Up Front by Emma Hart

Read Post

Up Front: Oh, God

339 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 6 7 8 9 10 14 Newer→ Last

  • B Jones,

    Alea jacta est.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to B Jones,

    fundamental human rights.

    Ah, now there we're talking about natural justice, rather than natural law. Any lawyer will tell you there is a world of difference between justice and law.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2935 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    Ehhh, natural justice is a procedural concept. Did you go through a fair process to sack someone. Fundamental human rights is a concept you can get an international court to look into, even if their enforcement is toothless. Which to me makes it law.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    So, not at all relevant to New Zealand.

    Bouvier's dictionary is relevant because both US law and NZ law draw from English law.

    You need some more relevant base material.

    No, Bouvier's is relevant.

    What you don’t seem to understand is how common law came to be

    So why don't you read the wiki and then tell me what I'm missing?

    http://wiki.actsinjunction.info/CommonLaw

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    power ultimately stems from the barrel of a gun

    Not in a democracy it doesn't.

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to UglyTruth,

    So why don’t you read the wiki and then tell me what I’m missing?

    What you're missing is that your definition is incorrect, in that common law is the decisions of judges in courts interpreting appropriate statutes. These may trace back, in some cases, to Alfred's liber judicialis but, as you note, it is lost and so we'll never know. How you drag Judaic law into that is well beyond my comprehension, but only serves to further your argument's invalidity.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2935 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    Last edited 8 September 2014 by "UT"?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to B Jones,

    even if their enforcement is toothless. Which to me makes it law.

    Without enforcement, there is no law, only pious warblings from the sidelines.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2935 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to B Jones,

    Last edited 8 September 2014 by “UT”?

    I think we've established that that is Ugly Truth's own site, as he was planning to fix the broken links, though that may have been on the other thread.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2935 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    So Ugly heard of Pascals wager or intelligent design?

    Yes, but I don't know the details of Pascal's wager.

    Using RationalWiki's precis:

    "1. If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven: thus an infinite gain."

    Non sequitur. Just rewards are based on works, not on belief.

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    You can't go back into the mists of time to find out what the law really is. It changes, to deal with new things, like the impact we have on our neighbours, or how we address pre-existing rights when we colonise new lands. Three million voters in 2014 have to be able to overrule a king a thousand years ago.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    @nzlemming

    The broken links were not from the wiki. Do you have any answer to Blackstone's account of the history of the common law, given that we now have the "dome-book" of King Alfred the Great?

    "And indeed our antiquaries and early historians do all positively assure us, that our body of laws is of this compounded nature. For they tell us, that in the time of Alfred, the local customs of the several provinces of the kingdom were grown so various, that he found it expedient to compile his dome-book, or liber judicialis, for the general use of the whole kingdom. This book is said to have been extant so late as the reign of king Edward the fourth, but is now unfortunately lost. It contained, we may probably suppose, the principal maxims of the common law"

    http://wiki.actsinjunction.info/Blackstone/CommonLaw

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to UglyTruth,

    As B Jones says, "You can’t go back into the mists of time to find out what the law really is. It changes"

    You are refusing to accept that.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2935 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    Three million voters in 2014 have to be able to overrule a king a thousand years ago.

    Not necessarily. The idea that the majority is always right isn't part of modern democracy.

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones, in reply to UglyTruth,

    It doesn't matter what Blackstone said more than 200 years ago. 200 years ago, one human being could own another, and sell their children. 200 years ago, the majority of the population had no vote. Fundamental human rights have changed. You can tell what the law is now by what the courts will recognise now. I'll shake the hand of anyone who can cite a recent example of a lawyer successfully arguing a case by citing Alfred the Great.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    You are refusing to accept that.

    No, I'm not. I'm aware that the law changes.

    Are you still unable to reconcile Blackstone with your assertion that common law and case law are equivalent, nzlemming?

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    It doesn’t matter what Blackstone said more than 200 years ago.

    It matters because he is a recognised commentator on the subject of English law, including English common law (NZ law is a development of English law).

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones, in reply to UglyTruth,

    The idea that the majority is always right isn’t part of modern democracy.

    Yes, but that's a little different to whether one parliament can overrule a past one. The majority isn't always right - binding referenda are a real danger to minority rights, but that's usually dealt with by representative democracy and the rule of law, eg the executive has to obey its own rules. The major human rights findings of recent NZ jurisprudence, where the courts have overridden the executive, have referred to other pieces of legislation - the Treaty of Waitangi Act, the Bill of Rights Act, etc.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • UglyTruth,

    Yes, but that’s a little different to whether one parliament can overrule a past one.

    Yes, but that wasn't the issue that I was previously arguing.

    The majority isn’t always right – binding referenda are a real danger to minority rights, but that’s usually dealt with by representative democracy and the rule of law, eg the executive has to obey its own rules.

    Yes, it's dealt with by representative democracy, but the executive obeying its own rules isn't an example of how democracy protects the rights of the minority.

    New Zealand • Since Sep 2014 • 89 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    I don't know what you're arguing. The closest I can come to a coherent interpretation is that the NZ government is illegitimate because Blackstone, Alfred the Great etc say so. Good luck with that next time you want to challenge a parking ticket.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to B Jones,

    I don’t know what you’re arguing.

    You and me both. I thought he started out arguing with Ben that ethics and morality are only possible if your laws are based on religious admonition (which he calls "natural law"), but every time you try to pin him down on something, he shifts the goalposts. I'm out, and if he wants to claim that as "victory" I couldn't care less.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2935 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to nzlemming,

    "natural law"

    Not that crap again. Didn't Russell have to ban someone a while back who was dead keen on that angle?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19740 posts Report Reply

  • andin, in reply to UglyTruth,

    Just rewards are based on works, not on belief

    My god your a Zealot! That's your first bit of truth.
    The basis of any spiritual discipline is Know Thyself.
    So toddle off and do a bit of learning, and stop bothering the good people round here

    raglan • Since Mar 2007 • 1890 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to andin,

    good-botherers :)

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19740 posts Report Reply

  • Rob S, in reply to nzlemming,

    but every time you try to pin him down on something, he shifts the goalposts. I’m out, and if he wants to claim that as “victory” I couldn’t care less.

    Pig wrestling ,you get dirty and the pig gets annoyed.

    I think that you must be able to recognise a closed mind when it crops up, best left to spin on its own axis in the dark. Probably a member of the British Israelites or similar recondite group.

    Since Apr 2010 • 136 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 6 7 8 9 10 14 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.