

 

[wizards8507]

Government is natural to human beings.

Kneel before me.

I said kneel!

Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It’s the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.

Loki is the bad guy, Whiskey.

Murder and rape are natural too, that doesn't mean we should codify them.

 

[GowerND11]

Loki is the bad guy, Whiskey.

Murder and rape are natural too, that doesn't mean we should codify them.

And yet, we have with war, death penalty, etc.

 

[wizards8507]

And yet, we have with war, death penalty, etc.

Are you disagreeing with me? Those things make my point. Whiskey seems to be insinuating "natural" with "good."

 

[Wild Bill]

See the bits I shared from Aquinas' De regno above. That's reasoning from natural law. He's not resorting to Scripture or dogma, but demonstrating how man is a political animal, always lives in community, and therefore requires some form of government to coordinate/ direct the body politic toward the Common Good.

It's also important to note that the "State of Nature" described by liberal philosophers never really existed, and the stateless utopia imagined by libertarians has never existed anywhere at any point in human history. Government is natural to human beings.

There are a few places in the world where we can find very limited government spending as a percentage of GDP. Utopias such as Haiti and Somalia are at 5% or less and they absolutely cannot impose any level of order on their citizens. A libertarian dream come true.

 

[wizards8507]

There are a few places in the world where we can find very limited government spending as a percentage of GDP. Utopias such as Haiti and Somalia are at 5% or less and they absolutely cannot impose any level of order on their citizens. A libertarian dream come true.

That's such a silly caricature. Statists love to dunk on libertarians by framing them all as anarchists. I don't know any serious person who denies that there are several legitimate functions of government, particularly state and local government.

 

[Wild Bill]

That's such a silly caricature. Statists love to dunk on libertarians by framing them all as anarchists. I don't know any serious person who denies that there are several legitimate functions of government, particularly state and local government.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Loki is the bad guy, Whiskey.

Murder and rape are natural too, that doesn't mean we should codify them.

Are you disagreeing with me? Those things make my point. Whiskey seems to be insinuating "natural" with "good."

Bruh, that's not what natural law means at all. Read his clip from Aquinas.

 

[GowerND11]

Are you disagreeing with me? Those things make my point. Whiskey seems to be insinuating "natural" with "good."

Moreso just stating the fact.

 

[wizards8507]

Bruh, that's not what natural law means at all. Read his clip from Aquinas.

I wasn't referring to natural law, I was referring to this:

Government is natural to human beings.

 

[zelezo vlk]

I wasn't referring to natural law, I was referring to this:

It's true though, that's what Aristotle's "Man is a political animal" means. Google his phrase and the first thing that pops up is this: "In his Politics, Aristotle believed man was a "political animal" because he is a social creature with the power of speech and moral reasoning: Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal." https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/164

Being a creatureof the polis , man is drawn by his very nature to community and governance thereof. Hence political

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Loki is the bad guy, Whiskey.

Murder and rape are natural too, that doesn't mean we should codify them.

Government doesn't require tyranny any more than family does. They're both indispensable human institutions that can be abused, but never done away with.

Virtuous parents are one of the greatest blessings anyone can receive in this life. A virtuous sovereign is similar. That good parents are so much more common than good governors ought to make us question our politics.

 

[wizards8507]

It's true though, that's what Aristotle's "Man is a political animal" means. Google his phrase and the first thing that pops up is this: "In his Politics, Aristotle believed man was a "political animal" because he is a social creature with the power of speech and moral reasoning: Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal." https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/164

Being a creatureof the polis , man is drawn by his very nature to community and governance thereof. Hence political

I understand the argument, my point is that it's a shit argument.

Man is naturally a political animal, therefore government is natural, therefore government is prima facie good.

...is no different than...

Man is naturally a murderous animal, therefore armies are natural, therefore war is prima facie good.

You can't justify government by positioning it as an outgrowth of man's natural state when man's natural state is corrupted by the Fall.

Government doesn't require tyranny any more than family does. They're both indispensable human institutions that can be abused, but never done away with.

