251: On Property (in Second Life)

Image via Wikipedia

To call Second Life a Virtual reality is a nice metaphor, good for marketing purposes, but it is obvious a mistake. The correct name should be Real Unreality.

It is real so far as we see the animated and interactive screen in front of us, but the content of the screen has hardly any relation with reality. Nothing that really shapes us as human beings and controls our lives, exists in Second Life.

To mention a few things: Death, disease, capital crimes like murder, natural disasters like earthquakes or leaking oil wells, starvation, terrorists, fear for your life, fear for illegal imprisonment,

accidents in all flavors, sick and dying relatives or children, depression, pain, loneliness…do I have to go on? For whatever you like to do here nobody asks you to show your certificate of competency or level of education, licenses or permits, all kinds of forms filled out in threefold etc.

It is not that I wish to disqualify Second Life, it is about the level of reality we find in SL and any other virtual world. What could be called real is our communication and emotional attachment to this world and persons in this world and the Linden dollars which we convert into real dollars.

And most fascinating is that what looks the most real, the land we own, the things we make and own as our private property,are the farthest away from reality.

In Second Life is private property really 100% PRIVATE. The owner is entitled to do with it what pleases him, whether it is just a single box prim or 5 sims crowded with houses, rentals, stores, role-play groups and so on.

Suppose he let everyone live on a parcel in his sims. Feel free to do so and enjoy….. These sims are really private property in the most extreme way: the owner can do with his property whatever he likes. So he decides to stop paying the tier. He is done with Second Life…too dull for him.

So he reports to Linden Lab that he abandons the land per date x. He even doesn't inform the "inhabitants" of the sim. And the sims just disappear at date x. THAT is 100% private property in Second Life. Far from reality.

In the preceding lecture I said that it makes a difference to own a chair or a company. I claimed that I could do with the chair whatever I liked…..burn it ..smash it, paint it…whatever…But after second thought I now conclude that even with my very own chair I am not allowed to do whatever I like.

Maybe all is allowed as long as I stay in my apartment together with my chair, but no matter how much I hate that chair, I am not allowed to throw it out of my window of the apartment building at the 15th floor.

All this may show, how difficult the concept of private property in our society is to grasp. What solutions and interpretations are there? We may start with the basic questions.

How, we may ask, would humans come to appropriate the land and its fruits? How could such appropriation be justified? What would be rational grounds for claiming exclusive possession? And could there be any limit on people’s right to do what they would with their own?

“Our property,” said Gregory the Great (c. 540 – 12 March 604), “is ours to distribute, but not ours to keep.” The concept of the owner as steward is the core of the traditional Christian view of property.

By the seventeenth century, property rights came to be grounded in the needs and accomplishments of the individual owner, and ownership implied a natural right to enjoy and dispose of its objects, limited only by the duty to respect the rather narrowly defined interests of others.

According to John Locke (1632 – 28 October 1704) you create private property by adding your labor to a so called res nullius, a common resource, like a piece of land, or wood you chopped, or a stone you carved. To own it gave you also the right to transfer ownership to somebody else, although he did not put any labor in it.

You will understand that the justification of private property based on the idea of "the fruits of one's labor" may be applicable in an agricultural society, but when your labor is only applied to a part of a product in an industrial society, what is then the fruit of your labor?

In a complex industrial society, “the fruits of one’s labor” can mean only the value of a given worker’s contribution to the finished product. But value derives from the relations of supply and demand, both for the commodity and for labor of the various kinds needed to produce it.

As you can imagine, this observation leads to a lot of complex questions in relation to private property. The fruit of one's effort is translated into wages, which become linked with the system of demand and supply.

And is the wage private property? And what about a government which a priori claims a part of it calling it income taxes……
I am still not there, still not sure in what sense I really can call something private property….

Just for your information, in my research I stumbled upon a trail against the avatar Rase Kenzo. He was in Real World sued for making and selling copies of inworld products of an inworld company named Eros. This was in November 2007. No idea, what the final verdict was. Needs more research.

This is the URL, where you find the article I discovered: http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/005816.html


