It would take a great deal more than that to offend me, Where_is_reason.

>>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.<<

Let's have a look.

>>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).<<

That doesn't change much, does it.

You still seem to think that there is something miraculous in fractional reserve banking.

>>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)?<<

The answers to these questions lie in the application of simple mathematics. Which I assume conform to your definition of Natural Law.

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

Science starts when you can consistently achieve the same results from the same inputs. It ends when you cannot.

Unfortunately, this ensures that Natural Law will fall at the first hurdle if it is ever used as the basis of legislation "in all democratic constitutions".

For example, not one law passed by parliament, ever, has consistently and without fail produced exactly the results it set out to achieve, and only the results it set out to achieve. That's because it involves people. And people are less likely to conform to scientific predictability than will quadratic equations.

But perhaps you had another angle in mind?

Pericles, please understand that a paragraph is not a sentence.

“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)” (Where_is_reason).

I am guessing you read the rest of the paragraph as your latest post (Thursday, 23 September 2010 6:36:39 PM) seems to have started (very slightly) to consider the main issue I have been suggesting all along.

You seem to develop a straw man idea of science being invoked (and coming to a singular common conclusion) before any legislation can be developed or passed.

Certainly, I would have legislators consider scientific findings related to their legislation before legislating and to hence pass laws that make sense scientifically; however, I suspect the main initial usefulness (until legislators learn) will be in court action after legislation has been passed. That is, in finding legislation unconstitutional because its stated purpose does not make sense based on the science. Where there is sufficient scientific doubt then there is no recourse to the proposed Natural Law/Scientific Law concept. Where there is no doubt then the proposed Natural Law/Scientific Law has priority. The real question would then be the level of doubt considered sufficient in each context under consideration. Here other principles may be important.

Also, in the question of the stated purpose of legislation and whether the legislation makes sense scientifically, it is noted that legislators have the option of reducing rhetoric and keeping closer to the scientifically justifiable facts in their stated purposes.

I am looking forward to discussion.

I am still having difficulty understanding how to move this discussion forward, Where_is_reason.

>>Certainly, I would have legislators consider scientific findings related to their legislation before legislating and to hence pass laws that make sense scientifically<<

Presumably, you are suggesting that this is not presently the case. Do you have examples of laws that currently don't meet these requirements that we could work with? It would certainly assist in understanding where you can see the need for "Natural Law" to be involved.

>>I suspect the main initial usefulness... will be in court action after legislation has been passed. That is, in finding legislation unconstitutional because its stated purpose does not make sense based on the science.<<

Unconstitutional?

Before this could occur, you would need to have some form of "Natural Law" provision added to our constitution. That might be somewhat challenging. Do you have a form of words in mind?

If you do, it would certainly help clarify the "Natural Law/Scientific Law concept" that you refer to.

Without which I feel unable to comment further.