Hi Jim,

>Doug,
>
>SNIP
>>
>>Not just America Mike. Humanity itself. You're quite correct that many many folks think the fighting is nuts. I do. That won't stop it though. You are aware that in all of recorded history that only about 200 years or so have been 100% war-free. That's 200 out of about 6000 years Mike. And you think I'm being unrealistic or naive perhaps? <g>
>
>
>Confining my comments to this statement and some earlier related stuff...
>
>First, no argument from me that man's history shows a propensity to settle disagreements through force.
>But you are in the enviable position of having things both ways when you say "...being unrealistic or naive...".

<g>



>
>On the one hand you dismiss international law on the basis of 'reality' and there being no one to enforce it anyway. In another case you've dismissed the Supreme Court's stand(s) on religion because you know it is wrong and because it is, as you describe it, catering to the (much despised) LIBERAL bent. Things like this sound remarkably similar to an anarchist's point of view to me.

No.. I dismiss international law (in some, not all cases) on the basis on national soverignity. I think that it (national sov.) takes precidence. With some internation law, where we are signatory and where we have not ceeded our soverignity I'd think we should follow the law. OTOH, I do not think that an international court should be able to change national law or impose taxes upon any nation. That's for the various nations to work out through negotiations and so forth. As far as dismissing the Supreme Court's stand(s) on any position I thin a more careful reading of my posts will remind you that I almost always remind folks that regardless of where they stand I think that we sholuld all obey the laws. I think taking the 10 commandments out of the classroom has been one of the most damaging things we've ever done. If you want to engage in civil disobedience (the peaceful kind) andpost a copy then I'd support you but I would also warn you that there are consequences. We do still have the right of redress you know.. Until then we should all follow the law. I wil stop following the law if it requires me to reject my faith though. In that case I will respectfully disobey man's laws in favor of God's. Other than that - obey the law but use your right of redress to get them changed to more accurately reflect your own views. Isn't that was participatory Republican Democracy is all about???

Now.. Bigger picture question time: Name one form or type of government that has trully succeeded in all of time.

Answer: 0

I think ours was truly revolutionary in that power was derived from the bottom up rather than the top down - as a direct attempt to protect against top-down corruption, but it has fallen to the level of our commonly shared morality, which is falling through the floor.

>
>Using "reality" as a guide, wouldn't I be able to argue that robbery happens too so I can ignore that law? Or murder? Or all of the others?
>
>I contend that mankind's propensity to settle arguments through war is not a reflection of mankind itself.

??

What is it a reflection of then? Dolphins? <g>

EEekk.. Eeekk eeekkk..EEEEk! <g>

Cows??

Mooo Moooo mooo moo!! *bang*

< bg>

(just funnin.. )

>What you have is a leader who uses his military power to 'settle' some argument in his favour. His people do as they are told and go and take whatever is at issue. The harmed leader then declares a war and people who do as they are told - go out and fight that war. So, at best, the reflection is on that of "leaders". Leaders who invoke their power, the people doing as they are told.

Really?? Then what forces someone to steal his neighbor's car? Dolphins? <g>

Look, at the risk of pointing out the ridiculously obvious and insulting you it is humans that do these things to other humans..


>Please don't argue that the people don't "have to" go out and fight. We all know that they do. Way back it was because they simply were subservient to the leaders, and later it was because propaganda had confirmed the rightiousness of their cause.

So, no one except the leaders have a free will??

I must admit I'm confused here. There are things like coups and elections and assassinations and so forth. Some good, most not so good.

>
>The system of laws that has been developed over the years has lots of imperfections, especially when viewed from the point of view of individual cases. But it is built on the premise that it is the collective intention to follow any law that is adopted.

Sure but what many folks are missing is that underneath all law is the fundamental presumption that in God's eyes all men are treated equally. The Magna Carta was, if I correctly recall, a stupendous event in that it suggested that the King was mortal and subject to the laws of nature and man.


>To argue that someone else's flout entitles you to a flout too is to destroy the basis of law, and this is true regardless of there being enforcement or not. In fact it can be argued that laws have always depended on enforcement by self and community far more than on enforcement by authority.

Well, I don't think we disagree here. I do not think that because others disobey laws that this gives me the right to so do, if that's your point.