Ted Cruz campaign ad (from here)
Ted Cruz campaign ad (from here)

“We’re at war” by insanitybytes22 is one of those interesting posts that gets us thinking. Since thinking can be a rather random process, the comment thread soon rambled over to Obamacare. Since Obamacare is topical to this election, I decided to steal some material from my comment and turn it into a pro Ted Cruz post.

You don’t like Obamacare?

Vote for Ted Cruz.

Where does Cruz stand on the issue of health care? There is lots of BS out there. Hence, Michael F. Cannon wrote Clean Up Your Act, PolitiFact: Why Ted Cruz Was Right On Obamacare And Jobs to refute what the mischief makers are writing. Here is an article that is fairly specific about where Cruz stands on the issue.

As an issue, Cruz addresses the topic of Obamacare on this page: Jobs and Opportunity. Why? The health care sector is a large part of our economy. When government steps in and makes our health care decisions for us, government kills jobs and limits our opportunities.

How do I feel about Obamacare? Obamacare is too much government, and I am voting for the candidate who most wants to reduce the size of our government. I hope Ted Cruz will kill Obamacare, but I don’t think he will rid us of Medicare and Medicaid.  Just killing Obamacare, limiting the ambulance chasing, and encouraging interstate competition between insurers will be monumental tasks. Getting our government out of the health care business — if it ever happens — will most likely take decades.

What is the Christian position on how we should make our health care system work? I cannot speak for all Christians, but one message that comes from the Bible is that no man is good, not one (Romans 3:9-20). That is why the people who wrote our Constitution designed our government with numerous checks and balances.

Because it forces us to accept the involvement of politicians and bureaucrats in our health care, Obamacare outrageously violates the Constitution. Because Obamacare is blatantly unconstitutional, we know from the get-go the people who crafted the legislation cannot be trusted. The majority of Americans don’t even want Obamacare. So the notion our leaders created Obamacare for the good of the American people is absurd.

Do I have a solution for all our health care woes? Yes. Don’t get born. Don’t get old. Don’t get sick. Don’t have accidents. Failing all that, rob a bank and spend somebody else’s money. Seriously, isn’t that all devious politicians have promised us?

When our government takes money from one person and gives it to the “needy,” that is stealing. Even if it were not, our Constitution does not charter Congress to redistribute the wealth. When the Supreme Court says that it does, they have to use ridiculously convoluted arguments. For example, because the Constitution is supposedly a “living document”, judges have the discretion to amend it. However, there is an obvious problem with that argument. If we say the Constitution is “living document”, that just says the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says.

Therefore, sneakier members of the judiciary try to hide their shameless shenanigans under the guise of common law.

Our constitutional system, without our fully realizing it, has tapped into an ancient source of law, one that antedates the Constitution itself by several centuries. That ancient kind of law is the common law. The common law is a system built not on an authoritative, foundational, quasi-sacred text like the Constitution. Rather, the common law is built out of precedents and traditions that accumulate over time. Those precedents allow room for adaptation and change, but only within certain limits and only in ways that are rooted in the past. Our constitutional system has become a common law system, one in which precedent and past practices are, in their own way, as important as the written Constitution itself. A common law Constitution is a “living” Constitution, but it is also one that can protect fundamental principles against transient public opinion, and it is not one that judges (or anyone else) can simply manipulate to fit their own ideas. (from here).

Yet those  sneakier souls ignore plain words of the Constitution which must take precedence over common law. Thus, whether they admit it or not, those sneakier souls are arguing that the Constitution is a “living document”,  that judges have the discretion to amend it.

So what is the alternative? If we don’t want government-run health care, how is free market health care suppose to work? It will never work perfectly, but does anything we can devise?

What are the problems with free enterprise health care? When we get sick, it is too late to go shopping for healthcare, and some people will always procrastinate. Some people will always be poor, unable to afford a doctor. And some will always be sickly at birth, so that insurance is impractical. Nevertheless, most of us want insurance, and we can afford it.

What does insurance do for us? When we have a catastrophe, our insurance helps us to pay the bills. In addition, because insurers have market clout and can hire people with the appropriate skills, they can negotiate affordable doctor and hospital fees. Therefore, if we can and we are willing to purchase health care insurance, the main thing we need our government to do is prosecute fraud.

What about those who don’t have insurance? The solution is charity. Charity is something politicians did not invent, and government NEVER provides. Politicians just take money from some people so they can buy the votes of other people.