Virtuous parents are one of the greatest blessings anyone can receive in this life. A virtuous sovereign is similar. That good parents are so much more common than good governors ought to make us question our politics.

There's no such thing as a virtuous sovereign if you place any credence whatsoever in the corrupting influence of power. It would take Christ-like self-sacrifice for someone to volunteer for such a position, let alone pursue it with the vigor and enthusiasm it takes to get through electoral politics.

 

[Irish YJ]

See the bits I shared from Aquinas' De regno above. That's reasoning from natural law. He's not resorting to Scripture or dogma, but demonstrating how man is a political animal, always lives in community, and therefore requires some form of government to coordinate/ direct the body politic toward the Common Good.

It's also important to note that the "State of Nature" described by liberal philosophers never really existed, and the stateless utopia imagined by libertarians has never existed anywhere at any point in human history. Government is natural to human beings.

Aquinas' take is flawed in that much of opinion is based on his belief in God, which is counter to the definitions of natural law (if we are speaking purely about natural law).

We also know that not all men desire community. Not all men desire a common good.

I disagree that stateless cultures never existed. Plenty of evidence say that they did. Not stateless utopias, but stateless nonetheless. Man evolved to living in "states". One could even argue that man succumbed to living in states.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Aquinas' take is flawed in that much of opinion is based on his belief in God, which is counter to the definitions of natural law (if we are speaking purely about natural law).

We also know that not all men desire community. Not all men desire a common good.

I disagree that stateless cultures never existed. Plenty of evidence say that they did. Not stateless utopias, but stateless nonetheless. Man evolved to living in "states". One could even argue that man succumbed to living in states.

That's gonna be a no for me, dawg. Cite that, provide the syllogism or something, because I want to see your reasoning on it.

As far as not all men desiring community, how many legit hermits do you know? They're very much the exception, an extreme outlier. All men desire a common good because they desire good and the common good is that which can be shared.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I understand the argument, my point is that it's a shit argument.

Man is naturally a political animal, therefore government is natural, therefore government is prima facie good.

...is no different than...

Man is naturally a murderous animal, therefore armies are natural, therefore war is prima facie good.

You can't justify government by positioning it as a naturally consequence of man's natural state when man's natural state is corrupted by the Fall.

This is a common error when thinking about the Natural Law. "Natural" in this sense doesn't mean the opposite of "artificial" (as in "occurring absent human artifice"), but as "pertaining to the purpose of things". You see this all the time when Natural Law is invoked in debates about human sexuality: "WLEL... penguins sodomize each other, bonobos masturbate compulsively, and dolphins engage in rape, so [INSERT SEXUALLY DEVIANT ACT] is natural, and taboos against it are mere social constructs."

Rather, we can deduce from the nature/ purpose of the body that human sexuality is primarily ordered toward procreation; thus, sexual activities that are not capable of producing children are disordered.

As for the state, the argument isn't that government is a necessary evil simply because humans are sinful. The argument is that humanity is disposed toward community by nature/ purpose, so that government would necessary even without the effects of Original Sin.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

There's no such thing as a virtuous sovereign if you place any credence whatsoever in the corrupting influence of power. It would take Christ-like self-sacrifice for someone to volunteer for such a position, let alone pursue it with the vigor and enthusiasm it takes to get through electoral politics.

A very long list of canonized monarchs and nobles says otherwise.

 

[wizards8507]

Maybe this is a more concise way to state my objection to the positioning of state authority as an outgrowth of parental authority:

Children are naturally children. Grown men and women are naturally parents. Maybe I'll even concede that people are naturally citizens. But nobody is naturally a governor. Everything you're laying out is fine with a hypothetical "benevolent dictator" or "virtuous sovereign" or however you want to frame it, but such a leader is no more real than the libertarian utopia you mock so readily.

 

[zelezo vlk]

A very long list of canonized monarchs and nobles says otherwise.

For flipping real, my parish's patron is a King of France