Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: What is Social Justice?

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604

    What is Social Justice?

    "Social Justice is a term you hear almost every day. But did you ever hear anybody define what it actually means? Jonah Goldberg of the American Enterprise Institute tries to pin this catchall phrase to the wall. In doing so, he exposes the not-so-hidden agenda of those who use it. What sounds so caring and noble turns out to be something very different."

    http://www.richmondteaparty.com/what...er-university/

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  2. #2
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    gotta love a biased, self serving op-ed piece using out of context, singularly selected paragraphs (3) from a 150 page UN document produced by the UN in 2006 to discern their role in economic development ( http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documen...ialJustice.pdf) which was, by the way, produced by a gaggle of foreign nationals from data 10 years olde.

    the commentary flying under the term quote university unquote banner which is not any type of academic institution whatsoever and is using the term to present some 'legitimacy' to their rhetoric is a nice touch.

    oh and the AEI's board of directors is solely comprised of those industrialist who i am sure are currently the 1% holding the nation's wealth.

    sorry best i can see Goldberg's only claim to fame is riding his mother's coat tails through tripp and monica.

    not to disparage the poster or their effort, but glad to see Hannum's theorem is alive and well.

    this cite at least presents a balanced presentation of the term as it even discusses the UN report and what it was striving to relay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 05-27-2015 at 07:43 AM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    "Social Justice is a term you hear almost every day. But did you ever hear anybody define what it actually means? Jonah Goldberg of the American Enterprise Institute tries to pin this catchall phrase to the wall. In doing so, he exposes the not-so-hidden agenda of those who use it. What sounds so caring and noble turns out to be something very different."

    http://www.richmondteaparty.com/what...er-university/

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek
    ...social justice

    Accepting the premise, debating a definition...
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Some good points.

    Social Contract is similar. That would be the supposedly obligation to the state to enforce social justice.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    I thought social justice was the demand that those who have made good choices, worked hard and become successful accept responsibility for others who refuse to take responsibility for not making good choices, not working as hard and therefore not becoming successful.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    I thought social justice was the demand that those who have made good choices, worked hard and become successful accept responsibility for others who refuse to take responsibility for not making good choices, not working as hard and therefore not becoming successful.
    Of course its in your social contract.....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    I thought social justice was the demand that those who have made good choices, worked hard and become successful accept responsibility for others who refuse to take responsibility for not making good choices, not working as hard and therefore not becoming successful.
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Of course its in your social contract.....
    Consider, if you will for the moment, the social injustice in that. It isn't just for the not so ugly duckling anymore.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Social justice is those who haven't earned anything (whether that be wealth or respect) taking everything from those who earned it just because those who didn't earn it think it isn't... fair... for someone to have more than they do.
    Last edited by Bikenut; 05-28-2015 at 07:48 AM.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    Culturally injected self-esteem demands social-justice. Respect is good, fear works. MOLON LABE, it's much more than arms.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    So re-reading this thread I am thinking that "social justice" is a just a pretty synonym for "mob justice".
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Of course its in your social contract.....


    OK. That was good one.



    SECTION IX Social Responsibility

    (B) We agreed, on your behalf, for you that you will take responsibility for those who made poor choices. We agreed your responsibility extends to contributing financially (taxation) to those who made poor choices.

    (B.1) We also agreed on your behalf, that your responsibility for others extends to us taxing others to discourage behaviors we, at our sole discretion, deem objectionable. And, that we, at our sole discretion, can increase your taxes to pay for tax breaks for others to encourage behavior we deem beneficial.

    (C) Our decisions, on your behalf, but against your wishes, are non-reviewable, and non-appealable. It just is. We will enforce it. We assert, without further justification, that we, and we alone, have sole discretion to decide your responsibility in these matters.

    (D) We may, at our total discretion, arbitrarily and without a shred of logic, increase your responsibility and contribution to those who made poor choices and even those who didn't but were struck by circumstance. You hereby waive any claim that you too are suffering an unforeseeable circumstance and should thus be exempt; in fact, we waive such claim for you because if we didn't recognize it, you must be imagining it. Nothing herein constitutes an obligation on our part to reduce your responsibility, even when warranted. Furthermore, an omission on our part to regularly increase your contribution to those who made poor choices does not and can never constitute a waiver of our power to increase your responsibility later.

    (E) We, on your behalf, attribute to you our opinion. You hereby agree (even if you don't) that when we generalize about which social obligations society supports, we include you in that society.

    (F) Should any part of this social contract be found to be logically or morally unenforceable, it doesn't matter. Both the untenable part and everything else will remain in full force.



