Two basics
The themes that I really need to dig into are property and religion. Time to put down the basics.
The view of property that underlies my "little scheme" is that, in the absence of the agreement and cooperation of those around you, what's yours is what you can defend. This gets to the heart of my view of the origin of property "rights". There have been plenty of theories of property rights over the ages, from the "divine right" of kings to John Locke's "sweat of the brow" to Rouseau's "there ain't no such thing". I maintain that any realistic view of it shows that the only thing that prevents us from kicking Bill Gates' ass and taking his stuff is society's enforcement of laws that stem from the consent of the people. From L.A. to Baghdad, when the restraint of society breaks down then you get looting. The outcome of this view is to raise the question of what should we all ask in return for going along with this concept of property rights.
Religion also has a basic principle that I think wraps up the argument. The best illustration can be found when the creationists object that "the materialist view starts with ruling out divine influence". They object to this axiom. I ask "what if you allow divine influence?" Would it be possible, for instance, for God to make gravity turn to pull sidways or upwards? If so then how can you build anything? If the basic laws of nature that all of our engineering and construction are based on could be changed at any moment then nothing and nobody is safe. The materialist view is the only thing that allows us to have any certainty at all. Now, if the theist side will allow that God can't change physical laws, then we can talk. But that would tend to interfere with the concept of creation of the universe out of nothing by divine power. Either way, the supernatural view gets you screwed. The materialist view, by contrast, lets you whittle away at nature's mysteries with some confidence that your discoveries will have value tomorrow. Moreover, it fits one hell of a lot better with our day-to-day experience that the laws of nature are consistent. So the resulting principle is that there is no place for God in trying to understand our world.
These two principles form much of the basis of all that I believe, so I'm itching to put them up against anybody who thinks they have a better idea.
|
