Again, I really have no interest in the constitutional argument. The basis of natural rights, which you first miscomprehend, is in nature, and the Jeffersonian formulation is based on Locke's theory, not from Treatise of Government, as also commonly misunderstood, but rather his chapter ON POWER in his Essay on Human Understanding. The following discussion assumes at least some prior familiarity with natural law as defined by Cicero; the Aquinas theory of promulgation; Grotius' idea of positive law; the social contract as defined by Hobbes, and Hume's fork.

Natural law itself does not derive from some abstraction, but rather as a necessary consequence of the human condition, as Cicero first pointed out; and which was first implemented as a system of promulgation into human law by Justinian. But those ideas were unfortunately lost during the dark ages, primarily due to Augustinian objections. So they were reformulated much later, during the early states of Western empirical thought, albeit in much more detail, by Locke as follows.

All are Created Equal

First, Locke argued, each individual is endowed by the power of WILL, to choose one action over another; by which our souls are formed, which in divine judgment may know joy or suffering, depending on how our choices affect the lives of others. For that reason, the premise of natural law is All are Created Equal in the Eyes of God. All must be equal in accordance with the principle of inalienability-- making any exception destroys the peaceful society which natural law strives to create, because it violates the universality of the social contract, and therefore causes the societal conflict that Locke called 'a state of war.' Including God in the premise is necessary to the formulation of the United States social contract for two reasons:

• The premise provides a value system, to pass the test of Hume's Guillotine. Without this theistic assertion, the proposition cannot state that which people ought to be able to do.
• Our desire to please God is actually necessary for the third natural right to work at all.

Locke's own perspective, common to the era of his life, is that it's so obvious we should desire to please God, it requires no further explanation:

"God, who knows our frailty, pities our weakness, and requires of us no more than we are able to do, and sees what was and what was not in our power, will judge as a kind and merciful father."
- On Power (Essay on Human Understanding, 2:21:43, John Locke, 1689).

The point of Locke’s premise is that all are equal IN THE EYES OF GOD, because God is only concerned with how we respond to our situation and thus are judged by God. Inequalities of property or family privilege are really of no importance in that premise. If Jefferson had written "all men have equal rights," one would know it is referring to human justice. But the phrase "all men are CREATED equal" refers to our equal status in the eye of the Creator, and is therefore a moral or ethical value, rather than a legal right, no matter how often it is interpreted otherwise.

For this reason, Jefferson originally stated that the truth is sacred and undeniable as a statement of faith. Franklin changed it to self-evident, to allow for people to accept the empirically derived conclusions. However, it it is clear that these conclusions are not self evident, as France instead formulated the natural rights as liberty, fraternity and equality--also believing that to be self evident. However, the French formulation was not derived empirically, hence it did not become the basis of a promulgation to human law, but simply devolved into a maxim. On the other hand, Locke's formulation for the rights themselves is based on the human condition, improving on Hobbes' negative view (leading to an authoritarian system of punishment) by postulating a benign democracy based on positive law, starting as follows.

Right to Life

Locke starts this thread of thought by considering how we would exist if there were no more than the power of free will. Locke's observes that this power of will, endowed to all, is without purpose in and of itself. He deduces we would remain unmoving, as rocks and stones, seeking neither change nor progress nor civilization. So God in his infinite wisdom gave us, through the Laws of Nature,hunger and thirst. For, Locke observes, as each day these needs must be satisfied, these biological needs create the appetite from which all other human happiness flows.

"This is the spring of action. When a man is perfectly content with the state he is in- which is when he is perfectly without any uneasiness- what industry, what action, what will is there left, but to continue in it? Of this every man's observation will satisfy him. And thus we see our all-wise Maker, suitably to our constitution and frame, and knowing what it is that determines the will, has put into man the uneasiness of hunger and thirst, and other natural desires, that return at their seasons, to move and determine their wills, for the preservation of themselves, and the continuation of their species."
- On Power (Essay on Human Understanding, 2:21:34, John Locke, 1689).