    ____________________________________________
    (your signature) (date)



    Disclosure 1: Don't bother signing. We intend to enforce it whether you sign or not, whether you agree or not.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-28-2015 at 08:53 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post


    OK. That was good one.



    SECTION IX Social Responsibility

    (B) We agreed for you that you will take responsibility for those who made poor choices. We agreed your responsibility extends to contributing financially (taxation) to those who made poor choices.

    (C) Our decision, on your behalf, but against your wishes, is non-reviewable, and non-appealable. It just is. We will enforce it. We assert, without further justification, that we, and we alone, have sole discretion to decide your responsibility in these matters.

    (D) We may, at our total discretion, arbitrarily and without a shred of logic, increase your responsibility and contribution to those who made poor choices and even those who didn't but were struck by circumstance. Nothing herein constitutes an obligation on our part to reduce your responsibility, even when warranted. Furthermore, an omission on our part to regularly increase your contribution to those who made poor choices does not and can never constitute a waiver of our power to increase your responsibility later.

    (E) Should any part of this social contract be found to be logically or morally unenforceable, it doesn't matter. Both the untenable part and everything else will remain in full force.



    ____________________________________________
    (your signature) (date)



    Disclosure 1: Don't bother signing. We intend to enforce it whether you sign or not, whether you agree or not.
    +1
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post


    OK. That was good one.



    SECTION IX Social Responsibility

    (B) We agreed, on your behalf, for you that you will take responsibility for those who made poor choices. We agreed your responsibility extends to contributing financially (taxation) to those who made poor choices.

    (B.1) We also agreed on your behalf, that your responsibility for others extends to us taxing others to discourage behaviors we, at our sole discretion, deem objectionable. And, that we, at our sole discretion, can increase your taxes to pay for tax breaks for others to encourage behavior we deem beneficial.

    (C) Our decisions, on your behalf, but against your wishes, are non-reviewable, and non-appealable. It just is. We will enforce it. We assert, without further justification, that we, and we alone, have sole discretion to decide your responsibility in these matters.

    (D) We may, at our total discretion, arbitrarily and without a shred of logic, increase your responsibility and contribution to those who made poor choices and even those who didn't but were struck by circumstance. You hereby waive any claim that you too are suffering an unforeseeable circumstance and should thus be exempt; in fact, we waive such claim for you because if we didn't recognize it, you must be imagining it. Nothing herein constitutes an obligation on our part to reduce your responsibility, even when warranted. Furthermore, an omission on our part to regularly increase your contribution to those who made poor choices does not and can never constitute a waiver of our power to increase your responsibility later.

    (E) We, on your behalf, attribute to you our opinion. You hereby agree (even if you don't) that when we generalize about which social obligations society supports, we include you in that society.

    (F) Should any part of this social contract be found to be logically or morally unenforceable, it doesn't matter. Both the untenable part and everything else will remain in full force.



    ____________________________________________
    (your signature) (date)



    Disclosure 1: Don't bother signing. We intend to enforce it whether you sign or not, whether you agree or not.
    LOL.....We should viral that if we can!
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Good video.

    I like the line about social justice being "good things nobody needs to argue for; and that nobody dares to argue against."

    It seems a similar thing might be said about the very term "social justice": "A term so offensive and extreme that nobody needs argue against it; and nobody dare argue for anything associated with it."

    I oppose the policies of wealth redistribution and the notion that those of lessor abilities, who work less, or who make bad choices are entitled to the fruits of the labors of those who do the right things.

    I'm also reminded of something I think I saw attributed to Clint Eastwood to the effect that, "The problem with extremism is it all ends up in the same place. You start to meet the same nuts coming around from the left as you do from the right." I would add the same nuts coming over the top from anarchy.

    Clearly, self reliance should be encouraged and rewarded. Private charity is the ideal when help is needed.

    But I've also come to be personally aware of cases where the choice seems to be either a miserable, destitute life for an individual born with severe disabilities and his family, or a much broader pool to assist than most families, neighborhoods, or churches can muster. I believe there is a limited place for taxpayer funded welfare. And perhaps in the process of cutting back on the excesses that exist in the current social services budget, we'd gain enough experience to convince me that even the most extreme cases could and should be handled entirely by private charity. But until then, I've gotten just enough glimpses into my own mortality and world around me to realize that there is a place is a civilized, decent society for both respect of property and some legal obligation to provide some assistance to the truly needy.

    The same Bible that prohibits theft, permits the poor to earn some daily bread by gleaning the fields. IOW, while the owner of the field has rights to the first fruit, he has an obligation not to pick it entirely clean lest there be nothing to glean.