The Discussion

[13:23] herman Bergson: the article contains a like to a PDF with the accusation...really heavy artillery
[13:24] herman Bergson: and also a very peculiar example of property rights
[13:24] herman Bergson: so much on the subject for today
[13:25] Kiki Walpanheim: That is about intellectual property..... the creation in sl, i think
[13:25] Natsuo Winslet: It's not at all obvious that Locke's theory could be applied in the case of intellectual property.
[13:26] herman Bergson: No that too Natsu
[13:26] Kiki Walpanheim: IP is a little *complicated* i think.....
[13:26] herman Bergson: But SL property is at least defined by RL Copyright laws
[13:27] herman Bergson: thinks are not working properly here
[13:27] herman Bergson: Kiki's words didnt show up
[13:28] herman Bergson: I see you type but nothing shows Kiki
[13:28] Art Mint: I am confused: if SL is not reality as for the premise you made Herman how can an avatar be sued in the real world?
[13:29] herman Bergson: Not the avatar was sued but a Mr. Thomas Simon from New York
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: because, it is the person behind the avatar that stole ppl's IP--intellectual property
[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes...
[13:29] oola Neruda: i have a friend who is a rl artist... sold a painting to someone who used it at their company...
[13:29] Art Mint: but happened in a non real world?
[13:29] oola Neruda: they changed it a little bit then used it as a repeated and dominant part of their newsletters
[13:29] oola Neruda: the artist was livid
[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes Art that was the special thing in that law suit...
[13:30] Kiki Walpanheim: oola, i thnk that is the *tricky* part about laws regarding IP---ppl could get around to it
[13:30] herman Bergson: But you should read the accusations...
[13:30] Art Mint: wellL is as real as reality...
[13:30] oola Neruda: his reputaion as an artist was affected by the changes made
[13:30] Natsuo Winslet: oola, did he sue?
[13:30] Kiki Walpanheim: for example, it says the exact code for a software is protected....but not so with the patterns, maths involved in...
[13:31] oola Neruda: at the time... i don't think all of the info was resolved
[13:31] oola Neruda: do not know
[13:31] oola Neruda: whose property was it?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Neither do I know the outcome of that lawsuit agains Thomas Simon
[13:32] herman Bergson: I am curious to learn what the verdict was and the motivation
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: i think an expert in IP laws could successfully "steal" without violating any laws
[13:32] Natsuo Winslet: Letters are an interesting case.
[13:32] Natsuo Winslet: If I send you a letter, i believe the object is your property, but the content, the words, remain my property.
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: like oola's example, that they modified before using it....the art is on how to modify it
[13:32] oola Neruda: oh Natsu... wow
[13:33] Natsuo Winslet: So in the case of your friend oola,
[13:33] Natsuo Winslet: I guess the company would own the picture s/he made...
[13:33] Natsuo Winslet: but maybe s/he would own the image.
[13:33] herman Bergson: Which means I amy not publish your letter to me without your consent, Natsu?
[13:33] Natsuo Winslet: Yes, I believe so.
[13:33] oola Neruda: one of a kind painting
[13:34] oola Neruda: letter?
[13:34] oola Neruda: what about plagerism then
[13:34] oola Neruda: is that not a form of it
[13:34] Natsuo Winslet: I would think so.
[13:34] herman Bergson: Welll at least we have to look into the difference between intellectual property and material property and what they have in common
[13:35] herman Bergson: I am beginning to believe that there doesnt exist any private property at all
[13:35] Art Mint: I am thinking that maybe property rights in SL are similar if not the same than in RL, only modified by TOS clauses
[13:35] Natsuo Winslet: Well, in the case of intellectual property, as I said, it's not clear how Locke's idea of mixing labor with something would work. Though perhaps one can see a way to apply it.
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: :/
[13:35] herman Bergson: What exists are rules and regulations which define or rights in relation to the things around us
[13:36] Art Mint: of course if we accept that property rights are the same we should also accept sl as a reality
[13:37] herman Bergson: Well intellectual property is always represented by some material product..a book a painting...a theory on paper
[13:37] Daruma Boa: well its a part of reality
[13:37] Kiki Walpanheim: i'm just wondering about the case mentioned just now....so...if a sim owner decides to abandon the sim, then all parcel owners would lose the land with no warnings or refund?
[13:37] Natsuo Winslet: Not necessarily, herman.
[13:37] Kiki Walpanheim: if so....that's nasty....
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki...I made the story up, but today I heard it back literally...
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: wow
[13:38] Art Mint: yes it happens Kiki
[13:38] herman Bergson: friend of mine went on vacation for a few days...
[13:38] herman Bergson: when he came home the sim where he had rented land was gone...just gone including all his belongings there
[13:38] Kiki Walpanheim: would what the parcel owner create go back to his inventory? or lost too
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: wow
[13:39] Daruma Boa: oh 2 bad
[13:39] herman Bergson: All is gone...vanished into thin air...not a note not a message or warning...
[13:39] Kiki Walpanheim: what i hate the most is what i spent lots of time writing or creating suddenly become no more
[13:40] Daruma Boa: did he write a note to lindens?
[13:40] herman Bergson: That is the consequence of the fact that Linden does not define private property or just in the crude sense...
[13:40] Art Mint: mmm is the concept of property different across the globe? If so that makes defining it in sl even more complicated
[13:40] herman Bergson: It happened today so I dont know what the next step will be
[13:41] Daruma Boa: i read about some probs on the sl news page
[13:41] oola Neruda: yes it is different across the globe
[13:41] herman Bergson: But what is interesting in this SL situation is that it proofs that we do not accept the definition of private property in this way
[13:41] Art Mint: si with which one we compare sl's?
[13:41] oola Neruda: in malawi... land is used, not owned.. the head men say.. you may use this particular spot...but when you leave or die it reverts back to the village and the head man allows another to use it...
[13:42] herman Bergson: that you can do with you property as you like regardless anything or anybody
[13:42] Daruma Boa: humans always want to own things "save";-)
[13:42] Natsuo Winslet: oola, is that a different concept of property? Or just a case where there is no property?
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: yes, as ppl pay "tier"---fees for usage....so ppl are only renting land rather than owning land
[13:42] oola Neruda: it is a concept of property
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes oola... group property
[13:43] oola Neruda: the area i am thinking of has a lot of just unused land around it
[13:43] herman Bergson: I mentioned that in the former lecture
[13:43] Natsuo Winslet: Well we have group property int he west too.
[13:43] oola Neruda: this was unused but it was acquired by getting permission to use it
[13:43] herman Bergson: Oh yes....
[13:43] Natsuo Winslet: A club owns a car; the chair can give the car to a member to use on a particular day.
[13:43] herman Bergson: yes Natsu like we have common property....