Therefore Life is the Primary Natural Right, which is a right to our simplest biological requirements—Our needs for water, food, sanitation, health, shelter, and to have our own families. Due to the great increase in understanding of our biological condition, this fundamental right is well understood. But the other rights, like the premise and the social contract itself, are most definitely misconceived in the modern world; and indeed, even the right to life as a primarily necessity to avoid a Lockean state of war is overlooked, leading the common modern misconceptions about rights to abortion, the acceptability of capital punishment, and the right to kill in self defense. None of those are acceptable within the Jeffersonian formulation, because they deny the inalienability of the social contract.

Right to Liberty

Locke has observed, because of hunger and thirst, there is a perpetual Uneasiness of the Soul, whence springs Desire. But to each person, desire is different, for whatever reason of nature or nurture it may be, it does not matter. Each person's unique desire cannot be defined or predicted by any other person, but is only known to each of us ourselves individually. Therefore we require Liberty to choose the satisfaction of our desires for ourselves. And that is the main foundation of the Jeffersonian social contract. Within this contract, each person may seek more or less, through effort of work, to obtain as much, or as little, or in whatever way each person finds best, fulfillment of desire; and to whatever each may desire, no other can say. Hence from necessity of hunger and thirst, Laws must grant liberty to choose how the soul, in its uneasiness, is fulfilled in different ways for each one separately. Thus Liberty is a Necessary Secondary Right.

"Now, let one man place his satisfaction in sensual pleasures, another in the delight of knowledge: though each of them cannot but confess, there is great pleasure in what the other pursues; yet, neither of them making the other's delight a part of his happiness, their desires are not moved, but each is satisfied without what the other enjoys; and so his will is not determined to the pursuit of it. But yet, as soon as the studious man's hunger and thirst make him uneasy, he, whose will was never determined to any pursuit of good cheer, poignant sauces, delicious wine, by the pleasant taste he has found in them, is, by the uneasiness of hunger and thirst, presently determined to eating and drinking, though possibly with great indifferency, what wholesome food comes in his way."
- On Power (Essay on Human Understanding, 2:21:44, John Locke, 1689).

Note how this definition of liberty is different than the naïve view. The liberties to which natural rights entitle us are those which enable us to have choice in that which we acquire and desire. It is not a blanket statement as to all that which we may do. For example, if you are on someone else's property, they can restrict your freedom, and not contravene your rights. As a trivial example, a supermarket can require you to wear a shirt while you are inside it—as long as it does not contravene the third natural right.
Note also that this view of liberty permits individuals to believe in the religion of their choice, even though the rights which individuals receive are based on a theistic premise. Jefferson found it necessary to explain this to some baptists, which he did as follows.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
, - Letter to the Danbury Baptists Thomas Jefferson(Monticello, 1802)

The exist4e3nce of God as a premise in USA's social contract has sadly become increasingly objectionable, or rather unfashionable. More recent attempts to reformulate the Jeffersonian social contract have therefore attempted to remove the precondition, which I refer to briefly at the end of this already long post.

Right to Pursue Happiness

Liberty is not of the same order of importance as the natural right to life, but still a natural right whence pleasure results, in the course of each person seeking to fulfill their own desires. The satisfaction of hunger and thirst creates Pleasure—a simple happiness of the first order. But for true happiness, we cannot consider our own pleasure alone, but also the needs and desires for others. Locke's argument is that happiness is illusory if we do not account for others in the actions of our own will, by Acting for the Greater Good. Because of the needs of others, we sometimes need to suspend our own desires—a fact for which Locke is, if anything, apologetic. But Locke also explains that we actually discover greater liberty in pursing the greater good, because it frees us from living only for our own desires:

"THE NECESSITY OF PURSUING TRUE HAPPINESS is the Foundation of Liberty. As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, which is our greatest good, and which, as such, our desires always follow, the more are we free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action, and from a necessary compliance with our desire, set upon any particular, and then appearing preferable good, till we have duly examined whether it has a tendency to, or be inconsistent with, our real happiness: and therefore, till we are as much informed upon this inquiry as the weight of the matter, and the nature of the case demands, we are, by the necessity of preferring and pursuing true happiness as our greatest good, obliged to suspend the satisfaction of our desires in particular cases."
- On Power (Essay on Human Understanding, 2:21:52, John Locke, 1689).