When we let our leaders redistribute the wealth (or health care), what is Christian about that? Doesn’t redistributing the wealth bankrupt and corrupt our government? Don’t meddlesome government regulations wreak havoc on free market solutions that work quite well for the majority of people? Why is any of that Christian?

But what about the fact the people of the United States spend too much money on health care? Do government-run solutions reduce the cost of anything? Isn’t more government involvement just going to lead to the rationing of health care? Do we want bureaucrats to decide who doctors can treat and how?

If you or I want to buy an expensive car or house, why should politicians have the right to stop us? We don’t buy health care for the “People.” We each want to buy health care for ourselves, family members, and individuals we care about. It is a cinch that few politicians actually care about the “People.” Therefore, our leaders should just have the same right to health care as the rest of us, to buy health care for themselves, family members, and people they care about.



  1. Kind of tragic and funny Tom, but we have always had insurance, and access to healthcare, even being working class. We had catastrophic insurance for major events, and paid cash for doctors visits, small amounts of cash because in those days they cut you a deal of you paid at the time of service. In addition, the community had free health clinics and the ER could never turn anyone away. We did well and raised four kids this way, always having access to both medical and dental.

    Flash forward to the Affordable Care Act, the health clinics are all now closed, people like us can no longer afford insurance, and the ER has raised it’s rates ten fold. We ourselves are actually now uninsured for the first time in nearly half a century, we’re also heavily in debt, we have no access to any healthcare of any sort, and we’re forced to pay fines for our alleged failure.

    It is what it is. Absolutely maddening however, is that people won’t listen. It’s also a system now heavily entrenched and entwined, so I don’t holdout much hope of us ever fixing it, but you never know, never say never.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. @insanitybytes22

      There is a large group of people who now have or think they have a financial benefit from big government. The worst of them are operators, people who know how to operate the system to line their pockets. When government is huge, the unethical can find dozens of ways with very little risk to line their pockets. In fact, when people try to stop them, the unethical become the accusers, not the people they are robbing.

      Look at the ethanol scam. When it does not save energy and damages our car engines, why is the government subsidizing ethanol production? Nevertheless, those perpetrating the scheme attacked Ted Cruz because he is against wasting money to feed their sacred cow.

      I suppose we should not think of this as war; we have yet to reach the point of bloodshed. Yet can you imagine the Civil War? Before it was done millions died. Soldiers. Civilians without food and without shelter. Even after the war ended, the conflict continued. The operators, scalawags and carpetbaggers continued to sow strife. The blacks suffered as persecution and hatred replaced slavery. The whites in the impoverished South had to have someone to blame and punish.

      The first casualty of war is our honor. Because we so badly want what we want, we refuse to admit the truth.


      1. You make a really good point about ethanol subsidies. I watch a similar thing happening here with solar power. Many well off people get tax breaks and subsidies for putting in solar panels the rest of us cannot afford. They than get paid by the gov and the power company for generating electricity. So who picks up the tab? The poor, who must now pay higher electric rates to keep the energy company afloat, and subsidies to motivate the well off to keep installing solar panels. It’s crazy.

        As to war, there is another kind of war, the spiritual one we fight “…against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” There’s a real fine line between engaging in a cultural war and a political war and taking up that spiritual war. The problem with politics and culture is that few of us can see the larger picture, so in upside world, I just become the greedy conservative who wants to deprive the little people of their solar panels and ethanol.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Politicians like to pick winners and losers, and the environment has provided them a wonderful excuse.

          Even in a society which is supposedly at peace has con-artists, thieves, murderers, fornicators, drunkards, …., and scheming politicians.

          Not many are the people who are at peace with God and much fewer are those at peace with other people.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Eric the Half a Troll

    If you want to use the legislature (I.e., the government) to artificially limit the potential liability of doctors who are guilty of malpractice, you believe in neither limited government nor free market healthcare.


    1. @Eric the Half a Troll, who wrote:

      If you want to use the legislature (I.e., the government) to artificially limit the potential liability of doctors who are guilty of malpractice, you believe in neither limited government nor free market healthcare.

      You are incorrect here. First, one of the appropriate roles of the original Constitutionally limited government was to provide courts to resolve such disputes, and the rules under which they would proceed. Second, the concepts of punitive damages and pain & suffering, and the current limits or guidance of those and other liabilities, were set by these courts. A change here is neither increasing nor increasing the federal government’s role.

