Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Laws Versus Regulations

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

This is the unfortunate result of the fact that the framers probably did not fully grasp the extent to which arbitrary meddlings on man's rights would develop, as a consequence of there being no unmistakable constitutional litmus test for proper law.

I guess the problem is that the litmus test would have to be an abstract principle -- i.e. man's rights -- and the Founders, even though they were political revolutionaries, were not philosophical revolutionaries. In other words, they didn't have Objectivism to guide them. They had an implicit grasp of rationality, but not enough to overcome Kant who was rising at the same time. Hence, the implicit rationality could not overcome the explicit irrationality. Still, they were insightful enough to have checks and balances all throughout the government, and even though the House voted for an ex post facto law, even Obama recognizes that this is unconstitutional and will not sign it. So there are some guidelines, but they require men to be able to understand to some extent what the purpose of the law is. Unfortunately, since man's life is not the explicit standard, we get environmental protection laws saving fish and wildlife over man :read:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...