Locke is pointing out that happiness from the satisfaction of physical desire is temporary and transient. By suspending our own desires and acting for the greater good, we can obtain a more permanent and solid happiness. The similarity of this to the four Noble Truths, the foundation of Buddhism, is not because Locke himself knew the theories of Buddhism, but rather that both methods start by considering the fundamental nature of our existence, and so both systems arrived as the same conclusion independently.
Therefore Pursuit of Happiness is the Tertiary Right because, in pursuing true happiness, we act not simply for ourselves, but for the greater good, which results in the product of our noble society. On this basis, individuals are entitled, for example, not only to property, but also to state-supplied education. But individuals can only pursue happiness insofar as it does not interfere with life and liberty. Nonetheless, while pursuing happiness is a right, acting for the greater good is not a requirement. In order that God may judge us in our treatment of others, our acts for the greater good cannot be forced against our will, except in as much as necessary to maintain the social contract.
Locke tried very hard to find a way of defining "pursuit of happiness" without including a need for God to judge our actions, but he couldn't quite do it. So the United States decided that pursuit of happiness is a natural right to its citizens, and therefore the declaration of independence is Under the Law of God. But other countries do not acknowledge God in their constitutions, and therefore the modern statement of natural rights, as Human Rights in the United Nations, does not include pursuit of happiness for all. Pursuit of happiness is a unique natural right to the United States, because the nation was formed under God. And that is why the pledge of allegiance is an oath under God (some want God removed from the oath of allegiance, but if it were removed, the natural rights under the constitution would be broken).
Those familiar with natural law sometimes state that existence of God is not necessary to it. And in fact this has become a very big problem in America, because the social contract, as Locke defined it, assumed that pursuit of True Happiness is acting for the greater good of all. As America has slowly removed God from the social contract, Locke's vision has started to break down. For example, according to Locke, the very rich should look after the very poor, and according to the nation's natural rights, the rich cannot be forced to do so. But pursuit of happiness is now mostly considered only a selfish motive in people's minds. The rich do not look after the poor, but instead seek influence and money only for themselves, also manipulating legislature to reduce their own taxes. So an undue proportion of welfare now falls into the tax burden of the lower and middle classes.

Happiness, not Property

Locke's original Treatise on Government defined Property, rather than Pursuit of Happiness, as the third natural right. Because the third natural right is pursuit of happiness, the government has authority over other fields of human activity besides that which people own. For example, it can create transport systems, public schools and universities. Also, it can enforce the rights of people to recreation, resulting not only in its ability to operate public parks, but also permitting it to limit the number of hours that an employer can require of employees. Further, it can help with healthcare and retirement. However, the pursuit of happiness is secondary to liberty, so the extent to which the government can tax and enforce such matters is limited.
Most people who study politics only read Locke's Treatise on Government, and so are unaware of how Jefferson decided on the "sacred and undeniable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." However, it remains the task of the Supreme Court to exercise and interpret the natural rights as Jefferson intended, which is as Aquinas previously defined, promulgation from natural rights. Up to the 1930s, this mostly unknown process of reason not only influenced all of American government, but also remained the highest consideration in the opinions of the highest court in the land, until it was partially supplanted with ideas of legal positivism in the last century; which has attempted to define what is right and wrong purely based on precedence, rather than with the higher moral objective of creating a benign world for the better judgment of each and every soul by God, regardless whatever any particular individual may think of that goal.
As one example, in the original formulation of how this nation would work, it was assumed that the rich, in their pursuit of everlasting happiness, would support the poor houses; and that children would support their parents in old age; thus removing the need for the state to provide social security.. But as it transpired, the idea of acting for the greater good, as the real definition of 'pursuit of happiness.' lost out to a new interpretation of atheistic selfishness, thus requiring the state to mandate taxes in Roosevelt's New Deal. And as perfectly predictable from the above explanation--which should now be abundantly obvious--this is in conflict with the natural law on which this nation was founded, and so the extent of entitlements that the rich should support has become a total stumbling block to the further growth and prosperity of this nation.

