"The less one knows about biology and evolution, the more plausible natural law theory is."
I was going to say any discussion of "natural law" that fails to consider evolution is avoiding recognizing the truly natural (genetic) vs. cultural elements of morality, law, and norms in general.
Trying to remove "Nature's God" from "Nature" must in turn force a look at what remains of natural law, right? Some people seem to want to emphasize natural law as derived from "reason" alone, but an awful lot of reason is cultural norming.
I'm afraid that if the EU continues on its current trajectory, the old blind psychic lady Baba Vanga will be right. All of Europe will be Muslim by 2076 or so. Somebody needs to change direction quickly.
Some years ago, I got very interested in the history of money, which turns out arises through very similar mechanisms as customary law and in the same sorts of societies.
"The less one knows about biology and evolution, the more plausible natural law theory is."
The idea of a natural law based society - as in anarchy, or voluntaryism as it's now more often called - is appealing given how hopelessly corrupted our "democratic" processes have become. But I can't find my way past the barrier of exactly this: biology and human nature. How would we keep from regressing to the place in history where much of our time was spent defending our property and person?
The price we're paying for not wanting to go back there is high though, and if the last four years is any indication, it's growing ever steeper.
It was a great read until the comments on Mearsheimer. Your view of continental anarchy does not seem to me to be dissimilar to his view of international anarchy, and if the differences are about splitting hairs, then it just subtracts from the rest of the essay. And it's framed from a tell not show perspective, whereas it might have been more interesting to engage with the material, even though it's tangential to the essay.
Moving along. So basically until we get a global state which can impose laws and enforce punishment, we'll always get sucked back into anarchy, continental or international?
What about soft power? Could a plausible argument be made that since there is no international law outside a convention entered into voluntarily, the commercial maritime order enforced by the USA, engaging in colour revolutions and Civil society led meddling (in general) in other countries, is a throwback to an anarchical state of affairs?
But my point—well, Dr Paine’s, but I am fleshing out aspects thereof—is that there are two competing international systems and Mearsheimer wants to analyse the world as if the second, continental anarchy, applies everywhere and the point is, it doesn’t.
The US over-reaches at times. Mearsheimer is not wrong about that. But such over-reaches turn out to be much less disruptive than they might be because the post 1900 US has not been a territorially acquisitive Power.
How much the colour revolutions are indigenous is a bit of an open question, particularly in light of the USAID revelations. But they only work because of genuine local dissatisfactions—those are not manufactured.
A world government would be a really bad idea. Nation-states are as far as one can go with any substantial accountability.
The maritime order creates a half-way house that actually works remarkable well.
Presumably because then there is at least the possibilty of "exit" from a tyrannical or anarchic realm, both physically and logically/ intellectually.
Also, as humans are now at the top of the predator chain, it is important that the option of state vs. state competition (friendly or less so) keeps us challenged, engaged, and "moving forward". We might not continue to evolve without it?
While I'm largely on board, I think the perfunctory dismissal of Natural law doesn't do justice to a fairly well-developed school of thought. I'm not a lawyer (and I am a deist), but I've found much of what I've read on this (including from Australian Samuel Gregg) persuasive.
"The less one knows about biology and evolution, the more plausible natural law theory is."
I was going to say any discussion of "natural law" that fails to consider evolution is avoiding recognizing the truly natural (genetic) vs. cultural elements of morality, law, and norms in general.
Trying to remove "Nature's God" from "Nature" must in turn force a look at what remains of natural law, right? Some people seem to want to emphasize natural law as derived from "reason" alone, but an awful lot of reason is cultural norming.
Exactly so.
I'm afraid that if the EU continues on its current trajectory, the old blind psychic lady Baba Vanga will be right. All of Europe will be Muslim by 2076 or so. Somebody needs to change direction quickly.
Just saying, I find law which arises by custom so fascinating. I think it’s one reason I love the common law so much.
Some years ago, I got very interested in the history of money, which turns out arises through very similar mechanisms as customary law and in the same sorts of societies.
Ha! You and Herr Professor Moeller are opening my eyes to all this MORALITY business:
https://www.youtube.com/@carefreewandering
Achtung! He´s a lefty.
"The less one knows about biology and evolution, the more plausible natural law theory is."
The idea of a natural law based society - as in anarchy, or voluntaryism as it's now more often called - is appealing given how hopelessly corrupted our "democratic" processes have become. But I can't find my way past the barrier of exactly this: biology and human nature. How would we keep from regressing to the place in history where much of our time was spent defending our property and person?
The price we're paying for not wanting to go back there is high though, and if the last four years is any indication, it's growing ever steeper.
This was a fascinating read, thanks!
It was a great read until the comments on Mearsheimer. Your view of continental anarchy does not seem to me to be dissimilar to his view of international anarchy, and if the differences are about splitting hairs, then it just subtracts from the rest of the essay. And it's framed from a tell not show perspective, whereas it might have been more interesting to engage with the material, even though it's tangential to the essay.
Moving along. So basically until we get a global state which can impose laws and enforce punishment, we'll always get sucked back into anarchy, continental or international?
What about soft power? Could a plausible argument be made that since there is no international law outside a convention entered into voluntarily, the commercial maritime order enforced by the USA, engaging in colour revolutions and Civil society led meddling (in general) in other countries, is a throwback to an anarchical state of affairs?
But my point—well, Dr Paine’s, but I am fleshing out aspects thereof—is that there are two competing international systems and Mearsheimer wants to analyse the world as if the second, continental anarchy, applies everywhere and the point is, it doesn’t.
The US over-reaches at times. Mearsheimer is not wrong about that. But such over-reaches turn out to be much less disruptive than they might be because the post 1900 US has not been a territorially acquisitive Power.
How much the colour revolutions are indigenous is a bit of an open question, particularly in light of the USAID revelations. But they only work because of genuine local dissatisfactions—those are not manufactured.
A world government would be a really bad idea. Nation-states are as far as one can go with any substantial accountability.
The maritime order creates a half-way house that actually works remarkable well.
"A world government would be a really bad idea. "
Presumably because then there is at least the possibilty of "exit" from a tyrannical or anarchic realm, both physically and logically/ intellectually.
Also, as humans are now at the top of the predator chain, it is important that the option of state vs. state competition (friendly or less so) keeps us challenged, engaged, and "moving forward". We might not continue to evolve without it?
Yes. Civilisations that politically unify tend to technologically and institutinally stagnate.
"The less one knows about biology and evolution, the more plausible natural law theory is."
That'll be a shock to the leader of the Human Genome Project, Francis S Collins....
https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/The_Language_of_God/JcMCmBnpHGsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover
While I'm largely on board, I think the perfunctory dismissal of Natural law doesn't do justice to a fairly well-developed school of thought. I'm not a lawyer (and I am a deist), but I've found much of what I've read on this (including from Australian Samuel Gregg) persuasive.
It seems I will have to do a post on this. As soon as I can articulate my intuitions a bit more clearly.