Why didn't you say so before, Where_is_reason?

>>...the issue is not about defining natural law (it is not the answer but the question if you like) but about providing the populace an avenue to monitor government action. It is a debate and a scientific evidence finding proposition. It is also an avenue of elevated control over government manipulation of thought.<<

If I understand you correctly, we have abandoned the concept of natural law, because we don't have a definition for it.

It is, after all, not possible to include a "question, if you like", within another question, as you did in your opening post:

>>Why is there not primacy for natural law in all democratic constitutions?<<

You obviously cannot substitute your above explanation for the term "natural law".

It would come out something like this:

"Why is there not primacy for a debate and a scientific evidence finding proposition, and an avenue of elevated control over government manipulation of thought, in all democratic constitutions?"

What, then are we left with?

I get the overwhelming feeling that you are simply trying to manufacture an avenue for an Austrian School monologue. You know, debt is bad, fiat money is bad, fractional reserve banking is evil, all that guff.

Am I right? It would certainly explain this contribution of yours:

>>Where does the money come from that is leant out (does it pre-exist, is it created by the miracle of fractional reserve banking, in what proportions)? Obviously natural law is important to all such considerations.<<

Obviously it is not, since “natural law” so far evades definition.

But the give-away is your description of fractional reserve banking.

It is not a miracle. You simply don't understand it, that's all.

So, where would you like to go from here?

Noting down the line ….

Thanks everyone for the contributions. I look hopefully forward to more.

(16) I do not represent any particular school of thought. I particularly do not represent the Austrian school (as Pericles brings up).

(17) The miracle of fractional reserve banking. In the context of other’s contributions on debt the use of the word “miracle” was meant to provoke thought. I hope it does. Mere suggestions of lack of knowledge (Pericles) seem a little short-sighted.

(19) "Why is there not primacy for a debate and a scientific evidence finding proposition, and an avenue of elevated control over government manipulation of thought, in all democratic constitutions?" (Pericles). This is a good attempt to put it together.

(20) Why is there not primacy in all democratic constitutions for the Laws of Nature as defined by scientific evidence? Debate and scientific evidence finding would very probably be the effect of such an idea. I would hope so. It might be interesting to discuss the nature and effect of such debate and scientific evidence finding.

I'm still not certain what you expect from this thread, Where_is_reason. It seems to be going round in circles.

The problem seems to be that you have introduced the concept of "Natural Law" into a discussion, but no-one has a clear idea where it starts or stops.

Least of all you. You are a little contradictory, you have to admit.

>>[on the "creation of money"] So that the main issue is not lost, it may be better to ignore this sentence for now or at least to see how it might be reframed in terms of the main issue<<

Then you wander off into some mysterious world of your own invention...

>>Then there is the pure money from nothing method. A government (let us suppose the USA government) gains money from say a reserve bank in exchange for bonds. Thus, is seems a debt is created. The catch is that the reserve bank had no money. They merely created it. Thus no debt as we would normally understand debt was created<<

Of course debt was created. At the same time that money was "created. It was the debt that caused the money to come into being. How is that not "debt as we would normally understand debt"?

Most frustrating. And what is its relevance to "Natural Law"?

So let's have a little clarity.

When you talk about "Natural Law", does it have anything to do with money, debt, the fractional reserve process etc.? If so, what?

Then we might have something to talk about.

For Pericles …

I mostly agree that the thread has tended to go around in circles.

The limits of Natural Law are the same as the limits of science. Where does science start and stop?

I have indeed answered some issues related to money that I found and still find off topic. I have indeed suggested that it might be better to ignore the money aspect or delay its discussion till later. I still suggest this. It is a little saddening that so few have followed this suggestion.

Suggestions that I have wandered off into some mysterious world of my own invention seem disingenuous.

As for the creation of money and debt and its relation to Natural Law as defined by science and scientific research, it would seem that “those who will not see can never be shown” is my best reply.

If some will not see any relevance for Natural Law as defined by science and scientific research related to money and debt, then they cannot be shown (although with a little imagination they might work it out for themselves). I for one do not live in a world where money and debt have no influence on the natural world or where money and debt cannot be measured and studied using the scientific method. (I might, however, live in a world where some would rather evidentiary science stay out of money, economics, and debt).

Now, does anyone want to address the main issue?

The main issue is about including Natural Law (as defined by science and scientific evidence) as first priority in all democratic constitutions so that real evidence gains a stronger position over manipulation of thought. I propose that more strength to real evidence provides a worthy control over government power that acts to protect the populace.

Why is there not primacy in all democratic constitutions for the Laws of Nature as defined by scientific evidence? Debate and scientific evidence finding would very probably be the effect of such an idea. It might be interesting to discuss the nature and effect of such debate and scientific evidence finding.

You're kidding yourself, Where_is_reason.

>>I have indeed answered some issues related to money that I found and still find off topic.<<

Answered? I don't think so. You are still having problems coming to grips with the questions.

And off topic? That's a joke.

You introduced money into the discussion yourself. Right off the bat. You keep re-introducing it. And it appears to be the only aspect of the overall topic that can be rationalized.

>>Suggestions that I have wandered off into some mysterious world of my own invention seem disingenuous.<<

Hardly.

The mysterious world referred to your discourse on "the pure money from nothing method". Which is more along the lines of a "pure figment of your imagination".

As I pointed out to you

>>As for the creation of money and debt and its relation to Natural Law as defined by science and scientific research, it would seem that “those who will not see can never be shown” is my best reply.<<

Complete and utter cop-out.

If you cannot justify your pontifications, you might at least have the honesty to say so, instead of hiding behind a pompous attempt at a put-down.

>>I propose that more strength to real evidence provides a worthy control over government power that acts to protect the populace<<

In order to encourage debate on this theme, perhaps it would be smart to provide evidence - sorry, "real evidence" - that this might alter the status quo.

Or is that simply one of your assumptions? Like the fact that money is being created without incurring debt.

"If you cannot justify your pontifications, you might at least have the honesty to say so, instead of hiding behind a pompous attempt at a put-down" (Pericles).

Really, Perciles, who is putting who down? I will refrain from listing the instances in your prior posted comments. I will also refrain from listing the instances where you have misrepresented my words (perhaps due to mere communication problems).

As for my (offending to you) statement on Thursday, 23 September 2010 12:40:27 PM about those who 'will not see can never be show', I suggest you refer to the paragraph that follows it.