[13:44] Natsuo Winslet: But oola, in what sense was it acquired with that permission? Why not just say it was borrowed, or used, with permission?
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: and residing on other ppl's place does not give a sense of safety
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: because it can be withdrawn any time....
[13:44] herman Bergson: the park is 'owned ' or may be used by everybody...no restriction
[13:44] herman Bergson: however the tenniscourt is owned by a group..the tennis club
[13:45] herman Bergson: and the other system is private property...
[13:45] Natsuo Winslet: Hi Pia
[13:45] Pia Janic: hey:) hi all:)
[13:45] Abraxas Nagy: .hi pia
[13:45] herman Bergson: We live in a society where you find a mix, and where it is hard to find a definition of private property
[13:45] oola Neruda: this is a long story... but the base line is that there is no ownership by anyone
[13:45] oola Neruda: not anyone
[13:45] Daruma Boa: hi pia
[13:46] oola Neruda: it is just that the headman is allowed to tell people they have permission to do ... whatever
[13:46] oola Neruda: it saves arguments
[13:46] oola Neruda: over... i put the labor into this
[13:46] herman Bergson: Well oola..ownership as such is also a special subject..I will discuss that next lexture...
[13:47] oola Neruda: if you do not treat the land properly the permission can be revoked also
[13:47] Natsuo Winslet: But aren't ownership and property just two sides of the same coin?
[13:47] oola Neruda: not in malawi
[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: which means, we live in a society where one can't possibly be isolated from social influences, some of which might be even compulsory
[13:47] Abraxas Nagy: not in Holland either
[13:47] herman Bergson: yes natsu....
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: that some choices we make cant be that free...because there are many things to consider
[13:48] Natsuo Winslet: But your description, oola, suggests exactly what I was suggesting; the land isn't property because nobody owns it. What is added in saying something is property once it is agreed that no-one owns it?
[13:48] herman Bergson: As I said last time...it is a triad: Owner - Object - third Party
[13:48] herman Bergson: I own a chair in society
[13:48] oola Neruda: the original question ... i thought... was... is the concept the same everywhere
[13:49] Kiki Walpanheim: Rousseau's theroy seems to begin to make sense to me gradually....
[13:49] herman Bergson: IN what way Kiki
[13:49] Natsuo Winslet: Right. But I wondered whether the situation you described was a different concept of property or a case where there was no property. If it's a different concept of property, one has to say what is involved in being property. And if no-owns that thing, I can't see what can be meant in saying it's property.
[13:50] oola Neruda: smiles... you should be a lawyer...
[13:50] Natsuo Winslet: Maybe I am. :)
[13:50] oola Neruda: smiles...
[13:50] herman Bergson smiles
[13:50] Natsuo Winslet: Actually, it's worse. I'm a philosopher, not a lawyer.
[13:50] oola Neruda: saying that nobody has property is a concept about the idea of property
[13:51] Natsuo Winslet: Ahhh, OK.
[13:51] herman Bergson: well you have common property, group property (oola's example) and individually ownd property
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: that in civilized society... things get complicated...ppl are less capable of living on his/her own...and have to abide by lots of artificial rules, which are unnatural
[13:52] herman Bergson: Yes Lili it si a point to consider...
[13:52] oola Neruda: and there are some countries where land has been nationalized
[13:52] herman Bergson: Kiki, I mean...
[13:52] oola Neruda: distributed evenly so to speak
[13:52] Art Mint: well property is not acquired only thru work, capital gains are an a example of a different way of obtaining property
[13:52] herman Bergson: makes it group property oola
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: ?
[13:53] oola Neruda: k
[13:53] herman Bergson: the government decides the use of the resources
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim: yes oola
[13:54] herman Bergson: common property means that nobody can call for any restriction of access to the resources
[13:54] Art Mint: ..unless we accept the idea that stockholders work...:)
[13:54] herman Bergson: That Art is an extra problem.....
[13:54] herman Bergson: people who do no labor at all but just fund money to others and wait for the dividend
[13:55] Art Mint: yes
[13:55] herman Bergson: complicates the property question even more
[13:55] Natsuo Winslet: Usuaiiy. Forbidden to Christians.
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: yes....
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: i think that was why marxism was developed....
[13:55] herman Bergson: I guess you mean muslims Natsu..the are not allowed to ask for interest
[13:55] Daruma Boa: oh - i am sorry. i have to go now.
[13:56] oola Neruda: another friend... land was nationalized... family's land was taken... father and uncle went into village... villagers stoned them
[13:56] Natsuo Winslet: Christians too, herman.
[13:56] herman Bergson: Bye Daruma
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: wow
[13:56] Natsuo Winslet: That's why they had the Jews act as moneylenders.
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim: oola, where is that friend from?
[13:56] Daruma Boa: but will do my best to be back next week;-)
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim: which country?
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: south africa?
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: Rhodesia
[13:56] oola Neruda: this was the exit of the shah of iran
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim: oh
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: wow
[13:56] oola Neruda: i am elderly
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: thats a while back
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: so em I
[13:57] Kiki Walpanheim: this kind of story is very familiar to me actually
[13:57] oola Neruda: smiles to abrax
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: :D
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: I saw the first moon landing live
[13:57] Natsuo Winslet: Me too.
[13:57] herman Bergson: Me two ㋡
[13:57] oola Neruda: me too... on my birthday
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: wow
[13:58] Natsuo Winslet: What a great present, oola.
[13:58] herman Bergson: cool
[13:58] Art Mint: me too but I won't say it:)
[13:58] oola Neruda: in my ... over 15
[13:58] herman Bergson smiles
[13:58] oola Neruda: parr.... teeee
[13:58] herman Bergson: As we are drifting away from our subject I suggest we prepare for the next lecture ...
[13:59] Abraxas Nagy: ah yes
[13:59] herman Bergson: So...may I thank you for your participation
[13:59] Natsuo Winslet: Thank you, herman.
[13:59] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[13:59] Abraxas Nagy: ty for an amazing lecture professor
[13:59] Art Mint: ty:)
[13:59] Natsuo Winslet: Take care everyone.
[13:59] Kiki Walpanheim: thank you professor and all.....it was again a nice lecture
[13:59] Abraxas Nagy: tc Natsuo
[13:59] herman Bergson: thank you
[13:59] Kiki Walpanheim: yes amazing lecture
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: I am gonna ponder some on it
[14:00] herman Bergson: Do so Abraxas ㋡
[14:00] Art Mint: bye everybody:)
[14:00] Kiki Walpanheim: see you
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: yep
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: bye Art
[14:00] Abraxas Nagy: my friends.. see you nexttime
[14:01] oola Neruda: be well
[14:01] herman Bergson: Be well Abraxas
[14:01] Abraxas Nagy: ty and you 2 to