.Hence, while others may disagree with their theistic basis, it cannot be ignored as the foundation of peace and lawful order in the nation created by Jefferson's declaration. And the denial of validity for the original empirical formulation of natural rights has not only led to its growing collapse, but also to a widespread ignorance as to what it actually was. And that accounts for the length of this post.

If you wish to consider socialism, the first step is to consider its origin in Marxism. While Karl Marx (1818-1883) favored ideas of communism, Marxism itself does not refer to communism as a standalone ideology, but instead as a theory of social evolution, derived from Hegel's methodology of dialectical idealism.



Hegel himself attributes the methodology to Kant's transcendental theories of reason, but expounds in practice to extraordinary depth. According to Kant's method, any process of reason has three stages: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. A thesis, simply by its statement, gives rise to a reaction that contradicts or negates the thesis. The tension between thesis and antithesis creates a conflict in reason which is resolved by their synthesis.

However, Hegel observed the synthesis is itself another thesis too, which gives rise to another antithesis, and another synthesis. Hegel therefore observes that a dialectic can start with any premise, and through the process of reasonable argument, create a series of rational deductions and contradictions which, in the process of their continued resolution, continually refines the idea of truth.

Marx extended Hegel's idea to apply to political evolution in a society, giving it the name dialectical materialism. Each formulation of a political system is a thesis for the best way to rule, which by its existence creates an antithetical movement that objects to that political system. If the society can evolve to synthesize both views, then it continues; if not, then the society collapses due to internal strife and failure, or due to rebellion. In this reformulation of Hegelianism, Marx converts the ideas of conceptual evolution into practical, or material terms. In his typical contrarian manner, Marx dogmatically indicates how his system applies the Hegelian dialectic of thought to political systems with time causing the movement to synthesis and subsequent thesis/antithesis, rather than empirical reason.

"My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e. the process of thinking, which, under the name of 'the Idea', he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea'. With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought."
Das Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Karl Marx (Hamburg, 1887)

While posing his methodology as antithetical to Hegel, he still deduces the stages of political evolution rationally, so the system is still known as dialectical materialism.

Socialism as denial of property as a right

The above prefix to Marxist theories of socialism might appear unnecessary, but it was in fact this approach that led Marx to invent new political ideas, for which he simply asked "What is the underlying thesis of all Western government?" To which the answer is, almost so obvious as to be ignored, "A right to own private property has been assumed in all Western government." Therefore, in considering an antithesis to Western government that could fix its failures, Marx is logically led to conclude:

"Denial of the individual right to own property is the correct antithesis to failed Western government. When governments fail due the massive accrual of property by an elite privileged minority, perhaps the removal of rights to property altogether is the necessary change in the social contract which can rebalance the society. Core to Marxism is the idea of a ruling bourgeoisie that over time, exists in an escalating state of conflict: In its rational form, it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension an affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time, also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary."
Das Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Karl Marx (Hamburg, 1887)

From this, Marx concludes, that Aristotle's idea of Democracy as the least-worse alternative is simply one view in a continual spectrum. As a democracy evolves, those in power simply continue to accrue power, due to the acknowledged corruptions in the system. Eventually, the antithetical forces rebel against it, and another political system is put in its place. That is to say, contrary to common views on Marxism, no particular political system is any better than any other.

I'm sorry, but the existence of quantum mechanic theory has nothing at all to do with proving or disproving materialism. I have noticed this is a very common error arising from a misunderstanding of dualism.

In accordance with the laws of nature and God, the child is still accorded natural rights. In accordance with the theory of natural law for a peaceful society, it cannot ever be the choice of a human being as to who should die. Once that line is crossed, the Lockean state of war is automatically invoked. That is the definition of it, that is the theory, and there's no amount of constitutional debate that makes any difference to it.