      The free market, in a purely libertarian or anarcho-capitalism ideal, could have private enterprises who resolve such disputes, but that does not affect belief in a limited government. That short phrase “limited government” should be read as “Constitutionally limited government,” as it is universally what is intended by proponents. And those proponents, including me and Citizen Tom, are strongly in favor of a free-market healthcare approach.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Eric the Half a Troll

        If the court are Constitutionally limited government, then let them operate. They are doing their job. To use the legislature to artificially control the outcome of these cases takes control away from the “people” unnecessarily and is a form of government overreach.

        “A change here is neither increasing nor increasing the federal government’s role.”

        So your standard for what is an appropriate level of government involvement in civil disputes is whatever the government does currently. Ok.

        What I also want to know is why you wish to move against your own interest and to protect insurance companies and bad doctors. It really makes no sense. If a doctor has performed his job with such negligence that a jury feels that a really dramatic punitive damage award is warranted, why would you want to overturn their decision? How is that good use of the government?

        In terms of private enterprise resolving civil disputes, that has been tried. Binding arbitration is falling out of favor and AAA does not have the best reputation for fair resolutions. Instead they rutinely simply split the baby.


        1. @Eric the Half a Troll

          You are almost incoherent. What is the point of inferring things Keith did not say?

          The legislature is the strongest of the three branches of government. Using its constitutional powers, the legislature makes the laws, and empowers the courts to resolve disputes based upon those laws.

          Why did Keith bring up the possibility of “private enterprises who resolve such disputes”? Look at the way you used the term “artificial”? You act as if the courts just sprang into existence.

          Before responding Mr. Half a Troll, why don’t you decide which half of your brain you want to use? Will you use the one that has the capacity to reason or the trollish side which only seems to be able to nitpick?


        2. Eric the Half a Troll

          Ad hominem, Tom? A shame you must stoop so low.

          Your response ignores the fact that you simply wish to replace the current system of justice which relies on the judgement of a jury of one’s peers and replace it with the will of a bunch of politicians and in the process remove protections for me and mine and give protections to bad doctors and insurance corporations.

          What you wish to do is analogous to the Reagan and Clinton mandatory sentencing legislation. An over reach by the legislature again and BOY how that worked out!!


        3. That isn’t what Citizen Tom was saying at all, and I think you know that.

          But as an aside to “how that worked out” I would note that violent crime incidence has been reduced by about half, so it’s not ALL bad. And prison populations, while high, have been reducing in recent years.

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 1 person

  3. One of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated upon mankind is the idea that an all-powerful, all-knowing government can, the name of justice, be put in charge of social welfare (the economy, medical care, education, etc.).

    Surprisingly, people fail to notice the obvious which is that they are rejecting faith in God, who is truly all-powerful and all-knowing, for faith in a pagan idol, government.

    There is a reason why the 1st Commandment isn’t the 2nd or the 10th.

    Fear of the one true God is an absolute prerequisite for self-rule. It’s one of “the Laws of Nature,” that the Founders used to design the American Republic.

    Since the American People have been practicing idolatry in their political choices for over a century now, there can be no other conclusion than that the American Republic is long dead.

    Another proof positive of that singular tragedy is the resounding success of El Caudillo Donald Trump in this year’s GOP primary contest.

    Ted Cruz is the only high level politician in nearly 40 years who understands how to apply “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” to the pursuit of justice, that the formation of a government whose only purpose is to ensure liberty.

    Compared to El Caudillo, Ted Cruz is a distant, anemic, sloppy second.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Surprisingly, people fail to notice the obvious which is that they are rejecting faith in God, who is truly all-powerful and all-knowing, for faith in a pagan idol, government.

      I doubt most people think of the ethical issues. Most people don’t give much thought to why they pay taxes or why the government does what it does. They just think the government is suppose to do what it does competently. It does not occur to them that the government does nothing competently. It also does not occur to them that when we give the government tasks for which it is unsuited (like the distribution of charity) we corrupt our officials.

      Why don’t these things occur to us? Government runs our education system, and the mass media is largely owned by people with a vested interest in big government. Neither the people who government-run schools or those in mass media have much interest in teaching what the Bible has to say.

      Fear of the one true God is an absolute prerequisite for self-rule. It’s one of “the Laws of Nature,” that the Founders used to design the American Republic.

      The Athenians and the Romans made a pretty good stab at it. So I expect there was something redeeming in their religious beliefs. Yet it was the UK and the United States who struggled to end slavery, and Christianity motivated the abolitionists.

      El Caudillo? Since I don’t think much of Trump’s penchant for insults, ….

