The Radical Academy Discussion Forum
Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
|
||
| Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 3) |
| Author | Comment |
Ivo
 Aug 20, 07 - 5:39 PM |
Natural law, divine law and man-made law
Kevin said that; LAW is the philosopher's BASIC and ESSENTIAL "tool" for checking for TRUTH and FALSITY in propositions. http://pub13.bravenet.com/forum/1108592048/show/717297 Ivo asks: What kind of law? The philosopher-made law? Who was it again who talked about the Philosopher-King? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability SNIP In law a legal liability is a situation in which a person is liable, such in situations of tort concerning property or reputation and is therefore responsible to pay compensation for any damage incurred; liability may be civil or criminal. See Strict liability. Under English law , with the passing of the Theft Act 1978, (Ivo: I thought English Law was Common Law, i.e. non-man-made law. I will have think again.) it is an offense to dishonestly evade a liability. (Ivo: again, does the philosopher’s BASIC and ESSENTIAL "tool" for checking for TRUTH and FALSITY in propositions change/vary over time, according to the whims of the lawmaker?) Compensation for damages usually resolved the liability. Vicarious liability arises under the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate. In commercial law, limited liability is a form of business ownership in which business owners are legally responsible for no more than the amount that they have contributed to a venture. If for example, a business goes bankrupt an owner with limited liability will not lose unrelated assets such as a personal residence (assuming they do not give personal guarantees). This is the standard model for larger businesses, in which a shareholder will only lose the amount invested (in the form of stock value decreasing). For an explanation see business entity. Manufacturer's liability is a legal concept in most countries that reflects the fact that producers have a responsibility not to sell a defective product. See product liability. END OF WIKIPEDIA QUOTE Frank van Dun, "The Modern Business Corporation versus the Free Market?" http://users.ugent.be/~frvandun/Texts/Articles/Corporation%20versus%20Market.pdf - p.5 I cannot give legal personality to my dog or my car p.6 From the perspective of natural law, the owner of the corporation (as opposed to the private company) is the entrepreneur who founds it, but the legal form of the corporation obfuscates that fact MBC p.7 the entrepreneur is not the owner in the sense of natural law Corporation is owned by no one. p.7 Without the grant of the privilege of legal personality, the partners that make up the corporation would remain fully liable for the actions of their corporate tool END OF FRANK VAN DUN QUOTE Ivo: again, if the LAW (here corporation law) is the philosopher's BASIC and ESSENTIAL "tool" for checking for TRUTH and FALSITY in propositions and if the law is nonsensical, how does the philosopher check for the TRUTH and FALSITY in propositions? And how shall we check the TRUTH and FALSITY of the following proposition: Kevin Aug 20th, 2007 - 4:15 AM I'm outta here. http://pub13.bravenet.com/forum/1108592048/show/717204 |
|
Kevin
Aug 21st, 2007 - 11:15 AM |
Re: Natural law, divine law and man-made law
IVO preambles and ASKS: IVO (preamble): Natural law, divine law and man-made law Kevin said that; LAW is the philosopher's BASIC and ESSENTIAL "tool" for checking for TRUTH and FALSITY in propositions. http://pub13.bravenet.com/forum/1108592048/show/717297 Ivo asks: What kind of law? The philosopher-made law? Who was it again who talked about the Philosopher-King? ANSWER: The same LAW which you call "THE PNC" or principle of non-contradiction. It is a LAW OF THOUGHT and not a MORAL LAW of a "do this" or "don't do that" legal variety, (or we'll haul you into Court and fine you or jail you upon conviction). A FULLER QUOTE IS: Kevin: I always attempt to take Aristotle's advice that THE LAW OF THOUGHT (true propositions contradict and are contradicted by false propositions) must be always at "the back of the mind" of a philosopher. That LAW is the philosopher's BASIC and ESSENTIAL "tool" for checking for TRUTH and FALSITY in propositions. CONCLUSION: Talk about "snipping" passages OUT OF CONTEXT!!! Ivo was certainly "trained" in legal tactics. But since Ivo wants to talk "legal things", why not go with the flow? O.K. If anyone gets CAUGHT actually breaking that LAW OF THOUGHT and of speech which symbolizes thought, in a Court of Law, the offence is called PERJURY, otherwise known as willfully misplacing one's ONTOLOGICAL PREDICATES, or more simply, LYING. That is WHY most lawyers who do most of the talking for their clients in legal proceedings, usually advise their (more often than not) GUILTY CLIENTS to exercize their Constitutional Right to remain SILENT in legal proceedings --- especially in criminal matters. Most lawyers are fairly competent at catching LIARS who give CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE (sometimes called perjury) at