248: Montesquieu (1689 - 1755)

The Age of the Enlightenment is a turning point in the development of European civilization. Some people complain about the individualism and the empty churches of today.

However, this is not a modern phenomenon at all. It all began with the Enlightenment, when knowledge became scientific knowledge and christianity had ceased to be one religion, but a multitude of different interpretations.

These are the roots of our contemporary world and in Montesquieu (1689 - 1755) we again meet a political philosopher who set the beacons for the centuries to come.

He was famous in his own century both in France and in foreign lands, from Russia to the American colonies. He was a follower of John Locke and the outstanding champion in France of the supposedly “English” notions of freedom, toleration, moderation, and constitutional government.


The dominant role of religion in political philosophy had come to a definite end. Locke already proposed to separate state and religion.

God is described by Montesquieu in Book 1 of his "De l'esprit des lois"as creating nature and its laws; having done so, He vanishes, and plays no further explanatory role.

In particular, Montesquieu does not explain the laws of any country by appeal to divine enlightenment, providence, or guidance. On his view it is generally a mistake to base civil laws on religious principles. Religion aims at the perfection of the individual; civil laws aim at the welfare of society.

The civil laws are not an appropriate tool for enforcing religious norms of conduct: God has His own laws, and He is quite capable of enforcing them without our assistance.

When we attempt to enforce God's laws for Him, or to cast ourselves as His protectors, we make our religion an instrument of fanaticism and oppression; this is a service neither to God nor to our country. How modern these ideas sound, if we look at islamic fanaticism and its cry of the Sharia.

Montesquieu's masterpiece is definitely his "De l’esprit des lois". It was first published in Geneva in 1748 against the advice of all the friends to whom Montesquieu had shown the manuscript. It was promptly placed on the Index by the Pope, but it sold twenty-two editions in less than two years.

Montesquieu's aim in "The Spirit of the Laws" is to explain human laws and social institutions. And thus he became the fist scientist formulating sociological research on a strict empiricist basis.

According to him the laws we have are man made and adapted "to the people for whom they are framed..., to the nature and principle of each government, ...

to the climate of each country, to the quality of its soil, to its situation and extent, to the principal occupation of the natives, whether husbandmen, huntsmen or shepherds:…"

In all the diversity however , Montesquieu, saw a general law. At the highest level of abstraction, he saw a uniform law—“Men have always been subject to the same passions”—but in various societies this higher natural law is expressed in differing systems of positive law. The systems differ because the external conditions differ.

To make things work you need the right government. Montesquieu holds that there are three types of governments: republican governments, which can take either democratic or aristocratic forms; monarchies; and despotisms.

If it is to provide its citizens with the greatest possible liberty, a government must have certain features. First, since "constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it ... it is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power".

This is achieved through the separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of government. If different persons or bodies exercise these powers, then each can check the others if they try to abuse their powers.

And here we see the legacy of a man, who lived a three hundred years ago: the separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of government, still a cornerstone of our democracy and thus our liberty.