      If Trump and Cruz ran against each other without the rest of the field, Cruz would win. Lots of people don’t like Trump, but our primary system splits up the vote. It is not a good system for selecting a candidate.


      1. I think that one of the points of Plato’s, “Republic” is that man is incapable of establishing a just, stable regime without it being an ironfisted, ruthless nightmare.

        The Bible teaches mankind how to be internally just so that outwardly, his efforts can bare just fruit.

        And what greater ignorance is there than idolatry?

        Since man is born into this world completely unaware of his true nature and incapable of knowing it, ignorance and idolatry are his “state of nature,” (a term used by philosophers like Hobbes).

        Therefore, Progressivism is not progressive at all. Quite the contrary.

        Progressivism is retrograde and presents mankind a golden path back to bone grinding poverty and oppression; where justice is always the advantage of the strong.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. mastersamwise

          Actually, the point of Plato’s Republic was to make an allegory for the soul. The lower orders are the passions; the auxiliaries are the will; and the philosopher kings or Guardians are reason. The lower orders can have any kind of luxury, own property, etc. In contrast, the guardians cannot have any of these things, are strictly regimented and taught.

          This is to symbolize the necessity for the seeker of wisdom to discipline themselves against being ruled by the auxiliaries or the lower orders. The result is either an incontinent man or a dispassionate man respectively. Reason is cultivated and subsequently gains dominance through a rigorous life of virtue. To be perfectly honest, to interpret the Republic as a theorized government not only completely misses the point, but actually is mocked by Plato IN the dialogue itself.

          Furthermore, if man is born with no knowledge of his nature and is incapable of knowing it, then there can be no such thing as natural rights whatsoever and Jefferson was an idiot. For if man’s nature is ineffable, then how was it possible for Jefferson to know that nature gives man any rights, let alone inalienable ones.


        2. @mastersamwise

          This is not true.

          Furthermore, if man is born with no knowledge of his nature and is incapable of knowing it, then there can be no such thing as natural rights whatsoever and Jefferson was an idiot. For if man’s nature is ineffable, then how was it possible for Jefferson to know that nature gives man any rights, let alone inalienable ones.

          Read Romans 1:18-32 and Romans 2:14-16. God gave us His Creation that we might know of Him, and He gave us hearts that we might know what He expects of us.


        3. mastersamwise

          What is not true? My critique of silence of mind’s epistemology or silence of mind’s epistemology? It seems you mean the latter.

          If not, how is creation useful to man knowing God if he cannot know himself? You will admit that God is a superior being to man. If man is an inferior being, but his nature is ineffable, then how are we able to know God who should be more ineffable than man? God would be more ineffable than man. But you say that God can be known through his creation. If that is so, then man would, therefore, surpass God in ineffability.

          So either man is capable of knowing his nature, contrary to the epistemology of silence of the mind or man is superior to God in his ineffability.

          Furthermore, it should be noted that knowledge of his nature is necessary for man to know and understand the natural law. While the Divine Law comes through Revelation as you point out, Jefferson could have no basis for a natural law that was not based on man’s nature. This is true because any law that is not based on his nature cannot be said to be natural to him and therefore have no more moral force than positive law.


        4. @mastersamwise

          Since we finite, we are only capable of partial knowledge. The rest requires faith. Suggest you look again at those Bible passages. The consider the fact we also have the Bible, and we know we are made in God’s image. We are His children, if that is what we choose to be.


        5. mastersamwise

          Is the soul finite? Does our finitude come from our nature or sin? What knowledge are we capable of sans faith?

          The simple point of my argument is, contrary to what silence of the mind says, man is capable of knowing his nature and it from this knowledge that things like natural rights and natural law are known. I should probably do a post now on law but after Pascha.


        6. Master,

          The genius of Plato’s Republic is that it hits the reader where he happens to be.

          In the realm of political philosophy, all political philosophy in the West has been a response to the Republic.

          One of the beauties of the ancient Greek concept of politics was that it did indeed concern the soul.

          Today’s politics is for the most part, Machiavellian, which throws the soul under the bus in favor of the pursuit of power by any means necessary.

          Liked by 1 person

        7. Master,

          Your argument is the atheist, if I can’t see it must not exist argument.

          It is not necessary for man to be aware or knowledgeable of his rights in order for them to exist.

          Just because we are unaware of something doesn’t mean we can’t learn about it.

          The Bible is a compilation of stories that teach us about the nature of God, man and universe.

