reply to post by Skyfloating
We should all be careful to distinguish moderate sensibilities from compromise. Compromise is often touted as some form of political mastery, and as
far as politics go, perhaps it is, but more to the point, perhaps politics has no place in issues of law.
Politics are inevitable, and in ever aspect of our lives, but politics are politics and by definition, politics is an art form. When it comes to art,
I like the adage; "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." The art of politics appeals to peoples tastes, more so than their
sensibilities, and like any other tendency toward taste, politics is more about distinguishing one from another, than it is about inclusiveness.
Indeed, because we have different ideas on how to go about a particular goal or agenda, politics becomes a method we employ to achieve our own ends.
The law, however, cannot...must not...politicized. No one even thinks to politicize gravity, or bodies in motion, or planetary bodies in motion, but
"common sense" will tell many that the "laws of man" are not like the "laws of science", and will argue, and this includes "moderates", that
"the laws of science" are natural, but "man makes his own laws to govern people". Some how "common sense" is used as a term to convince us that
this is so. Less "common sense" and more "conventional wisdom" is at play here.
If common sense is not about what is self evident, then what precisely is meant by "common sense"? We can better understand what we mean by using
language such as "conventional wisdom" as simple research will inform us that conventional wisdom is rarely wise and simply just ideology de jour.
Indeed, it is arguable that common sense dictates that we look at conventional wisdom with eyes of suspicion. Conventional wisdom once asserted that
we lived in a geocentric universe, and when scientists, such as Galileo, came along and challenged this conventional wisdom by advocating a
heliocentric universe, even the "moderates" were aghast at such blasphemy.
It was more than likely the moderates who convinced Galileo to recant his heliocentric advocacy in order to survive the horror of persecution. It was
more than likely so, because it is more times than not the moderate advocating compromise. In Galileo's case the compromise was a recantation of
what he knew to be true, in order to keep on living, a right to life, he also knew to be true. So, Galileo recanted, and legend tells us that just
after this muttered under his breath "and yet it still moves", but this merely legend. The fact is it took the Catholic Church nearly 500 years to
Of course, by the time the Church vindicated Galileo, conventional wisdom had changed, and the geocentric universe imposed upon people 500 years ago
was no longer the prevailing wisdom. The earth, it would seem, does indeed move. Ironically, as people have come to accept a more scientific view
regarding astronomy and planetary motions, "conventional wisdom" today pooh-pooh's the notion of unalienable rights as being just as scientific,
just as natural, and just as simple, true, universal, and absolute as any other law of nature. Conventional wisdom, not common sense, asserts that
rights are not a part of natural law, but instead are artificial creations of humanity. Nature makes law, and humanity makes its own law. Where
nature is methodical in its application of law, making sure that all are equal under the law, that this law remains self evident and easily
understood, that this law be at all times true, and because of this absolute, certain people, including "moderates" argue that the invented "laws"
of humanity can be unequal if enough people agree on it, can be arbitrary and capricious, can be as complex as "necessary" and while tautologically
true, can be guilty of lies of omission.
If it is not clear by now, I am not one who advocates the notion that the "laws of man" are separate from the "laws of science". I fiercely and
vehemently defend all law as being natural. I strongly believe, based upon self evident phenomenon, that unalienable rights are natural law, not
inventions of humanity. I, with all my heart, and passionately defend the right to life as being one of these natural law phenomena, and it follows
that if we all have the right to life, that we all have the right to self defense. If we all have the right to self defense, then it follows that we
have the right to come together collectively to form an organization towards this same end. This, under the rule of law, can be the only just reason
for government, to protect the rights of the individual.
I strongly assert that legislation is not law, but merely evidence of law. Legislation is no more law than a map is the territory or a picture of
pipe is an actual pipe. Legislation can only, at best, point to the law, at worst usurp the law in favor of agenda.
Agenda is for the realm of politics, not law, and the moderate is no less supplied with agenda than any extremist. Agenda is not inherently bad, and
can only be bad if this agenda is unlawful. What is unlawful? The violation of other peoples rights is unlawful. Striking a compromise that allows
for the violation of a right is no more preferable than the extremist view that violation of rights is itself somehow a right. Compromise is given
too much praise in politics, and never analyzed as it should be. Compromise should always be immediately suspect.
The "three fifths compromise" is a shining example of all that is wrong with compromise. Forever a horrific ink stain on an other wise profound
document, the "three-fifths compromise" - as artful as it is in its language - stands as a testament to the laziness of compromise. Perhaps my
views will be seen as "extremist", and if so, then so be it. Slavery should have never been tolerated under the Constitutional republic established
and known as The United States. Compromise regarding slavery and other unlawful acts is hardly desirable for a free people.
The wisdom of Solomon was not that he was a "moderate", nor did it lie in his perverse sense of compromise. Offering to cut a child in half so that
both women claiming to be the child's mother could have at least a part of him is more than perverted, it is horrifying. No, the wisdom of Solomon
was not that he thought compromise was needed to resolve the problem, Solomon's wisdom was that he understood the problem with compromise and used
this problem to discern which woman was better suited to raise the child.
The woman who accepted Solomon's compromise could be seen as a "moderate", and the woman who rejected the compromise, to the point of willingly
surrendering her claim of motherhood for the sake of the child's safety, could be seen as an extremist. Under this analogy, Solomon chose the
extremist as the better parent. Going down the middle of the road on certain issues is hardly prudent.