Court. However, in civil matters, both litigants usually must SAY SOMETHING, otherwise obtaining a "preponderance of evidence", which is the criteria for favorable judgments in civil matters, becomes IMPOSSIBLE for those who wish to remain silent. As to the rest of your talk about LAW, especially British Common Law (which means British Common Law MORES or WAYS) that is simply about the "lowest common denominator" of acceptable MORALITY, otherwise known as LEGALITY. It is man made law, of course, since such LAW is made by legislators, who are men and women in the Legislative Branches of modern "representative" governments. Few of them seem to KNOW the LAW OF THOUGHT, which is why they are continually accused of hypocrisy, rather than perjury, by their various constituents. It is also why most of their speeches are either DULL or ILLOGICAL or both dull and illogical. It is a long time since anyone like a Sir Winston Churchill, or a John F. Kennedy, made a speech in any Legislative Assembly or to electors anywhere. It is also becoming rare for you to write anything "philosophical", Ivo, since I began asking questions about the "driving against" incident. Kevin |
|
Kevin
Aug 21st, 2007 - 12:39 PM |
Re: Natural law, divine law and man-made law
IVO ASKS: And how shall we check the TRUTH and FALSITY of the following proposition: Kevin Aug 20th, 2007 - 4:15 AM I'm outta here. http://pub13.bravenet.com/forum/1108592048/show/717204 Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws REPLY: How? VERY SIMPLY! You "check" by respecting the Thought Category of TIME, for the basic LAW OF THOUGHT (PNC) states that the same attribute ("outta here") CANNOT, at the same time (Aug 20th - 4:15 AM) BELONG (to Kevin) and NOT BELONG (to Kevin) to the same SUBJECT (Kevin) in the SAME RESPECT ("outta here" vs. "in here" at the Radical Academy Forum) So respecting TIME (Aug 20 4:15 AM), attribute ("outta here") and RESPECT (Rad Forum; or thought CATEGORY = "electronic PLACE") we have, requote, Aug 20th, 2007 - 4:15 AM Re: Checking the backbone of Aristotle's "SQUARE" Impossibly UGLY again. (snip) I'm outta here. This program is too SURREAL for me! (AT 4:15 AM) BUT, on the other hand, we have, quote Aug 20th, 2007 - 12:03 PM (a DIFFERENT TIME) Re: Checking the backbone of Aristotle's "SQUARE" (at the same "e-PLACE") we can see that Kevin came back "in here" (attribute), and wrote (activity) Patience is a virtue. Once more into the breach BACKBONE; ARISTOTLE'S SQUARE: ANALYSIS: When I slept, I became "refreshed enough" to recall some of the ACTS which one must do to successfully use HTML "mark-up". I had forgotten such things given the AUTOMATIC MARK-UP of most modern computer "e-mail" systems and sites, as distinct from this CANUCK site. FREE THOUGHT: This site is arguably "processed" with Windows 3.1 "software" and a jazzed up version of Bill Gates's ALTAIR 3000, for hardware, given the ability of Canadians to do "things" with outdated equipment. Ask our Canadian military guys. They had to spray paint their GREEN CAMOUFLAGE military uniforms with yellow and brown "paint bombs" when they arrived in desert-Afghanistan, where they stuck out from the Afghan desert like OASES in the Sahara. People were either asking them for WATER or DATES (the fruit) or shooting them with impugnity, depending upon their particular kind of Afghan "politics", until our Canuck boys and girls "hid themselves" with cans of spraypaint, of all things, instead of suitably colored uniforms. I hope they're keeping their Lee Enfield "repeating rifles" free of sand. I hear they could jam. At least they don't have to fly around in Canadian helicoptors which require about 30 hours of maintenance for every 30 minute flight. "Fortunately" if such machines are in the air for more than 3 hours, they tend to crash --- which reduces maintenance of them quite substantially, but also tends to "reduce" military people. Canadian "air-sea-RESCUE" has taken on an entirely CONTRARY meaning, to wit: CANADIAN (Helicoptor) PILOT TO BASE: Come in base. This is rescue chopper alpha, zebra, delta, WHOOPS-alon, calling base. We have been in the air for 3 hours on this rescue mission. Please send somebody to RESCUE us, 'cause we are about to crash. Our navigator is about to telegraph you our present location, if he can remember his MORSE CODE and gets a fix on POLARIS with his sextant (astrolabe?) although that is unlikely in this Newfoundland FOG. You may be able to locate us because we'll be the guys singing Newfie shanty songs at the top of our lungs in the nifty DINGHY you provided for our own personal RESCUE, provided that we get outta this crate alive, and somebody has some glue and tire patches to keep the rubber dinghy afloat. (Come on Fred! Why are you taking so long to inflate that dinghy? Remember! Deep breath, pucker and blow into the little hole there! You want a can of compressed air? That's ridiculous. The army boys are using all the compressed air cans to "spray bomb" their jungle-"camouflage" into desert-camouflage.) OVER AND OUT (from both of us) Kevin |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com