Life - How Should It Be Viewed?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Society & Politics



A big aspect of "society/Our life" is how we govern ourselves. It is through our "Politicians".


Bob A (Believer in Democracy; questioning whether their are flaws in our system)

Giving politicians the power to govern us is the biggest blunder we have made. They do not run in elections to serve us, and do it to become rich by hook or by crook. Libertarianism can give us back our freedom from the corruption of politicians...

[Bob Armstrong]

Society & Politics

When one discusses how we should view life, we need to get an accurate handle on how general society is functioning.

A big aspect of "society/Our life" is how we govern ourselves. It is through our "Politicians".

Our politicians present themselves to the elector in an "election campaign", usually after having to go through an arduous nomination process within the political party they are wishing to represent, and whose policies the espouse.

Now, GENERALLY, one is taught to tell the truth; it seems the "Natural Law" of Libertarianism holds the same. But the reality is that ethics/morality are situational, and there have to be exceptions to the more absolute rule (See the book, Situation Ethics).

How does this apply to a politician in an election campaign? Can we expect from our politicians the TRUTH?

If NOT, why not?

And is this rationale justifiable in the sense that society somehow "benefits" on a cost/benefit analysis from politicians lying to the elector?

Bob A (Believer in Democracy; questioning whether their are flaws in our system)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Thanks Pargat:

"STRASBOURG, France (AP) — Europe’s highest human rights court ruled Tuesday (24/4/9) that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change, siding with a group of older Swiss women against their government in a landmark ruling that could have implications across the continent.

....the Swiss case.....sets a legal precedent in the Council of Europe’s 46 member states against which future lawsuits will be judged.

“This is a turning point,” said Corina Heri, an expert in climate change litigation at the University of Zurich.

Although activists have had success with lawsuits in domestic proceedings, this was the first time an international court ruled on climate change — and the first decision confirming that countries have an obligation to protect people from its effects, according to Heri.

She said it would open the door to more legal challenges in the countries that are members of the Council of Europe, which includes the 27 EU nations as well as many others from Britain to Turkey."

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/tops...pe/ar-BB1lmyvo

Bob A

Too bad Sid was not called upon to enlighten those 'judges'... he would have explained to them quite elaborately that the harm caused by the Swiss authorities enforcing the climate change agenda would be a myriad times higher than what the plaintiffs claimed to have suffered, and the 'compensation' for the plaintiffs would be only a tiny miniscule of the 'compensation' to everyone if the climate change activists had their way...

[Bob Armstrong]

Thanks Pargat:

"STRASBOURG, France (AP) — Europe’s highest human rights court ruled Tuesday (24/4/9) that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change, siding with a group of older Swiss women against their government in a landmark ruling that could have implications across the continent.

....the Swiss case.....sets a legal precedent in the Council of Europe’s 46 member states against which future lawsuits will be judged.

“This is a turning point,” said Corina Heri, an expert in climate change litigation at the University of Zurich.

Although activists have had success with lawsuits in domestic proceedings, this was the first time an international court ruled on climate change — and the first decision confirming that countries have an obligation to protect people from its effects, according to Heri.

She said it would open the door to more legal challenges in the countries that are members of the Council of Europe, which includes the 27 EU nations as well as many others from Britain to Turkey."

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/tops...pe/ar-BB1lmyvo

Bob A

[Pargat Perrer]

The Natural Law enforcement would ensure that if any damage is done to the Nature which is owned by all humanity, the ones doing the damage have to appropriately compensate to the others for it.

And here we go ... "the climate crisis is a human rights crisis" ....

Switzerland just got legally convicted of denying human rights by failing to curb fossil fuel emissions.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/tops...pe/ar-BB1lmyvo

This is now legal precedent! Dilip, you can finally admit that you want to stop all fossil fuel burning on Earth because it's against "Natural Law".

EDIT: maybe you can get a photo of yourself with the Swedish girl that is the voice of the environmental movement ... Greta something ... Thunberg? You can be there beside her with thumbs up as she was in the court when the verdict was announced.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

My Post # 110: "Please provide me with your source for such an unusual, in my mind, position" (Dilip's # 106, # 109 & # 112); not answered; position just repeated by Dilip.

Pargat has weighed in on this debate about Trump; any other CT'ers have a position?

Bob A (Theist Community)

There is nothing unusual about the notion that the 'religious right' in the US, which forms a large chunk of Trump's support, would dump him if he openly declares that he is an atheist. It is possible that they do know that he is an atheist, but can tolerate that so long he pretends not to be so!!:-)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

My Post # 110: "Please provide me with your source for such an unusual, in my mind, position" (Dilip's # 106, # 109 & # 112); not answered; position just repeated by Dilip.

Pargat has weighed in on this debate about Trump; any other CT'ers have a position?

Bob A (Theist Community)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

I am a theist.

I have many friends who are atheist.

None of them have ever indicated to me public prejudice by being quite open about their atheism, when someone has inquired. And my friends have been open like this. Neither has it affected any of their careers.

