Origin of Government

In Round 2 Pro stated, “There are two major worldviews, theism and atheism, which both make assumptions about the beginning of the universe.”All theist believes God created the universe and everything in it, including the Laws of Nature. Therefore, the Laws of Nature are the handwriting of God and the scientific method is a way to read God's handwriting.Since Pro is a person of faith (theories VII and VIII) and for those of faith, including preachers and prophets, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study or write such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets--and, in some cases, God help us all. Relative to those man written scriptures, are the seeds to social norms. The machinery of social evolution maintains a convoluted relationship with such scriptures containing wisdom from tested norms, passed down through the generations from Antiquity through the Dark Ages. Those norms are the result from social positive-feedback throughout the flow of Unalienable Rights stemmed from morality to please the gods, in the evolution of belief systems found in all societies. The fallout to please the gods, echoes through Pro's thesis in Round 2, “The origin of government is only possible through the existence of a Moral Lawgiver. The purpose of government is for humans to interact with each other in good manner, as we are designed to belong in a community. Morality is known through divine and natural law, with natural law being discovered through reason, and divine through revelation. Through these two principles, governments were started by a patriarchal system, with the patriarch obeying the moral code.”Pro's position is more about the prerequisite for government being a society, “...we are designed to belong in a community.” Where a society is the manifestation of Morality in the evolution of social norms. Con's position on the “Origin of Government” is one of evolution, where its foundational structure has hierarchical symmetry, represented by that common tree pattern found throughout nature (parent-child configurations). This structure is found in social “pecking order” configurations throughout many species on the tree of life. Government is a human defined term having the same hierarchical structure found throughout nature; for it is this structure that defines the “Origin of Government.” Con's position maintains scientific backing from a recent discovery [Constructal Law], using “reason” in the analysis of flow, came forward a “revelation” in a common tree structure pattern found throughout nature, and it is this pattern responsible for the “Origin of Government.” The norms of a society is a function of a Moral Order, does not guarantee its governance will rule in a moral way, as implied by Pro's thesis. Hence, the spectrum of governance from Left to Right. On the Left side we have an immoral government, using tyranny, to force some mastermind's dogma onto society (an Oligarchy). On the Right side we have a moral limited government to embrace and protect the individual's Unalienable Rights (a Constitutional Republic). A constitutional republic is instituted by the people in a social contract (http://plato.stanford.edu...), to preserve, defend, and conservatively nurture social norms, relative to the freedom of positive social flow, and protects those norms from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government. The following video presentation highlights a constitutional republic (using the USA as an example) compared to the spectrum of governance along with a general overview of economics, an important part of government. www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIdOv0A8cvE&feature=youtu.be With this general overview on the spectrum of governance we could claim all of Pro's theories in Round 1 pertain mostly to the history of governance known to exist throughout humanity, in one form or another. For example: I-the family, II-social compact (Locke), III- the collective sovereign (Marx), IV-Con's favorite, evolution (the “Origin of Government”), V-appointment of God (Kings and Queens), VI-the Pope (government over the Catholic society) or spiritual society (ISIS, and other forms of theocracies), VII-God through the people (people are a way for nature to see and experience itself to live together and govern, a product of God's Laws of Nature), VIII-God through natural law (human's ability to use reason to analyze human nature, to build a government also, a product of God's Laws of Nature). All theories are manifestations of theory IV (the “Origin of Government”), for they all maintain a common hierarchical tree structure found in all forms of governance. In Round 3 Pro referred to “Physical vs. Metaphysical.” The concept of “physical” is easy, dealing with the scientific method to decipher the Laws of Nature. On the other hand, Con takes issue with Pro from the standpoint that it is not easy to say what “metaphysical” is, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu...). In summary, about the seventeenth century “metaphysics” began to be a catch-all category, a repository of philosophical problems that could not be otherwise classified: “not epistemology, not logic, not ethics, etc.” It was at about that time that the word “ontology” was invented--to be a name for the science of being as such, an office that the word ‘metaphysics’ could no longer fill. It would seem that “metaphysics” is some state of one's chaotic philosophy until the scientific method presents the incarnation of clarity. Pro in Round 3 questioned the usage of the term “Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson used that term as a metaphor representing positive-feedback, after having the freedom and the pursuit of an accomplished objective. By no means does positive-feedback results always in happiness. For example, last year I had to put down my best Friend. My dog who been a member of the family for many years. He was suffering and so was the rest of the family suffering over his condition. By no means the pursuit of that objective yielded happiness, however, it was the right thing to do, the suffering is over, yielding positive-feedback. Pro in Round 3 took issue with Con's position on the “origin of language.” Con stated in Round 2 the following:Over time, group-wide positive-feedback is the genesis of traditions, social values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. According to a research article titled: “Culture trumps biology in language development” (http://articles.latimes.com...). In summary, the article states, "Culture trumps the innate structure of the human mind ... We need to take much more seriously the role of cultural factors in changing language diversity." How else can one account for the diversity of language throughout the ages and today, being none other, than a function of cultural development. In Round 3 Pro took issue with Con on the “Universal Moral Thread.” Pro asked the question, “How does he determine which society is more civil than others?” Pro is confusing cultural norms with morality. Of course, there is a diversity of cultural norms across the human social spectrum. It is easy for one culture to claim to be “more civil than others.” However, the members within a culture, morally follows those cultural norms to preserve the culture. Hence, the “Universal Moral Thread” in all cultures. Pro's thesis is based on man's written scriptures about God relative to “three major religions of the world--Christianity, Judaism, and Islam,” but failed to address the existence of government before and during Antiquity. Pro criticized “barbarous tribes” where all tribes (aka ISIS for example) have some form of governance. The title of this debate is the “Origin of Government,” not when government became civil. Therefore, Pro's theories VII and VIII implies an uncivil God.