          The ancient Greeks were able to sit and think and reason out a great deal about human nature.

          But it was Jesus of Nazareth who brought it all home for the human race.

          For only God can reveal the nature of himself and of man.

          Liked by 1 person

  4. Pingback: My Article Read (2-27-2016) – My Daily Musing

  5. Obamacare is a hodgepodge of special interests. Anyone in my opinion who believed that it would lower costs was either a fool or was fooled into believing you can get something for nothing. The problem is made worse by the fact that it was passed at the same time as an economic downturn in our economy when full time employment and shared insurance costs were paid by both employers and employees.

    The result is too many workers now have such high insurance deductibles and lower wages, they cannot afford to pay premiums and high deductables.
    While health care is needed, especially for people who have serious health problems many health problems are the result of the consequences of their own volition. For example, STD, AIDs, diabetes, smoking, drug addiction, etc., That plus free health care costs are out of control.

    Cruz will have to come up with a solution if he wants to eliminates Obamacare and people will need livable wage jobs in order to pay the costs.

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @scatterwisdom

      Cruz does not have to come up with a solution. The solution is to let the free market work. That is not a perfect solution, but it is much better than depending upon the honesty of politicians. And that is what people who trust politicians to give them something for nothing are depending upon.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. @scatterwisdom

          Sounds like you took what Trump said at the last debate toooooo seriously. You know, I think the man is what he appears to be. Not the best man for the job. A bit arrogant. But still someone who cares for the country. When he said that our government had to do something to prevent uninsured from dying in the streets, I just grimaced. I suppose it should not have surprised me, but it seems the news media has even indoctrinated billionaires like Trump.

          We have a Federation. Our system was designed so that local government would be most of our government. If a government solution is required, we have fifty different states and a multitude of local governments that can secure a safety net for the poor (not so long ago they had the primary government role in helping the poor). So why do the Feds have to do anything? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives them a role. If the Feds stop doling out money, is New York is going to let the poor die in the streets?

          Our constitutional republic depends upon informed citizens who realize their freedom depends upon keeping the government as small as possible. The more power we give our leaders, the more difficulty we must have keeping them under control. Local politicians — our next door neighbors — are much easier to deal with than the royalty in DC. So giving the Feds any power should always be the last resort.

          Whenever we have an alternative between a government solution and a private solution, the choice should be obvious. Unfortunately, over the last century and a half, our great-great grandparents, our great grandparents, our grandparents, our parents, and ourselves accepted what seemed like the easier solution, government-run this, that, and everything else. So now we have only one alternative. We must either give up all those government-run programs or give up our freedom.

          Once we lose our freedom, we will lose any benefits we receive for the government-run programs anyway. So it ought to be an easy choice. Yet I suppose I sometimes sound a bit fanatical. Nevertheless, that guy we have in the White House, what our Congress has done, and what our Supreme Court says is in the Constitution should be enough to scare anyone.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Interesting. That “die in the streets” bit is a Trump riff, and as true as most of the other things he says. Which is to say, it is a risible exaggeration.

          We have people dying in the streets from violence, mostly inner-city and gang-related. But not from lack of healthcare or, as you put it, private insurance. It has been the law for a long time in the US that anyone can walk into an emergency room and get care, whether or not you can afford it, have insurance, or even legal status as a US citizen. None of that matters; they’ll take care of you.

          Now, a homeless person who does not have the mental capability to take advantage of this is a different story — but to be fair, such a person could have the finest “Cadillac plan” in existence, and if his mental state does not countenance going into a hospital, he might still die. But this would not be the healthcare plan or system’s fault.

          Bill Whittle has some interesting ideas. Here is one of his “Mr. Virtual President” series that he recorded not long after the sad re-election of Obama in 2012. This one is on healthcare:

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

          Liked by 4 people

        3. @Keith

          When some people start forcing other people to give stuff away, some people will further abuse the situation. Thanks to illegal immigration, emergency rooms are closing. People are not stupid. If too many people come through the door who cannot pay, nobody will provide the service.

          Bill Whittle goes to Washington is great stuff.


  6. Dying in the streets from having no insurance was an astounding bit of hyperbole having no basis in fact. As long as we’re engaging in hyperbole however, your odds of survival on the street just may be better than your odds in our crazy system of rationed care, major red tape, endless bureaucracy, and people who care more about serving their corporate overlords than actual people. Today we put bar codes on people and scan them like a bit of produce, and the goal is to get them in and out as fast as possible. The goal is not health or healing, the goal is meeting the requirements on the computer so you can arrive at the next screen.