There is more tolerance in society generally, across the world, concerning whether someone is Theist, Christian, Islam, Hindu, Jewish, agnostic or atheist (Though unfortunately, such prejudice does exist, and more strongly in some localities than others.)

If this is true, then I find it hard to believe that "politicians" (Such as Donald Trump) are an "exception" to the general rule that there is tolerance.

I do not believe that in this day, a politician must "hide" their atheism behind a false facade of "Christianity" (As you agree that Trump is in fact doing) in order to be a successful politician. Please provide me with your source for such an unusual, in my mind, position.

Bob A (Theist Community - I personally have not suffered in any way by being open about the fact that I moved from Christianity to Theism)

Hi Bob,
In the USA, there is separation of State from Religion, and a general understanding that a person's religion should have no bearing on his functioning as a Statesman; and yet, you know very well that Trump will get totally, unfairly dumped if he ever declares that he is an atheist. So despite you trying to defend it, your conclusion is just not true, and you should know it...

[Pargat Perrer]

The Natural Law enforcement would ensure that if any damage is done to the Nature which is owned by all humanity, the ones doing the damage have to appropriately compensate to the others for it.

Do you Dilip have a $ figure for the damages owed to humanity by all the burning of fossil fuels since industrialization? And who exactly owes these damages?

It really seems that Libertarianism, if it ever came to power in Canada or USA, must necessarily (by its Natural Law edicts) hunt down and prosecute all fossil fuel producers as well as all companies who have benefitted by burning of fossil fuels. The logistics of that process stagger the imagination.

But of course none of this will ever happen. Libertarianism coming to power? LOL LOL LOL

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

I am a theist.

I have many friends who are atheist.

None of them have ever indicated to me public prejudice by being quite open about their atheism, when someone has inquired. And my friends have been open like this. Neither has it affected any of their careers.

There is more tolerance in society generally, across the world, concerning whether someone is Theist, Christian, Islam, Hindu, Jewish, agnostic or atheist (Though unfortunately, such prejudice does exist, and more strongly in some localities than others.)

If this is true, then I find it hard to believe that "politicians" (Such as Donald Trump) are an "exception" to the general rule that there is tolerance.

I do not believe that in this day, a politician must "hide" their atheism behind a false facade of "Christianity" (As you agree that Trump is in fact doing) in order to be a successful politician. Please provide me with your source for such an unusual, in my mind, position.

Bob A (Theist Community - I personally have not suffered in any way by being open about the fact that I moved from Christianity to Theism)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Anyone expressing his or her opinion is NOT deplorable. That you would say it is deplorable hints at your true nature, i.e. no opinions should be allowed in the police state of Libertarianism.

This is perfectly in keeping with your track record, calling anyone who isn't "hard-working" elite is good for nothing.

Calling it deplorable is not the same as preventing Bob A from expressing his deplorable opinion, as he does in post # 108. Libertarianism never forcibly prevents anyone from expressing their opinion. In our society, just like LGBTQ persons have had to hide their true nature, not for evil purposes, but to avoid illegitimate harm to themselves by people out to wipe out what they consider, without any justification, as harmful to society, so have atheist politicians had to do the same.

[Bob Armstrong]

One should not, for evil purposes, hide one's atheism behind a "Christian" front.

Bob A

[Pargat Perrer]

In Libertarianism, individuals/groups would be free to practice spirituality or a religion of their choice, of course... in keeping with individual liberty...
On the other hand, when Bob A implies that Trump is bad because he is atheist or because he hides that he is atheist, it is as deplorable as someone saying that an LGBTQ person is bad because he/she is so or because he/she is hiding that he/she is so...

Anyone expressing his or her opinion is NOT deplorable. That you would say it is deplorable hints at your true nature, i.e. no opinions should be allowed in the police state of Libertarianism.

This is perfectly in keeping with your track record, calling anyone who isn't "hard-working" elite is good for nothing.

[Dilip Panjwani]

This denies the key aspect of every human soul ... the need for spiritual sustenance. Even in places like China and Russia, you see underground spiritual related activities, probably going on far more than reported.

In Libertarianism, individuals/groups would be free to practice spirituality or a religion of their choice, of course... in keeping with individual liberty...
On the other hand, when Bob A implies that Trump is bad because he is atheist or because he hides that he is atheist, it is as deplorable as someone saying that an LGBTQ person is bad because he/she is so or because he/she is hiding that he/she is so...

[Dilip Panjwani]

By definition ... we have already proven that Libertarianism's Natural Law must be against all burning of fossil fuels, because the definition of "fair" has been provided in this very thread by Dilip as not using any means to cause harm to others .... fossil fuels cause harm to others, there is no debate about that. Therefore Libertarianism must legislate against use of fossil fuels.

The Natural Law enforcement would ensure that if any damage is done to the Nature which is owned by all humanity, the ones doing the damage have to appropriately compensate to the others for it.