[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted:02/25/02 8:18am In reply to:
ozboy
's message, "Laws, Laws and more bloody Laws" on 02/25/02 8:02am
>from Primordial: Do conventional laws wreak havoc on
>natural laws? Why? because natural laws do not protect
>the weak; conventional laws do. Any comments?
>
>>>> ??? ... I'm a bit lost there! ... natural laws
>don't really protect anyone! ... conventional laws do
>all the protecting ... I mean! ... what is a natural
>law? ... night after day or floods killing us or
>earthquakes or us wanting to kill each other for some
>reason?
You misunderstood the question; it does indeed state that conventional laws do the protecting, i.e. of the weak. Natural Law?.....these are not human derived. Survival of the fittest is one example. This is my fault...I should havae been more specific.
>
>... to say that conventional laws wreak havoc on
>natural laws suggests that natural laws are
>automatically good and if a natural law is something
>like a flood ... then the common law stops us from
>building in a flood prone area which will probably
>save our lives .... so therefore the statute law
>supports the natural law of our survival.
I tend to disagree with your idea that wreaking havoc on the "survival of the fittest" theme automatically assumes that natural Laws are good. This is a jump in logic. The people building in the flood plane lack enough intelligence and will pass on this "quality" to their progeny. Survival of the fittest demands that these people "not pass on their genes". Conventional law is allowing the passage of a weaker lineage to the masses. What will time do to this equation?
>
>
>anyway ... try this!
I will reply to the rest later.