    I will speak heresy of the "all men are equal" mantra when I observe that some of our fellows are simply too stupid, too short sighted to save for retirement, to pay for medical insurance, etc. Yes, many could be encouraged to do better were they more exposed to the consequences of their bad decisions. But there are limits to ow much exposure that we should be willing to tolerate. Do we want to see stupid young men dying in the streets because they bought bullet bikes but "couldn't afford" proper medical insurance? How many elderly do we want to see destitute because they just never felt they had enough to save and live longer than they can work?

    Lots of problems with the current welfare system, no doubt. And maybe Ayn Rand and her disciples are a necessary counter-balance to that. But I recognize them as a counter-balance to bring the pendulum back to where it belongs rather than as any gospel I really want to live.

    As members of society, we do have obligations to each other. Exactly how those should be fulfilled, the extent to which law should require vs conscience compelling is a fine debate. But it is a complicated debate, not one to be settled simply with grand pronouncements of letting the stupid or unlucky suffer their fate.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    LOL...being left alone to peacefully and voluntarily exchange with others is nutty and extremist......
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    LOL...being left alone to peacefully and voluntarily exchange with others is nutty and extremist......
    Yeah, but notice he thinks we anarcho-nuts are coming over the top! Full-scale assault--we forded the moat, scaled the walls with ladders, and the battlements are almost ours!

    In his mind, probably to "impose" peaceful voluntary exchange on him at halberd point.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Dishonesty and deceit from bumper sticker logic.
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 05-31-2015 at 02:32 AM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Yeah, but notice he thinks we anarcho-nuts are coming over the top! Full-scale assault--we forded the moat, scaled the walls with ladders, and the battlements are almost ours!

    In his mind, probably to "impose" peaceful voluntary exchange on him at halberd point.
    More and more people are realizing they don't have to worship at the alter of the state. These heretics scare the statist. I find it amusing and not so coincidental that for one who claims to hate communism so much he exhibits much of the same tactics of You don't like the state you must be "nutty". Just glad this person who would break a finger for a gesture is not in a position of such absolute power.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    See "What Social Classes Owe to Each Other" by William G. Sumner


    Social justice is yet another government term created for the purpose of trying to "control" citizens.

    My .02

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  20. #20
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Dishonesty and deceit from bumper sticker logic.
    That would make a good bumper sticker.
    Last edited by Bikenut; 05-31-2015 at 01:36 PM.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    More and more people are realizing they don't have to worship at the alter of the state. These heretics scare the statist. I find it amusing and not so coincidental that for one who claims to hate communism so much he exhibits much of the same tactics of You don't like the state you must be "nutty". Just glad this person who would break a finger for a gesture is not in a position of such absolute power.
    You've got a point there--about heretics.

    Your comment reminded me of Queen Mary Tudor--Bloody Mary. She was Catholic. After Henry VIII died, his teenage son Edward became king for a few years, dying at 15 or 16 of (tuberculosis?). Everybody knows Henry VIII took over control of the Catholic church in England. Fewer know that to suppress/erase opposition, he looted most of the abbeys (monestaries and nunneries). In English history its referred to as The Dissolution. Henry actually had many abbeys destroyed.

    Whereas Henry VIII didn't care much for Protestants, his son Edward steered the state-controlled church toward Protestantism when he was king. And, he hated the Pope. Edward knew his older sister Mary, a Catholic, was next in line of succession, so when he realized he was mortally ill, he wrote his own will writing Mary, and maybe Elizabeth, out of the succession, handing the succession to Jane Grey and her "heirs male". (The Brits still have this document, written in school-boy hand.)

    When Edward died, Jane Grey a teen herself and probably astounded, stepped up. But, within days Mary arrived to public acclaim, imprisoned Jane, and ascended the throne. Ultimately Mary had Jane executed. Things went well for about the first 6-9 months. But Mary wanted the country Catholic and intended to make it so. In her few short years (8?) as queen she burned between 270 and 300 people at the stake. Heresy. Toe the line of government control, or die. I'm a little foggy, but I think non-conformity was also punishable, though not with burning.

    Under Mary the state literally enforced against heresy. Control. Control. Control.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-31-2015 at 03:36 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    You've got a point there--about heretics.

    Your comment reminded me of Queen Mary Tudor--Bloody Mary. She was Catholic. After Henry VIII died, his teenage son Edward became king for a few years, dying at 15 or 16 of (tuberculosis?). Everybody knows Henry VIII took over control of the Catholic church in England. Fewer know that to suppress/erase opposition, he looted most of the abbeys (monestaries and nunneries). In English history its referred to as The Dissolution. Henry actually had many abbeys destroyed.