    My job literally involves keeping the sick and elderly at home because their odds of living longer and in greater comfort are much higher than if they are placed within the healthcare system.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I am still recovering from having spent last week in the hospital. This process seems likely to take many weeks, and I hope to recover completely from that experience. From past experience, the official bill for that Saturday to Friday stay will be about $160,000 not counting several thousand dollars of transport cost in an ambulance ride of about five miles.

      During this stay, they gave me potassium, magnesium, calcium, and a few hundred dollars of medication. Which are not quite working, unfortunately. At least I save money on pain medications, as I am immune to them.

      Since then (nine days ago), I’ve been stuck without sleep for days as I can rarely climb the stairs to my bedroom and cannot sleep in my chair. Once in a while, I make it — and have not yet fallen down the stairs, though I’ve fallen on them several times now.

      Hospitalization is just one most causative factor for my disability. And this was in an unusually good hospital. But now, a several-thousand-dollar stair lift is a necessary addition to the budget — only because of the hospitalization.

      Incidentally, I navigate that bureaucracy regularly, as I write (among other things) proposals for hospitals to receive federal money (i.e., taxpayer takings) for various causes, and the requirements (such as reduced readmissions within 30 days) are simply channel markers along the way. My track record is quite good — but it seems strange indeed to professionally participate in a system to which I am privately much opposed.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I am sorry for your suffering Keith, and I wish you a speedy recovery. We like to say that for every day in the hospital it takes an entire week to recover.

        I too participate in this crazy system while working for it and privately opposing so much of it. My main complaint is that the more we take the human element out of it, the less humane it becomes. There really are no shortcuts, no cost cutting factors when it comes to caring for people.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. @Keith

        Glad to hear you are on the mend. I don’t really have much to add to insanitybytes22’s words.

        We all make compromises. I get annoyed when Liberal Democrats accuse Conservatives of hypocrisy when we “benefit” from the system and still oppose it. When else are we suppose to do? Besides, when you oppose a system that you are benefiting from, that is not hypocrisy. The hypocrisy would be in supporting a wrong, calling it right, just because you do benefit.


  7. mastersamwise


    “The genius of Plato’s Republic is that it hits the reader where he happens to be.” Athens?

    “In the realm of political philosophy, all political philosophy in the West has been a response to the Republic.” Example please? As I recall, Aristotle spoke more about Empedocles and the Sophists, not the Platonists, at least until you get to the Metaphysics.

    “One of the beauties of the ancient Greek concept of politics was that it did indeed concern the soul.” Yes and you seemed to have missed that bit in the Republic.

    “Today’s politics is for the most part, Machiavellian, which throws the soul under the bus in favor of the pursuit of power by any means necessary.” Based on what? The Prince? You do know that was a epistolary jab at the Medici family who had just banished Machiavelli from his home. This is from his discourses on Livy. “In fact, when there is combined under the same constitution a prince, a nobility, and the power of the people, then these three powers will watch and keep each other reciprocally in check.” Sound familiar? Machiavelli was actually a strong proponent of republican government and gave most the Enlightenment their ideas on constitutions, including the great thief of ideas Montesquieu.

    As for your critique of my metaphysics and epistemology, I have to say you are wavering a bit. First you say, “…man is born into this world completely unaware of his true nature and incapable of knowing it…” and then say “Just because we are unaware of something doesn’t mean we can’t learn about it.” These two statements are directly contradictory. You say first that we are unaware of our nature and incapable of knowing it. Then you say that we can know things we are unaware of which would be false by virtue of your previous statement.

    Now, natural rights i.e. those that stem not from man’s utterances–positive law–or from God’s utterance–Divine Law–come from man’s objective nature. What we know of man tells us what rights he has in himself. BUT you say that knowing man’s nature is impossible. Since man’s natural rights stem from his nature, and his nature is unknowable, then his natural rights are also unknowable.

    You are even more confusing when you mention the Greeks. “The ancient Greeks were able to sit and think and reason out a great deal about human nature.” Were they able? I thought you said “man is born into this world completely unaware of his true nature and incapable of knowing it?” So the Greeks could not have come to know anything about human nature. You cement that impossibility when you say, “For only God can reveal the nature of himself and of man.” So which is it? I can understand if epistemology is not your strong suit but you must admit the contradictory nature of those two statements. Clearly you are trying to express something so I will make no further judgments until you’re ready.


Comments are closed.