With regards to abortion, the argument breaks down that women should unilaterally have right to kill their unborn children beforehand because, as natural law rests on the human condition, the child would still be born if there is no physical disability endangering it, and therefore, it is very difficult to argue that the mother has the right to total freedom of choice.

No, natural rights are definitely inalienable. There is no way of separating them from consideration of one person or another, they have to apply to everyone. Therefore, once a fetus reaches the age of 21 weeks and 5 days, at which point it can live independent of the mother, it must be accorded natural rights.

Jefferson wisely returned to the United States and became President after Hamilton had finished ruining the legal system by creating a totally inflexible constitution, then surrounding it with so many protections and caveats in the political process we are still arguing about who can own muskets to repress slave rebellions.

No, actually, Plato did not say that either. He said true philosophers are very aware of how much they do not know, and the amount they know that they do not know actually increases as they get older. Or us, promouns are not as flexible in English as they are in Greek which also has the benefit of the middle voice for such statements.

Well, as the theory of natural rights on which Jefferson based that statement require the existence of a benign God who judges our destiny in our afterlife, the answer to your question is that Jefferson said that.

I agree that is a difficult question. Personally I feel that children not conceived under free will would not be accorded the same rights to birth, but I understand there are those that feel differently. Also children who are severely malformed, such as from the Zika virus, and my opinion is that the mother should have the right to choice of abortion in such cases. in other cases I cannot see a clear justification, and again there are people who disagree with that. So it should not be federally mandated and should be under the control of the States, within the broad guideline that the right to an abortion should not be automatic, but be required to be justified under some cause of duress.

The point about natural law is that it arises directly from the human condition. A system of law is only as successful as the natural law it chooses to enforce. If the law is too severe, or the natural rights are not enforced sufficiently, it creates a Lockean 'state of war,' which erodes the power of the government, because it loses natural authority, causing social conflict.

The purpose of the rights are simply to avoid that social conflict. If such social conflict exists, then the human law needs to change to remove it, or the society self destructs. When the human law embodies natural law, it is successful in creating peace and prosperity. when human law is in conflict with natural law, it causes civil strife.

There is no magical recipe, or hidden higher order. In a correctly constructed system of government, the balance between restrictions and rights is self modifying and homeostatic. In an ill-constructed system, the conflict between opposing sides increases until there is civil war.

In a constitutional system, the authority of the constitution depends on proper promulgation of rights and restrictions from natural law, otherwise the government collapses. The main reason why the USA has grown in the past was because that promulgation was working.

In the last century, the promulgation started to break down, and now other superpowers such as China and Russia are slowly taking over. That's the way it is.

Yes, that very much expresses the gross misconception of natural rights in this country.

Well that is funny, but that is not what Plato said. He did not say the knowledge was hidden. He said it was actually painful for people to learn, and so they refuse to learn it.

I think you miss the point. I did talk with a magazine editor about this today, and he agreed both that my point was valid, and that the point does require a great deal more explanation. Currently I am not ready to express it succinctly.

Not so. The decision was wrong, if you understand Jefferson's theory of natural rights. Right to life takes priority over right to liberty and pursuit of happiness. Therefore the child's rights must come first. Just because it is considered constitutionally legal does not mean it was the right decision. And that is why there is so much political conflict now. The courts have been politicized. Thankfully, as with the prohibition, these things have a way of working themselves out in the long term, and Heller will probably also be overturned eventually too.

That's excellent. Thank you very much )

In the USA, there is alot of denial about what 'equality" actually means as the founders intended. Originally the statement was that we are CREATED equal in accordance of the laws of nature and God. That is, in the eyes of God, we are created equal, in worth to God. It is not what we own, or what talents we have, or what physical body we are given, that makes a difference. We are created innocent, and we are judged not for what we have, but what we do with it. It is the choices that we make, for whatever we are given at birth, that defines us; and therefore the purpose of 'equality,' as defined by the founders, was originally that we are treated fairly by other humans, not that we deserve to have less or more than others by virtue of existence alone.

