RE: [ox-en] word social forum/stallman/patents
- From: "Kermit Snelson" <ksnelson subjectivity.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:34:11 -0800
But what i not understand is, why natural law is a problem for you (or
Kelsen). Maybe you can explain this?
First of all, let me clarify that I'm not against natural law per se [an
sich]. Problems arise only in the relationship between positive and natural
law. In this case, I'm arguing against the idea that natural law can
replace positive law. But the reverse isn't a good idea, either.
That said, the theory that natural law can replace positive law is dangerous
because in order to work, it assumes that a single idea must dominate.
That's why natural law is being used today to implement globalism, or what
the US foreign policy establishment is now calling the soon-to-be "American
Commonwealth of Nations." That's why it was originally developed to replace
the Roman Republic with the Roman Empire, and why it was used in both early
Christianity and early Islam to justify world conquest. It assumes the
replacement of politics (which, in practice, is the question of deciding
"Who pays?") by some ethical, cultural or even "scientific" ideal.
But of course, you'll never get everybody to agree on any such thing.
Therefore, sophisticated (or at least not completely naive) arguments for
the replacement of positive law by natural law always end up rejecting
democracy and liberalism in favor of some concept of conquest or violence.
See Christianity's Crusades, Islam's jihad, Sorel's "myth of the general
strike", Marcuse's "negative thinking" and essay on "repressive tolerance",
Negri's ontological concept of total opposition, and now President Bush's
"Axis of Evil." In other words, eternal war for eternal peace. This is
inevitable, and it follows from the logical structure of natural law
argument.
Without strong nation-states, there is absolutely no way for private
corporations to reach any goal.
The private corporations themselves say precisely the opposite, and for
decades have been funding very expensive campaigns to get nation-states out
of their way. The published evidence for this statement is overwhelming.
Are you saying they've simply been mistaken about their own interests? For
over sixty years?
Yes, and thats a good thing. But you need to add free movement of
peoples and ideas. Thats the difference between a "left" and a "right"
globalisation.
But is getting rid of patents and copyright and border controls and every
other kind of positive law, including nation-states themselves, really
sufficient to enable a free movement of peoples and ideas? Wouldn't you
also need free transportation? Free housing? Free foreign-language
instruction? Free cultural sensitivity training? Are you really arguing
that a society based on Selbstentfaltung will be able to produce all these
things? And if so, how do we get there from here?
Kermit
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/