[one.more.ace]

Should you allow a discussion of violating a provision of statutory/written law, including the Constitution, then you are wandering off the key issue: you are discussing secondary rather than first principles. In other words, discussing effects without the context of first principles.

In such a discussion, you may reasonable expect that black becomes white, and up becomes down; and anything goes.

Whereas, references to the phrase “the right” in the Constitution, is a reference to something already established based on first principles (which pre-date the Constitution), not actually defined by the Constitution, and that is why the Constitution merely “enumerates” [those previously established] rights. Reiterating this: Nowhere does the Constitution define and establish rights; it merely refers to those previously established rights.

Hence, “rights” do not come from the government. (Remember, the Constitution defines and establishes – causes – said government – the effect, not the other way around.)

Attempts to convert this “recognition” to “definition,” or to reverse cause with effect, is merely an attempt to separate secondary effects from first principles.

Once that is accomplished, black is white.

Note that in this discussion: http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/piers-morgan-reduced-to-name-calling-in-gun-control-debate/

…Larry Pratt will not be deflected off of first principles. (And this is what frustrates Morgan.)

[one.more.ace]

Pete,

Lot’s of excellent suggestion herein.

But, I submit that the advice is tactical in nature (think “actions”), responding to your implied request for actions. Although it is sound advice, and certainly valuable, without a broader context of what you wish to accomplish (i.e., your goal, your desired destination), the tactics will produce limited results, and only at the tactical level. (I.e., you may win actions.)

I suggest that you establish a goal in this context – an explicit desired outcome or accomplishment; and once you do so, and clearly understand what it is that you wish to accomplish, that goal will help you take advantage of all the above advice in context, and apply it as needed in progress toward the goal. (Think of a goal as the place you want to get to – a chosen destination; and the tactics are the actions you take to get yourself further down the road to arrive at that destination.)

For example, I sense that you wish to accomplish something more than win arguments (which is just winning isolated actions), although you sense that argumentation is a required method to get to your (not-yet articulated) goal.

So here’s the question to ask yourself: “If I could visualize an outcome – a chosen destination in the context of interacting with my friends, ‘the end of the road’ in this context, what would that outcome look like?”

Rough that out, turn it over and look at it from all sides, kick it about a bit, polish it up a bit, and you will have a solid goal that will help to (a) get you to your chosen destination and, (b) help you stay out of the weeds. It will also be something that you deem “worth it.”

(As an aside: Although posting a blog is an excellent idea, without a clear and explicit goal framing all content, the blog will tend to wander; to become superfluous and not relevant; and you may come to question its worth, and your expenditure of time and effort.)

If this approach interests you, and you’re comfortable doing so, then don’t be afraid to work through and vet possible/potential goals (i.e., desired outcomes) with this community of fellow travelers. There appears to be much experience and knowledge you could lean into.

– Harry

[Author]

Posts