I agree. However it is clearly the case that many people do not experience this revelation, and it remains unclear what factor causes some to understand Plato, and others to sneer at him. There is evident a strong dichotomy on that.

Well. That surprises me. I thought the reasoning interesting and the similarity obvious. But as it is not on the point of this topic I will not digress.

maybe it is useful to consider individuation, rather than individualism.

not quite right. The debate is over the woman's right to liberty over her unborn child's right to life. The point is that each side can offer equally vaid answers based on common sense alone, but in the USA, if you understand Jefferson's natural rights, there is a very clear answer. Of course it does take a year's full time study to get even an approximate understanding of Jefferson's view, but as Franklin changed 'sacred and undeniable' to 'self evident,' everyone thinks their own self evident view is obviously better and morever, most are unaware there is any alternative to paine's naive realism. And thats my point.

The first step is to recognize the primary limit of scientific theory itself, for which purpose I introduce one example: that of quantum mechanics. Contrary to most pundits on the subject, quantum theory was not at all some new revolutionary discovery. Several thousand years ago, Vedic philosophers watched motes of dust in sunbeams and asked "what is the smallest thing that can exist?" Thereon, they reasoned, however small a mote might be, it would still have an inside and outside. But the inside and outside would have have to be smaller than the smallest thing. So, if it were the smallest possible particle, it would then be impossible to determine what is inside it and what is outside it. THEREFORE, they reasoned, matter consists of compartments of space, inside each one of which there may be solid matter or not, and it is impossible to determine which compartments contain solid matter, and which not, because the ability to measure the distinction would require the existence of something smaller than the smallest possible thing.

Fast forward to the modern world. Many are now still convinced that quantum theories and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle are 'discoveries of the way the world really is.' But they are not. They are the consequences of our own ability to comprehend the material world, and the experiments simply demonstrate that which Vedic philosophers deduced by reason several thousand years ago.

Science is only a model corroborated by experiment, and the model can only be as good as our minds can create. Within our brief time-bound existence, the ultimate nature of reality is beyond our absolute comprehension. When approaching the limits of science, we approach the limits of that which we can comprehend, which is the limits of our ability to reason, and not the actual limits of the material world--if indeed it exists independent of the domain of mind.

Those who dismiss domains of mind, independent of matter, have already dismissed much that can be explained. Attempting to explain to such minimalists any deeper understanding could be limited by their own lack of insight--while the minimalists will continue to deride attempts to explain alternative perspectives as flaky imagination. And with the exploding pseudosciences resulting from the decay of hermeneutic knowledge into the pseudodata of post-modernism, the minimalists can point to good examples. There are now many bizarre theories claiming to define consciousness perfectly in terms of quantum mechanics, or string theory, or whatever, because the actual metaphysical distinction between mind and matter still remains opaque to many people.

Similarly, many modern political theories are not really understood because people do not know the history of thought that went into their making. Most of their answers are no better than those provided by hypnotists seeking out your identity in a previous life, which even itself has been labeled a 'science' of 'regressive therapy.' To answer questions of politics properly, one must understand the theories which produced the questions, or it is no more than the blind stabs into an unknown dark, producing the ephemera of intangible and irresolvable debate that has already degenerated the 'age of enlightenment' into 'the information age.' First, simple data correlation slowly replaced analytical thought, over many generations of ignorant skepticism. From that, it was only a tiny step to the more rapid degeneration into the current 'post-truth era,' within which 'defining the narrative' replaces 'the search for rational truth' with an increasingly perilous rate of acceleration.

I always felt the idea of an individual is somewhat overrated. I am not so solipsistic to think all my beliefs are my own. I picked up a lot of them from other people, so they aren't really mine, and I never had a reason to think through them in detail until I turned 50 and lost interest in sex. Since then I had more time to think and study. I was somewhat astounded how much of what I thought was me was actually other people in my unconscious.

Paine's idea of common sense is based on naive realism, which is a simple but rather limited epistemological system, and tends to lead to people holding beliefs as true without considering the limits of their own perception. For example, there is the conflict between pro-life and pro-choice positions. Both sides believe their views necessarily true by intuition, but have reached totally opposing conclusions.

rofl, one day maybe you will understand what I said, but its really not important.