The Discussion

[13:18] herman Bergson: This on Montesquieu...
[13:18] herman Bergson: Time for questions and remarks ㋡
[13:19] Repose Lionheart: Montesquieu got it right, I think ㋡
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: this looks so simple~!!!!!!!! On his view it is generally a mistake to base civil laws on religious principles. Religion aims at the perfection of the individual; civil laws aim at the welfare of society.
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: i love that
[13:19] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:19] herman Bergson: I agree Repose....and we are still on the liberal train....
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: why cannot our citizens get that throught their heads
[13:19] oola Neruda: yay Gemma.. ye
[13:19] oola Neruda: yes
[13:20] herman Bergson: Good question Gemma ^_^
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: this is at the root of so many of our conflicts here in government today
[13:20] herman Bergson: It is amazing that a man 300 years ago already thought of these things
[13:20] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: well not necessarly
[13:20] herman Bergson: what exactly Gemma?
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: no wonder the church did not like him
[13:21] Repose Lionheart: oh, yes ㋡
[13:21] herman Bergson: Oh no....immediately put on the INdex
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: well 300 years ago that was the root of the puritans formulation
[13:22] Bruce Mowbray: Is our country's refusal to see churches as corporations a sign of continuing M's liberalism - or a step backward from it?
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: the idea of separation of church and state
[13:22] Abraxas Nagy: our country?
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: our country
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: usa
[13:22] Bruce Mowbray: I'm sorry!
[13:22] Bruce Mowbray: I really am sorry.
[13:22] Bruce Mowbray: The Unitged States.
[13:22] Abraxas Nagy: ah ok
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:22] herman Bergson: It is ok Bruce
[13:23] oola Neruda: a lot of what the church wants and the state wants...overlap... like consequences for murder, stealing etc. the church could make an issue of how they serve all of society as well as the individual
[13:23] herman Bergson: I dont know Bruce... churches dont pay taxes....
[13:23] herman Bergson: that I know
[13:24] Bruce Mowbray: That's part of it, yes.
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: maybe a step back ㋡
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: religion does get special treatment
[13:24] herman Bergson: Well first of all aIlready in those days the political philosophy was that the church has no relation with the affairs of state.
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: but they all get it
[13:25] herman Bergson: Locke already suggested a clear separation…
[13:25] herman Bergson: Religion is something of the individual
[13:25] Zinzi Serevi: i agree
[13:25] Zinzi's translator: i agree
[13:25] herman Bergson: And he only should be protected by law to be free in his choices of religion
[13:25] Bruce Mowbray: Would Mont. and Locke agree that churches should not be treated as corportations, though -- I mean, that they should be granted special status apart from civil laws?
[13:26] herman Bergson: Well...we now witness what the consequences can be of that special status....
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: interesting question
[13:26] Alaya Kumaki: i see that today , we have rather the problem of power abuse checking to organise better also
[13:27] Alaya Kumaki: but what is the difference between the religions executive and the parliament executive?
[13:27] herman Bergson: All those priests that broke civil law regarding sexual abuse...should have been put to trail
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: of course
[13:27] Zinzi Serevi: sure
[13:27] Zinzi's translator: sure
[13:28] Alaya Kumaki: dowe have a some slack, in our executive according to the civil laws?
[13:28] herman Bergson: In fact religions have no executive power in the state
[13:28] Bruce Mowbray: If church and state are REALLY separate -- then the churches have their laws/punishments and the states have theirs.
[13:28] herman Bergson: Nor has the Elvis Presley fan club
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: but the person broke the law of the state
[13:28] herman Bergson: No....I wouldnt agree to that Bruce...
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: what about religions in public school and the military... does accomodating their need of religion conflict with the strict separation
[13:29] Bruce Mowbray: ;-)
[13:29] herman Bergson: When church and state are separated the church is to obey the civil laws
[13:29] Alaya Kumaki: but they were those who abuses of their power over the civil, and we have the law executive, what are we waiting
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: someone once said to me it was none of my business... the priest problem.... because i was not a catholic
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: that is the way they believe
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: believe*
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: that the church should punish the sinner
[13:30] herman Bergson: Well Gemma..that person was wrong...the priest broke the civil laws YOU obey to as well
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: and it is not our business
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: exactly!!!!!!!!!!
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: everybody's business when someone breaks a law we all make...a civil law ㋡
[13:31] oola Neruda: if the priest confesses and says he will not do it again... the church believes in redemption... which is a touchy subject
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:31] Bruce Mowbray: Seems to come down to who has the most power -- In Islamic countries, it's the "church," and in secular countries it's the state.
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes oola
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: the church is not a civil law unto itself anymore
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: though it once was
[13:31] herman Bergson: Well when the murderer confesses and promise not to kill anymore he may walk?
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: old habits die hard, maybe
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: "secular" countries?
[13:32] oola Neruda: exactly ... prof..
[13:32] Abraxas Nagy: state and church separated
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: yes, Bruce
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: agree
[13:32] Bruce Mowbray: Good point - mmmm. . . OK, countries in which there is a "separation between church and state" - which does not exist in Islamic countries.
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Bruce..
[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: nods...ty
[13:32] Abraxas Nagy: exact;y
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: there in is a great example of the problem
[13:33] herman Bergson: and the funny thing is that Montesquieu thought that despositm was 'best' for islamic countries
[13:33] Alaya Kumaki: but for the natures laws, what dies montesquieu says, like if we put that in the context of the protection of the environment? are they god s law, so link to religions?
[13:33] herman Bergson: Monarchy for catholic countries and protestantism for Republican countries
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmmmm
[13:34] Kiki Walpanheim: there are places with no religions too
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: not working lolol
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: minorities were freer under the Shah than they are under the Islamic Republic
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: so he had his list lol
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: his directives
[13:34] herman Bergson: Montesquieu is quite clear about that Ayala...
[13:34] Bruce Mowbray: This reminds me of Ghandi's separation of Hinduism and Islam by sending all the Hindus to India and all the Muslims to Pakistan.
[13:34] Bruce Mowbray: And NOW look at the mess!
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:35] herman Bergson: God created the earth and natural law and then vanished :-)
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: Ghandi resisted that.....
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: that was the idea of the politicians
[13:35] Alaya Kumaki: aaah so,its up to us, than?^^
[13:36] Abraxas Nagy: of couirse
[13:36] herman Bergson: yes Ayala....
[13:36] herman Bergson: This whole idea of natural law, the idea that all mankind is driven by the same passions...
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: in whichever way things were created.... we are here at this stage...which is the only truth we can feel
[13:36] herman Bergson: there ideas are now alive even stronger...
