For Dan

[Guest guest]

C.S. was not RC. He was Anglican. Henry the VIII broke w/the Pope n founded the Anglican {catholic] Church. It kept the apostolic succession, laying on of hands, n the liturgy but severed itself once n for all from the dogmatic power of the Roman Cath popes. The Pope had forbidden his marriage n Henry said "Screw u!". No connect to Screwtape..........

Thus began centuries of splits n wars, as d. Queen beth [Anglican] n [Cath] carried on the fight. Henry did a job destroying monasteries all over the kingdom.

1. of Aragon (December 16, 1485–January 7, 1536; Spanish: Catalina de Aragón) was Henry's first wife. After the death of Arthur, her first husband and Henry's brother, a papal dispensation was obtained to enable her to marry Henry, though the marriage did not take place until after he came to the throne in 1509. bore him a daughter, in 1516 I, but no sons who survived past infancy. Henry, then a devout Roman Catholic, sought the Pope's approval for an annulment on the grounds that the marriage was invalid because had first been his brother's wife...........

Tired, gotta stop!

love

Silly Old Woman

aoStart the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.

[Guest guest]

Dan, all,

The second one. The first one, too, sometimes. Both are question begging as far as whether or not either leads to the ends; ends you haven't described. Oh, recently, say this year!

Of course, there's a lot to be said for inherited property, provided a certain kind of education goes with it.

What a liberal idea. Maybe some social engineering to this end is required?  

Nothing guarantees anything. It isn't a question of guarantees, but of sizing up a  situation and trying to play the odds. Odds are, usually, that people who have a real stake in the community will make better voters.

I'm quite certain you could not prove this is true. It's a truism---of sorts---wrapped around a logical error. But, let's suppose that there is a state where only propertied citizens could vote. What kinds of decisions might they make that would strike you as evil or insane or unprincipled or, otherwise, counter your purported " odds? "

 

In a free market economy, odds are that people who have managed to get some property and hang on to it are more prudent than, oh, I don't know, people who take out five hundred thousand dollar mortagages with fifty thousand dollar incomes

Again, you have no research that backs up this assertion. I note the straw man trotted out with alacrity, so I figure you're just trying to have fun.

It's a hard problem: what quality of persons is presumptively the optimum for governing to optimal ends.The historical problem is that any historical example you might raise probably didn't end well. And, any abstract example you raise will probably be over-idealized and not realizable.

We've been over this ground many times over many years. So, I remind you where this ends: you admit that there is no perennial historical example, yet, " let's face it, " human life's aims are, in the final analysis, all about the excellence of the superior.

To which I reply, no, it is much more demonstrable that human life's aims are focused on procreation and the persistence of one's genetic endowment. And, in light of this, it is easy to imagine the fecund inferior over-running the superior.

Psychologically, the Apollonian elect suffer the compensation of instinct. This is also why there's nothing about property ownership per say that can float your 'odds.' Surprise me with some data. LOL

Although, I do comprehend why your superstitious and sentimental belief system is attractive.regards, 

[Guest guest]

Calhoun wrote:

Dan,

all,

The second one. The first one, too, sometimes.

Both are question begging as far as whether or not either leads

to the ends; ends you haven't described. Oh, recently, say this year!

Of course, there's a lot to be said for inherited property, provided a

certain kind of education goes with it.

What a liberal idea. Maybe some social engineering to this end

is required?

Liberal in a certain sense, certainly.

I don't know what "social engineering" is, but it sounds ominous.

Nothing guarantees anything. It isn't a question of

guarantees, but of sizing up a situation and trying to play the odds.

Odds are, usually, that people who have a real stake in the community

will make better voters.

I'm quite certain you could not prove this is true. It's a

truism---of sorts---wrapped around a logical error. But, let's suppose

that there is a state where only propertied citizens could vote.

A state, or even a city or a republic.

What kinds of decisions might they make that would strike you as

evil or insane or unprincipled or, otherwise, counter your purported

"odds?"

When do I ever use the word "evil"? Of course, people make bad

decisions.

In a free market economy, odds are that people who have

managed to get some property and hang on to it are more prudent than,

oh, I don't know, people who take out five hundred thousand dollar

mortagages with fifty thousand dollar incomes

Again, you have no research that backs up this assertion. I note

the straw man trotted out with alacrity, so I figure you're just trying

to have fun.

