Another book review.

I took a break from the overtly political and philosophical books.

Robinson Crusoe, by Daniel Defoe, is cited in many a political treatise. Jean-Jacques Rousseau thought it the most valuable of all books for education. He went so far as to say:

There exists one book, which, to my taste, furnishes the happiest treatise of natural education. What then is this marvelous book? Is it Aristotle? Is it Pliny, is it Buffon? No-it is Robinson Crusoe.

Political writers from Karl Marx to Lyle Rossiter have used the story as an foundation for their analogies. The story itself is intriguing and romantic. A single man, fighting to survive alone on an island.

(more…)

Another book review.

Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

It is supposedly one of the most influential political statements in the history of political society. I seriously doubt it. I think the concept of communism has been influential. The basic principle of communism is equality. That principle has spawned a lot of politics - socialism, communism proper and syndicalism.

But the Manifesto itself isn’t all that influential, in my opinion. The ideas are just too offensive to most people. The word “equality” sounds nice, until you think about it. But when you think about it, and reach the same conclusions as Marx, you end up saying absurd things like:

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

Of course property has to go. All property, all private ownership. Private ownership of anything leads to inequality.

And:

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

(more…)

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract Or Principles Of Political Right came after John Locke’s Essay Concerning The True Original Extent And End Of Civil Government. John Locke’s Essay came out in 1690; Rousseau was aware of the Essay when he published his Social Contract in 1762.

(more…)

(Today is “Respond to Dave Walker Day”)

Believing, Asserting and Burden of Proof

If somebody says to me, “I think its bad luck to walk under a ladder“, I’d think it odd. I wouldn’t, however, demand proof.

If somebody asserted, “It is bad luck to walk under ladders, and this is a reasonable position”, I would demand proof.

Why?? What is different?

The real question here is what is burden of proof and why does one statement incur it and the other does not?

Burden of proof, lest we forget, is a legal concept. The Corpus Juris states “Semper necessitas probandi incumbit qui agit.” Thus Englished, as Locke would say, the claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies with him.

You make a claim, you assume burden of proof. No claim, no burden of proof. I can think that bad luck lurks in the shadows, and that thought in itself doesn’t incur burden of proof.

But when I assert – i.e., make a claim – that bad luck exists, then I’ve incurred burden of proof.

When something is stated as fact, or as a reasonable position, at that point it is entered into the realm of debate. In essence, you’ve claimed that the other person is in the wrong if he or she refuses to adopt your position. This is true because we see reason as binding on all humanity. For this reason, the claim that somebody is “unreasonable” is of itself a denigration.

Law codifies the expectation of people to be reasonable with the criminal standard of “reasonable doubt”.

To say that somebody is unreasonable is to say that they are in the wrong. To claim that somebody is acting reasonably is to say that their actions are justified.

Thus, one may expect to assume the burden of proof when one asserts that his position is the reasonable.

As we discussed previously, there are varied definitions of atheism.

Today I’d like to discuss the topic as it relates to the atheist burden of proof. (Read the comments there by Dave Walker - they are the reason for this post.)

Basically, if atheism asserts that there is no God, atheists assume burden of proof for that claim. If, however, they are simply not believing that God exists, and make no claim in regard to God’s existence or non-existence, then there is no burden of proof on atheists.

(more…)

I’m not a huge fan of theology, or religion, or atheist dogmas. I’m not a fan of dishonest theories propped up by feeble dogmas and fallacy.

One philosophical question, however, does intrigue me. It’s called the “Problem of Evil”, also known as the Epicurean paradox.

(more…)

Often times in atheist debates - the Internet kind - atheists invoke burden of proof. The position held by some atheists is that belief in a god or gods entails burden of proof, and atheism doesn’t.

This is just a quick post to set the record straight.

Whenever a person offers a proposition, the person offering the proposition has the burden of proof. If I, as an agnostic, say “we cannot know whether gods exist”, then the burden of proof is on me to prove that we cannot know.

If an theist asserts that his god exists, then the burden of proof rests with him to prove that his god exists.

If an atheist asserts that gods do not exist, he assumes the burden of proof to prove that gods do not exist.

John Locke is at once one of the strongest defenders of freedom and at the same time an unwitting enemy of that very freedom. His Essay Concerning The True Original Extent And End Of Civil Government expounds the foundation of capitalist property ownership, describes a theory of state that heavily influenced the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Basically, John Locke’s social contractarian theory of government supposes that men are born free into the state of Nature, and the only legitimate government is one consented to by the governed. When a government acts outside the boundary of consent, it is a war with the people and they have the right to overthrow the government.

Two major flaws to this theory are accepted and continued to this day. The first, that “Natural Rights” exist. Insofar as “rights” are the product of contracts, natural rights cannot exist outside of the social contract.

The second is his taking for granted the legitimacy of democracy. While expounding the legitimacy of individualist society, and defending the individual rights from impeachment, he suicidally accepts for granted that democracy will guarantee those rights.

Some could argue that democracy (i.e., majority rule) is no more legitimate than monarchy. What right does the monarch have to order me? None. And what right does the majority have to order me? None. In that respect, they are identical in their absence of legitimate authority. Not to mention that democracy tends to devolve inevitably into socialism or communism or some other form of collectivism.

He does address collectivism (”Liberalism” in modern America). In addressing the ability of democracy to legislate minutia:

Chap.IV. 22.

Nobody can give more power than he has himself.

In other words, “nobody can forfeit the rights of others because those rights do not belong to others to forfeit”.

Of course, he should have foreseen that democracy would arrogate to themselves all rights of all men to forfeit as they please. After all, Hobbes defense of totalitarianism (i.e., Leviathan) was published in 1651, 38 years before Locke’s Essay Concerning The True Original Extent And End Of Civil Government.

(more…)