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:37] Bruce Mowbray: Mont. said that differing circumstances in different countries would determine how church and state were in relationship with each other. . . What would such circumstance be?
[13:37] herman Bergson: evolutionary theory..... neurobiology....themes like that
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: did mont say they should be or that they would be
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: ahhhh...that's where you're going when you go beyond liberalism?
[13:38] Bruce Mowbray: That they would be... ?
[13:38] herman Bergson: Well.. like catholics like a head of their church a pope, thay are also more inclined to accept a king as hea dof state...in contrats with protestants
[13:38] oola Neruda: think tribe... and isolation... do they have those circumstances bruce
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: that seems to be a good explanation as to why they are
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: not how they should be
[13:39] herman Bergson: Mont. was the first who compared legal systems of countries
[13:39] oola Neruda: because we come from the isolated tribe... so how did it all eveove... back to basics
[13:39] Bruce Mowbray: Could the circumstances change?
[13:39] herman Bergson: a brilliant step
[13:39] oola Neruda: evolve
[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: Like, if an evangelican Christian had sufficient backing to take over the government of an otherwise "secular" nation. . . ?
[13:40] herman Bergson: The circumstances changed in Europe Bruce...
[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: Yes.
[13:40] herman Bergson: with the advent of protestantism we also got republics...kings were decapitated even
[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: Puritans were exiled. . .
[13:40] herman Bergson: The Netherlands became a republic...
[13:40] herman Bergson: now we are stuck with expensive royalty again
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: but still have a king and queen
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: ahhha
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: money
[13:41] Bruce Mowbray: Yayyyy. . . . Spinoza, my hero!
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: darn yes
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: kick em out I say
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: hehehe
[13:41] Bruce Mowbray: ;-)
[13:41] herman Bergson: I agree Abraxas...such outdated folklore
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: exactly
[13:41] Alaya Kumaki: whay was he the first to compare, ? were they not near one another in europe?
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: BUT . . . the US is still living the legacy of the Puritans...
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: the best part of their legacy
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: Spinoza was a sort of Pantheist, I believe.
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: fortunately we do not burn witches anymore
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: He was also Jewish, of course.
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Ayala...MOnt. was in fact the first sociologist
[13:43] Bruce Mowbray: Are you SURE "we" don't?
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: i cannot remember him from the first project
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: will have to back and look again
[13:43] Bruce Mowbray: Yes, I love Mont's ideas concerning climate and the state, culture.
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: depends on the part of the country bruce lol
[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes..he had very specific ideas about that....also remarkable
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray: Those 'hot' Italians - lazy? -- and those brilliantly crisp Scottish.
[13:44] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: hehehehe
[13:44] herman Bergson: well...I think ..let's stick to colorful avatars here Bruce
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray: ok.
[13:45] Alaya Kumaki: so he has brought moderation, by doing this, unless our law executive is weakened,, but by what? alack of civil voice?
[13:45] herman Bergson: what do you mean Ayala?
[13:45] oola Neruda: propaganda
[13:45] oola Neruda: techniques
[13:45] Abraxas Nagy: spindoctors
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: and wow do we have them
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: sadly
[13:46] Abraxas Nagy: very sad indeed
[13:46] Alaya Kumaki: if the church is no longer the state, how did they went over the law, and nobody did nor do nothing about it,, who has more voice, to make the law in executions, who inforce the executive power of the law than?
[13:47] Bruce Mowbray: When Mont. wrote of the influence of 'circumstances,' one of the things he took into consideration was climate. That's why, he said, there were political/cultural difference between Spain or Italy and England or Scotland.
[13:47] oola Neruda: render unto ceasar what is his... and unto god what is his
[13:47] herman Bergson: All these priests should have been arrested in my opinion Alaya...simple as that
[13:47] Abraxas Nagy: right
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: the church used to be the law, and acted like it was still
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: no question
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: it was wrong ㋡
[13:48] oola Neruda: i would go so far as to cut of body parts
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: thanks to Montesquieu in part
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: mmmm its tempting oola
[13:48] herman Bergson: One Dutch Bishop has transferred a priest to police custody because of sexual abuse and fraud lat seek
[13:48] Alaya Kumaki: we are the civil opinion os we have some representative in the chambre of parliament, what is preventing the law to be apply than?
[13:48] Bruce Mowbray: But if the church and state are truly SEPARATE, shouldn't the church take care of its own, and the state punish its own...?
[13:48] Bruce Mowbray: In other words, these are two separate entities under separate jurisdiction.
[13:49] oola Neruda: right bruce... it is a quandry..isnt it
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: no one can be above the civil law in a culture in which there is the rule of law
[13:49] herman Bergson: No Bruce...
[13:49] Kiki Walpanheim: i think any ideology could be bad if u impose it on ppl, atheism could be the same as religions...in this way
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: no one, no institution
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: I'm trying to see it from Mont's pont of view, not ours.
[13:49] herman Bergson: Like every one the church is under civic law too
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: i see
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: Would Mont. say that everyone is under the state's laws?
[13:50] herman Bergson: well in my opinion
[13:50] oola Neruda: but they seem to be keeping ceasar and god separate and rendering only to their own
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: so...i guess the separation entails compromise
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: i have to leave now
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: see you all tuesday
[13:50] herman Bergson: AS he said... the law is to protect social welfare....has nothing to do withthe church, which only aims at individual improvement
[13:50] Bruce Mowbray: Bye, Gemma.
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: very interesting class
[13:51] Zinzi Serevi: bye Gemma i have to leave as well
[13:51] Zinzi's translator: Gemma bye i have to leave as well
[13:51] Zinzi Serevi: bye bye
[13:51] Zinzi's translator: bye bye
[13:51] herman Bergson: Our time is up....power to the class here !
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: bye Gemma
[13:51] Alaya Kumaki: yeah
[13:51] Bruce Mowbray: POWER to the CLASSES!
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: YEAH!!!
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: lol
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: thank you professor, it was great
[13:51] herman Bergson: So I rest my case for today and dismiss class ^_^
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: see you all later
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: :D
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡
[13:52] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation...
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: see ya Kiki
[13:52] Bruce Mowbray: Thank you for putting up with me, Herman.
[13:52] Alaya Kumaki: byby thank yu prof herman
[13:52] herman Bergson: You did a find job Bruce, thnx
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: well it wasnt to bad Bruce
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: o A o!
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: poof
[13:52] herman Bergson: Gone he is ㋡