    Whereas Henry VIII didn't care much for Protestants, his son Edward steered the state-controlled church toward Protestantism when he was king. And, he hated the Pope. Edward knew his older sister Mary, a Catholic, was next in line of succession, so when he realized he was mortally ill, he wrote his own will writing Mary, and maybe Elizabeth, out of the succession, handing the succession to Jane Grey and her "heirs male". (The Brits still have this document, written in school-boy hand.)

    When Edward died, Jane Grey a teen herself and probably astounded, stepped up. But, within days Mary arrived to public acclaim, imprisoned Jane, and ascended the throne. Ultimately Mary had Jane executed. Things went well for about the first 6-9 months. But Mary wanted the country Catholic and intended to make it so. In her few short years (8?) as queen she burned between 270 and 300 people at the stake. Heresy. Toe the line of government control, or die. I'm a little foggy, but I think non-conformity was also punishable, though not with burning.

    Under Mary the state literally enforced against heresy. Control. Control. Control.

    Yep. They all still even Mary needed to have the illusion of ruling divinely or by consent to some degree. Just look at how some of the rituals are treated as sacred today like voting.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Yep. They all still even Mary needed to have the illusion of ruling divinely or by consent to some degree. Just look at how some of the rituals are treated as sacred today like voting.
    WHOA!!! I hadn't thought of that at all! But, you're absolutely correct.

    There are four elements or characteristics the monarch-to-be must satisfy before becoming officially king or queen of England. I'll list last the one most relevant to your point.

    1. Legitimate birth (married parents) in line of succession or having a legitimate claim via royal bloodline.

    2. Chosen by God (demonstrated by the church anointing the sovereign at the coronation)

    3. A coronation--public ceremony with all the oaths administered and so forth.

    4. Public acclaim.

    Huh? Public acclaim? Yep. That's your consent right there.

    ETA: Deleted erroneous (wrong) information.

    Regarding divine right, Charles I was the last king of England to pull that stunt. Divine right died when he was beheaded in 1648-49. He actually made this argument (paraphrase): "Yes, I am bound by the law; but no man can hold me accountable for violating the law. I am accountable only to God." He was basically using the "chosen by God" idea and the anointing ceremony. Of course, Parliament was having none of it. Charles' real problem was his abuse of power and running roughshod over Parliament. Well, that, and starting a second civil war from house arrest. Oliver Cromwell and the leaders of Parliament had him under house arrest after the first civil war. They just wanted to rope him in, not kill him, but the idiot sent letters to royalist forces encouraging them to group again and fight again. When Parliament found out about his instigation, they decided he had to go. His trial was a show trial--they had already decided he was going to die. Something like 6% of the English population died in the two back-to-back civil wars.

    As far as I know, Charles I was the last king of England to use the God excuse for his perpetrations. Well, his crimes against the law and Parliament, anyway. There's still the whole sovereignty thing whereby power was, and still is, delegated from the monarch to the government against the average Joe. Even today, when a party wins the election, it choses a Prime Minister who then visits the queen. She asks him to form a government on her behalf. So, to that extent, "chosen by God" is still in play.
    Last edited by Citizen; 06-02-2015 at 10:18 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Regarding the ETA above.

    I sincerely apologize. I gave y'all incorrect information about the transition from King John of Magna Carta fame to the next king. In the original post I said King John died and then Prince Louis was invited to rule England. This was wrong. The barons brought over Louis while John was still alive. I also said that Louis did not have public acclaim. This was wrong. He arrived to public acclaim from the residents of London.

    If you read the post just above in its original version, its probably best to just disregard what I said about Prince Louis. I had occasion today to review again the source I was mis-remembering in that post. Boy, I was off-base. Some of my facts were just wrong.
    Last edited by Citizen; 06-02-2015 at 10:33 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  25. #25
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,604
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Regarding the ETA above.

    I sincerely apologize. I gave y'all incorrect information about the transition from King John of Magna Carta fame to the next king. In the original post I said King John died and then Prince Louis was invited to rule England. This was wrong. The barons brought over Louis while John was still alive. I also said that Louis did not have public acclaim. This was wrong. He arrived to public acclaim from the residents of London.

    If you read the post just above in its original version, its probably best to just disregard what I said about Prince Louis. I had occasion today to review again the source I was mis-remembering in that post. Boy, I was off-base. Some of my facts were just wrong.
    What have you done with Citizen?

    We demand his immediate release!
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •