This is JasonP's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following JasonP's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
That may come from the Associated Press. Fox is running the same headline:
Those on Harry's Place are an exception--a welcomed exception--but sill too rare. (I used to post there myself as did Mary Jackson.) I support those on both the left and right that are facing the threat of Islam. PS Tommy had his heart in the right place but we do need more intellectual leaders now.
Toggle Commented Oct 10, 2013 on "Beheading the EDL" at Atlas Shrugs
If anyone doubts we are fighting hate, read the above.
Toggle Commented Oct 10, 2013 on "Beheading the EDL" at Atlas Shrugs
Some in the media are rightly suggesting that this is likely a jihadi attack. Rep. King did it on O'Reilly but Bill inserted a staunch warning that we can't assume anything. Bull! Give the last 20 years of jihadi attacks we can make assumptions (and revise them if the evidence suggests). Here is how it is done: My educated guess would be self-radicalized Islamic extremists from the area. L. A. Times, April 15, 2013, 9:30pm,0,3750657.story
Let’s explore and describe our differences to see if we understand each other. You are correct that man’s positive law is embodied in the institution of government. However, your alternative seems to be God’s positive law. I talk about the distinction between God’s positive law (revelation) and natural law in the context of our founding fathers here. In that essay I argue that Grotius explains the distinction clearly. Your concept of moral law seems to be God’s positive law--i.e. his commandments and covenants asserted and willed by Him. X is good if He so wills it. Reading your exposition I’m struck by symmetry between your thesis and the antithesis. You note that I can’t argue with a Marxist if they don’t hold my summum bonum of human life as the standard of value. Quite true. But you can’t argue with a Mohammadan if they don’t hold your source of revelation to the the true one. They will continue to demand that you submit or face death just as much as the Marxist will demand that I submit and serve. The inability in either case to convince our foes doesn’t prove our position is epistemologically and morally weak. However, if you hold that life is the standard of value (let’s hold off on the “why” for now) than I think you and I would have substantial agreement on medicine, economics, political science, and (I suspect) fundamental political principles. My position (which I’m not defending at this moment) is that the “good” is by definition that which furthers human life. Good always raises the question "good for what?" I'd argue "good" means "good for life." Your position, as I understand it, is that such a definition is arbitrary; and, I think, you imply that a rights-respecting order that underwrites human prosperity would be unlikely without His commandment to make life a supreme value. Thus, a doctor can’t label smoking “bad” unless God tells him that life is good. We can’t know that the 150 million killed by communism is bad unless God tell us. Nor can we be horrified and morally outraged at the jihadi attacks on 9/11 unless we ascertain which religious texts are the true word of God. There is no “good” until we ask God what is “the good” and correctly hear his response. Do I understand your position?
1 reply
Very nice discussion, Mr. Duke, but you present a false alternative. It’s subtly implicit in your text here: “So a just law must reflect morality, but what is morality? Who determines it? There are only two possibilities: man or something outside of man does.” You are implying that all moral law is positive law with the only question being who posits the law: man or God. You leave out the possibility that law is discovered in nature. Let’s consider the statement “smoking two packs of cigarettes is bad.” This, of course, was discovered. It wasn’t posited by God and told to Moses. Nor was it posited by government. It was discovered. Such excessive smoking harms health and threatens one’s life. Now let’s assert that the institution of private property is good. This, too, was discovered. Almost all societies (Christian and pagan) realized, to some degree, that production is to be encouraged and long-range projects undertaking (like farming) some respect for private property is required. Locke abstracted this truth and showed it was an absolute right by arguing that reasoned productive activity requires it. Marx argued against it and famine, slaughter, and suffering followed. Thus, empirical evidence established the importance of private property to human life just as absolutely as medicine discovers the rules to lead a healthy life with respect to physiology. Now if you want to say nature’s laws (physics, medicine, ethical) are authored by nature’s creator and are therefore His laws, please do so. But in that case they clearly can be discovered by examining his works, i.e. nature, whether one reads His word or not.
1 reply
Paul is such an embarrassment. Yes, he has a sound understanding of economics but sadly he makes it seem silly. And to that his naive view of foreign threats and he is laughable. Of course, we all want the USA to avoid foreign wars and the over-extension that comes with policing the world. But deluding oneself about the vicious nature of an enemy will only embolden them. Jihadists attack people all over the world as the list of 17,000 attacks (see shows us. Ron Paul would say the Muslims have been provoked and never to blame? He’s mental.
Toggle Commented Aug 28, 2011 on Ron Paul Blames US for 911 Attacks at Atlas Shrugs
We know they have been waiting years for this. Ever since 9/11 they have been beating the same drum: criticism of Islam is hatred that will lead to violence. Time and time against they sought to suppress any critical examination of Islam and the daily violence done in its name. With Breivik a decade of vicious vilification of us and our efforts has built-up to an intense fury that was unleashed without reason, thought, or sanity in a single second. You have to be the villain because their whole worldview depends on it. This has to be the evidence because without it they have nothing. The attempts to silence us will be intense. This is what Breivik wanted. He wanted to prove that liberal culture and open debate are not possible. He believes that only violent revolution and millennial upheaval can bring reform. He's wrong--dead wrong. We are fighting the illiberal hate at the core of radical Islam because we believe in a decent open liberal society. Only open debate can bring that about. Only intellectual discourse can secure it.
Toggle Commented Aug 1, 2011 on Evil Unleashed at Atlas Shrugs
Capitalist whores will sell anything. Crony capitalists are the worse. As Lenin noted "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." Of course our government funds Hamas (via the UN and with so-called humanitarian aid) as well as many other Islamist regimes. Following by example?
Congrats! You made the honor roll. Keep up the good work.
Toggle Commented Jun 22, 2011 on SPLC's Jihad Against America at Atlas Shrugs
Awesome! I was worried about the fellow and had lost track of the story.Thanks for the update. I'll give the ACLU credit on this one. PS We'll have to educate Christie.
Thanks Dagny. It has been over two years and I miss George even though I only know him from the 'net. I wish Cubed the best. I'm glad you posted an update. In liberty, Jason Pappas.
The list of things that offend decent people: 1. Nazism 2. Communism 3. Islam
1 reply
It’s very important the Tancredo is running. He can help shape the debate. He can show that there’s “a market” for someone with his views. If there is a more electable candidate who is sympathetic to these issues but wasn’t sure there was a constituency, Tom can help bring these issues to the front burner. Thanks to AOW & Nanc linking here.
Toggle Commented Jan 18, 2007 on Tom Tancredo is Running at The Amboy Times
1 reply
32 ... Kemp. Farmer John is more conservative than me! That's a surprise. It must be my libertarian tendencies.
1 reply
Tancredo is saying what has to be said. Bush is not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. He’s a decent fellow but we must criticize his positions if the future Republican Party returns to the Goldwater/Reagan roots that make the Republicans a real alternative.
1 reply