247: John Locke (1632 - 1704)

I don't know how you feel about is, but after Hobbes and our analysis of the concept of Liberty, it almost looks as if liberalism is inevitable.

In the past decades we have seen systems collapse. Communism is no longer a viable way of organizing a society, it seems.

What is left are more or less democratically organized countries and a bunch of totalitarian regimes and on or two communist fossils.

And here we have John Locke(1632 -1704), called the "father of Liberalism". So again a liberal political philosopher.

I must admit that the theory is attractive in an intuitive way, as if it is so obvious indeed. And yet I have the feeling that I am missing something. I can not yet put my finger on it, but I miss something.

But don't worry, eventually we'll get to that point where we say….yes that is what we miss in the theory of liberalism.

John Locke is a man with a long career and he has written a lot,while in his writings there is a constant development. We'll focus on the mature ideas.

Like Hobbes he begins his theory with the natural state of man. In a natural state all people were equal and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his life, health, liberty, or possessions.

Though selfishness plays a part in this natural state, Locke believed it was guided and controlled by reason and tolerance, while Hobbes concluded that it leads to a war of all against all.

However, like Hobbes, Locke assumed that the sole right to defend in the state of nature was not enough, so people established a society based on consent to resolve conflicts in a civil way with help from government in a state of society.

Community begins with consent, Locke argues, and this consent can only be majority consent, as universal consent is impossible to gain. Consent of the governed is the only justifiable form of government,

He makes a clear distinction between the legislative and the executive power. This executive power is restricted by the laws. If it goes beyond that the people is justified to revolt.