Not a bit of it. Ever read the papers? All kinds of foreclosures. All

kinds of people who signed for mortgages they couldn't possibly afford,

for various reasons. Leaving aside the question of whether or not it

was their "fault," do you want to be ruled by people who make such

decisions?

The singular of data is still anecdote, esp. when dealing with

political matters.

It's a hard problem: what quality of persons is presumptively

the optimum for governing to optimal ends

That's not such a hard problem. The "optimum" is the best, and the best

is the philosopher king. That's the "quality of person." The hard

problem is educating regular people to be decent citizens capable of

some modicum of self-rule, under ordinary circumstances. That's our

problem now, and we seem to be doing worse and worse.

..

The historical problem is that any historical example you might

raise probably didn't end well.

Of course they don't "end well." Regimes end when they are doing badly,

not when they are doing well. Do I detect a phantasy on your part to

the effect that there might somehow one day be a regime that is both

just and infinitely sustainable? A utopia?

And, any abstract example you raise will probably be

over-idealized and not realizable.

As that is the definition of an abstract example, I suppose you would

be right.

We've been over this ground many times over many years.

You engaged me - I didn't ask to rehash it. Always a pleasure, of

course.

So, I remind you where this ends: you admit that there is no

perennial historical example, yet, "let's face it," human life's aims

are, in the final analysis, all about the excellence of the superior

"Perennial historical example." I really don't know what this means, or

what you might have in mind. All human lives are oriented toward some

good, toward some improvement, even when that good is only apparent.

The young man who steals a car believes that he is acting for the good,

his own good, his own improvement. All human beings wish for excellence.

As for the implied criticism of the idea that the political order

should be oriented toward allowing the best to be the best, what else?

Should it be oriented toward the empowerment of the mediocre, lol?

..

To which I reply, no, it is much more demonstrable that human

life's aims are focused on procreation and the persistence of one's

genetic endowment. And, in light of this, it is easy to imagine the

fecund inferior over-running the superior

Ah, Darwin again. I might have known. The tale of spontaneous

generation of life from non-life. Lightning hits a fetid puddle, and

suddenly there is a nucleotide! Which then arranges itself -somehow-

along with about three billion other nucleotides, into a DNA molecule.

At least, though, you admit the catagories of inferior and superior.

Possibly the superior will not allow this to happen, although the

inferior always have the advantage of number - that's why the superior

(and others) called them "the many."

However, if the Darwinian account is the true account of the origins,

and of human nature, then it hardly matters. Darwinism has no morality,

no ethical teaching - it is "value free," however much Darwin himself

may have been a Spencerian social Darwinist. Darwinism is apolitical.

Who survives? The fittest. Who are the fittest? Those who survive.

Still, it cannot be denied that the very term "fittest" implies, at

least, a kind of virtue.

..

Psychologically, the Apollonian elect suffer the compensation of

instinct.

You got some "data" for that?

Of course, if their instincts require all that much compensation, maybe

they are not really the elect.

This is also why there's nothing about property ownership per

say that can float your 'odds.'

Property ownereship "per se." Well, if your point is that oligarchy is

possible, I quite agree. A propertied class needs a certain kind of

education to be decent - think Bertie Wooster, about whom nothing is

extraordinary except his wealth and his gentleman's education. Still, I

would trust Bertie to vote for an elector to vote for a legislator to

vote for the laws under which I would finally live, even if I lacked

the franchise myself. I would also say that it is common sense that

property ownership gives the normal man a sense of having a real stake

in the community, and a sense of seriousness that a drifter or a hired

hand (mercenary) is unlikely to have. Further, it educates toward

caring for something. Caring for an estate is not entirely unlike

caring for a city.

Surprise me with some data. LOL

Surprise me with your understanding that what you call "data" are of

little or no relevance to the questions we are discussing - lol.

Although, I do comprehend why your superstitious and sentimental

belief system is attractive.

Alas, I do not comprehend why your nihilistic and materialistic belief

system is attractive.

best regards,

Dan Watkins

"Anyone who wants to know the human psyche will learn next to nothing

from experimental psychology." - Carl G. Jung.

regards,