I think it might be useful to consider the difference between material truth, on which the philosophy of science rests, separate from 'absolute truth.' Whether truth itself can be known a priori is a subject of debates on absolute truth, and not really pertinent to post modernism. The concern is more that there remains an idea of a posteriori truth by empirical examination of the material world.

that is a very good answer, Ralph, thank you very much.

Part of the reason this debate has become fruitless is that 'truth' is considered of higher value than 'understanding.' Absolute truth is by nature tautological, and therefore of limited utility. Understanding the arguments is more important, as well as accepting the limits of the amount of 'truth' any one person can know.

Thank you for your replies. As I said, I think authoritarianism is a better label. I was just a little in shock at the brazen binary choice that Trump posed. Since that time, his interview with Time magazine on 'is truth dead' made it rather clear what his attitude is. He believes he is always right because he won the election.

Today, he again raised the fake claim that Clinton made money from selling uranium to Russia. The Washington Post is now tabulating his lies, and has detailed 316 lies in his first 63 days of office. The problem confronting the educated is that his lies are so frequent, it is impossible to nail him down on any one of them without him kicking off some new scandal. But it seems people are starting to catch on, as even Fox News prefixed its first statement of creating new jobs at Ford today with 'it could be another attempt credit for plans made before he took office, but Trump is claiming it again."

I should point out that nepotism is another characteristic of fascism.

If a malignant demon appears telling us to doubt our perceptions, we cannot really doubt our experience of the malignant demon either.

As I already said twice, I have several independent verifications.

There was also an interview with Time Magazine this week, which carried the cover page "Is truth dead?" Trump basically resolved any dispute with his statements by saying he won the election, so he is President, and we are not, therefore we have no right to claim anything he says are false. If undeniable disputes are made on specific facts, he falls back on saying he was merely repeating other people, so he is still always right. It's very interesting reading.

An independent article found Trump stated 14 factual errors as truth in that 30-minute interview. One factual error every two minutes appears to be Trump's run rate on what other people call lies now. Last year, the Toronto Star found Trump stating factual errors as truth 560 times in the 16 days before election, which was 20/day. During that time, he was publicly speaking an average of perhaps 6 hours a day. So the number of facts from Trump which others can justifiably call lies appear to have increased by an order of magnitude after 2 months in office.

Trump is also tweeting an average of one lie per day. Yesterday he took credit for a deal with a cable company to create 20,000 jobs in the USA. That deal was announced two years ago. Also yesterday he again claimed the Keystone Pipeline would be made with US steel due to his negotiations. In fact the steel had already been purchased before he took office, and 40% is from Russia.

Trump has repeatedly accused Obama of playing too much golf rather than working. When it was pointed out he has already played golf 50% more than Obama, he claimed he was doing it to make business negotiations. He then banned reporters from seeing him during any golf he plays, claiming it does not help him make the deals. Today he was caught on camera sneaking out for golf by himself. For about 4 1/2 hours. It could be fair to say about 25% of the man's actual efforts are what other people would call intentional deceits.

As I said, I have several independent verifications.

I think authoritarianism is a better description, it is more specific. Thank you for the input.

The problem is not so much that a dictator can't be good, but rather there are increasingly less effective ways to get rid of the bad ones. They used to get assassinated in fairly short order, but that doesn't happen much any more.

Well thank you for your opinion. What would be the political ideology for this binary-choice question if it is NOT fascist?

well I pressed accept answer, I dont know if that was the right thing to do. I would appreciate hearing more opinions.

Hamilton dropped out of college.

I did write something on that but it is 20,000 words and I am not allowed to share a link.

thats interesting, mongrel, thank you

I dont think he has undermined anything; Sorry for the late reply.

No, that was not my question.

My question was whether only some people are able to see the light.

It is my experience with those interested in platonic philosophy that it usually takes several repetitions of a question before it is actually understood, so dont worry about it.