A central issue in Locke's theory is property. In the state of nature, everything is commonly owned; but as God gave man senses and reason to use for his preservation

and reproduction, that which he removes out of the state of nature with his own hands becomes his property – and this is natural and just.

To quote Locke: “The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my Property in them.”

And can we pick all apples from a tree, so that they become our property? No says Locke. Christian morality demands that a man take from nature that which is for his enjoyment,

“as much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils … whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for Man to spoil or destroy.”

And here Locke gets very interesting in developing maybe the first well formulated principles of capitalism. By making durable goods you can exchange them for to redundant apples you picked.

Next step is the use of money and the accumulation of money. While it is immoral to accumulate all apples, it is not immoral to accumulate a lot of money. We'll get back to that some other time.



The Discussion

[13:15] herman Bergson: So much on John Locke
[13:16] herman Bergson: maybe even the father of capitalism ^_^
[13:16] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmmm
[13:16] Abraxas Nagy: pffft
[13:16] herman Bergson: This development fascinates me more and more...
[13:17] herman Bergson: kind of how to escape from liberalism ^_^
[13:17] Gemma Cleanslate: having a hard time with the taking from nature etc
[13:17] herman Bergson: It brought us th e financial crisis, didnt it
[13:17] Gemma Cleanslate: if it belons to someone else
[13:17] Gemma Cleanslate: or does it
[13:18] Kiki Walpanheim: majority consent--wouldn't it mean that the minority are ruled without consent
[13:18] herman Bergson: no Gemma...in the natural state of man everything belongs to everyone...there is no private property
[13:18] Zinzi Serevi: je kunt je af vragen of het niet immoreel is zonder grens geld te vergaren
[13:18] Gemma Cleanslate: well now
[13:18] Repose Lionheart: they consent to participate in the system and abide by it's rules ㋡
[13:19] Kiki Walpanheim: but what about some who does not consent to it....it is their country, they can't just have other choices
[13:19] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki....Locke talks about minorities as inconveniences
[13:20] herman Bergson: in Hobbes terms it is a war of all against all
[13:20] Repose Lionheart: can't have two forms of government in one place...they go elsewhere, maybe
[13:20] herman Bergson: In Locke's terms it is a majority against a minority in which reasonprevails..also for the minority
[13:20] Kiki Walpanheim: :/
[13:20] Kiki Walpanheim: nods at herman...
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: wow inconveniences .... well
[13:21] herman Bergson: on important issue for Locke was also Tolerance...
[13:21] herman Bergson: he assumed that the reasonable person also is a tolerant person
[13:22] Kiki Walpanheim: and when legal equality is emphasized, inequality of classes becomes inevitable, it seems
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: assumption should be correct but often is not
[13:22] herman Bergson: yes Gemma ㋡
[13:23] herman Bergson: I am anxious to learn how things will continue with men like Rousseau and Montesqieu
[13:24] herman Bergson: and then it might be interesting to focus on the concept of property...
[13:24] herman Bergson: And yes Zinzi...is it immoral to accumulate unlimited amounts of money?
[13:24] herman Bergson: Locke accepts this
[13:25] herman Bergson: tho on the other hand it is the task of the government to watch over the distribution of wealth
[13:25] Abraxas Nagy: yea right
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: is it???
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: that is a big question is it the task of govt
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: Locke is British...perhaps class is his Achille's heel, as Kiki suggests ㋡
[13:26] herman Bergson: and when you project this on a global scale you may notice ow primitive we still are in this distribution of weath over the planet
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: oh, yes, very true
[13:26] Abraxas Nagy: yep.. but its deliberate
[13:27] herman Bergson: yes Abraxas..that is the worst of all
[13:27] Zinzi Serevi: i agree
[13:27] Zinzi's translator: i agree
[13:27] Abraxas Nagy: exactly
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: "economic democracy" is still a very new concept, I think
[13:27] herman Bergson: Ah..Repose..yes
[13:27] herman Bergson: While selfishness is so old already
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: o
[13:28] Zinzi Serevi: lol
[13:28] Zinzi's translator: lol
[13:28] Kiki Walpanheim: tho laws and legislations are good , better than let the gov abuse power, in my opinion-----still, i think there are flaws with laws...because
[13:29] herman Bergson: In fact I get the feeling now...how primitive we are in respect to economic democracy
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: yes, much room left for the growth of the human heart in the centuries ahead ㋡
[13:29] Kiki Walpanheim: because the laws just make the same rules for every individual... while each individual case is unique... sometimes... what is legal is not moral, what is illegal is indeed moral....because
[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes Repose I agree...we already achieved a little, didnt we...so there is hope
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: Yes ㋡
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: Yes, too
[13:31] herman Bergson: I am not that pessimistic about mankind at all....
[13:31] Zinzi Serevi: its a long way to go
[13:31] Zinzi's translator: its a long way to go
[13:31] herman Bergson: Like 7of9 always says: You will adapt
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: lol!
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: the ever wise 7of9 ㋡
[13:31] herman Bergson: she is a beauty...but this aside...
[13:32] Abraxas Nagy: I'd say
[13:32] herman Bergson: Anyway….
[13:32] herman Bergson: I think we should keep a sharp eye on the development of liberalism...
[13:32] herman Bergson: and question it eventually
[13:33] Abraxas Nagy: i agree
[13:33] herman Bergson: I have a feeling there is something wrong with this theory....
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: Hmmm...last time you kept a close eye on something, you turned me into a virtue ethicist. lol!
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: hehehe
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: lololol
[13:33] herman Bergson smiles
[13:33] Kiki Walpanheim: and is this theory about the idea of americanism
[13:34] herman Bergson: Well..most interesting is that Locke was at the cradle of the Declaration of INdependence of the US
[13:35] herman Bergson: and thi scountry is all liberal in all kinds of shapes
[13:35] Abraxas Nagy: wich has been degraded by the patriot act
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim nods
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: patriot act?
[13:35] Abraxas Nagy: after 9/11
[13:35] Kiki Walpanheim: i'll look it up...
[13:35] herman Bergson: I still find the Health Care Act debate and what I heard people say in the US as a perfect example of conflicts in liberalism
[13:36] Abraxas Nagy: yes u should
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim nods
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: a law that had the effect of limiting personal freedoms in the US
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: amazing stuff
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: both
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes Repose.....a restricted government or a more active government?
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: no, i mean the patriot act
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: the*
[13:37] herman Bergson: With Locke we are at the cradle of liberalism...
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: the opposition to the Heath reforms was, in my opinion, insane
[13:37] herman Bergson: from here it will develop further
[13:38] herman Bergson: allow me to agree with you `repose
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: ㋡
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: any reasonable person would, and Locke would approve. Prof ㋡
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: heheheh
[13:38] herman Bergson: ok...steady we go....next one will be Montesquieu!
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: elaborate some?
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:39] Zinzi Serevi: ok
[13:39] Zinzi's translator: ok
[13:39] herman Bergson: Let's take it easy for today...Locke wasnt that controversial.. wasnt he
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol well we are making him so
[13:39] herman Bergson: Unless there is still left an unanswered question.....
[13:40] herman Bergson: You think he was Gemma?
[13:40] Kiki Walpanheim: locke said property hoarding was legitimate till it was spoiled....where is the point of "spoiled"
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: well we all seem to be
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: pulling his short words apart
[13:41] herman Bergson: when you have more than you can consume Kiki
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: also it seems majority rule becomes inevitable, which was what Mill didnt like
[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: nods
[13:41] herman Bergson: no.. I dont agree Kiki
[13:42] herman Bergson: Mill indeed spoke of the tyrany of the majority, but he meant something very specific...
[13:42] herman Bergson: He meant the dominating moral of the victorian age....which had more political influence than the chosen majority
[13:42] Kiki Walpanheim: there should be at least some ppl who do not consent to the system, and who do not agree to the taxation, yet the majority vote determines that
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: the "majority" is complex...we all hold hundreds of opinions and policy positions...on some we are in the majority...on others we are in the minority
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: there is fairness in this
[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: nods....
[13:43] herman Bergson: yes...that too Repose
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: and i dont think it is easy , that if some ppl dont agree to the system they could easily find another land and live together in their way..
[13:44] Kiki Walpanheim: well, some compromise is necessary any way
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: well, that's fine, because i don't want to be governed by fascists, or theocrats, or....
[13:45] herman Bergson: the problem with a disagreeing minority is that it claims to posses the REAL THRUTH
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: i would love to take a look at that land after they all get there
[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim nods...
[13:45] Zinzi Serevi: yes like in many religions over here
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: take a look at North Korea ㋡
[13:45] herman Bergson: this implies a humiliation and disrespect of the majority which believes at least to have a truth too
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: or Iran ㋡
[13:46] Kiki Walpanheim: nods....
[13:46] herman Bergson: yes..this zealous selfrightiousness has always lead to disaster
[13:47] herman Bergson: sectarism
[13:47] herman Bergson: and what Aristotle already feared...factions and civil war
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: hmmm....yes
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: factions... i tend to link that with NGO's
[13:48] herman Bergson: what is that..NGO?
[13:48] Zinzi Serevi: whats NGO?
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: non-governmental organization ㋡
[13:48] Kiki Walpanheim: yes , Repose
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: typically charities
[13:48] herman Bergson: ok
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: not always though
[13:49] Kiki Walpanheim: is Guild NGO too?
[13:49] herman Bergson: no...in the democratic party in the US you can have factions too I think...
[13:49] Kiki Walpanheim: oh...
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: oh, yes, Prof
[13:49] herman Bergson: just small groups with shared (self)interest
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: oh gosh well yes
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: and also in the republican party
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: sharp divisions on some issues
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: true
[13:50] herman Bergson: oh yes Gemma....they arent any better ^_^
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe one way to tackle that problem of majority/minority is to allow some laws made at , say, state level rather than national level...but
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: but however specific to a region, some ppl still need to compromise
[13:51] herman Bergson: Well Kiki....you sound like European politics....
[13:51] herman Bergson: And the magic words from Bruxelles
[13:51] Kiki Walpanheim: I don't know....
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: compromise is inevitable and not a bad thing, i think
[13:52] herman Bergson: Well...important is that the minority has to give in...
[13:52] herman Bergson: eventually...
[13:52] Zinzi Serevi: yep
[13:52] Zinzi's translator: yep
[13:52] herman Bergson: if not, you have a civil war at hand
[13:52] herman Bergson: Look at Birma...
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: well we did that too
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: yes, we did
[13:53] herman Bergson: And there the government isnt representing the majority...it is totalitarian
[13:53] Kiki Walpanheim nods....
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[13:53] herman Bergson: and Locke supports revolution agains and executive power that ignores the laws
[13:54] herman Bergson: in fact there is happening what almost logically follows form his ideas
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: yes,
[13:55] herman Bergson: Well...let me thank you for your participation again...
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: have to reread about locke
[13:55] Kiki Walpanheim: thank you professor
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: is more complicated than he seems
[13:55] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:55] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡
[13:55] herman Bergson: Oh yes gemma..
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: back to fishing lol
[13:56] Zinzi Serevi: thanks proff
[13:56] Zinzi's translator: thanks Proff
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: while the good ones are left
[13:56] herman Bergson: He was against slavery and secretary of a slaves owning company
[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thanks for the lecture, herman! bye bye class, see to you Thursday
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: well that is good and bad
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim is going to read him to understand americanism
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: see you all Thursday
[13:56] Kiki Walpanheim: see you
[13:56] Zinzi Serevi: bye bye all
[13:56] Zinzi's translator: bye bye all
[13:57] herman Bergson: Ok Abraxas...
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: it was interesting again ty