Rawlsian Original Position and Founders Not Supporting Immoral Laws Like Abortion, Infanticide etc.

The founding fathers of the United States were mostly Christian and wouldn't have supported abortion. Of a hypothetical society with the quite unreal original position scenario with laws that are made by blind mice legislators and justices it is possible that homicide wouldn't be outlawed. 

Boundaries would need to be established regarding social behavior. Libertarianism taken to an extreme would be an abeyance of government regulation socially. It is quite an unrealistic premise. The idea that blind mice legislators would be forced to act rationally without certain moral information such as what is good begs the premise of the good in-itself as being inducted in a vacuum of moral opinions and cultural continuity.   

If Rawls wanted to find a way to make a working social contract without savagery and iniquity perhaps he had good intentions with an existential idea about humans as pieces that could be played with few characteristics distinguishing them. That isn’t a valid working premise i.m.o. If some people were cannibals, and some not, that behavior would clash law making and what are considered moral premises innately. Real people bring baggage with them.

Some socio-economic structures are ecospherically adapted, including contraception, veils, patriarchal social structures, matriarchal, egalitarian and so forth. Many behavioral characteristics socially are adapted to the environment and economy. Eating with one particular hand in a desert ecosystem, protecting women where contraception doesn’t exist…those are not structures derived from abstract values. In some respects academics in a bland sensory environment without particular external challenges tend to manufacture unreal theoretical situations. People aren't as malleable to moral configurations as units in Hilbert space are to self-organizing coordinates.

There is also the problem of original sin to consider. I believe that is the thermodynamic criterion of energy input requisites and processing + reproduction. That is an implicit moral challenge with existing social adaptations to it. One cannot just reinvent the wheel with the removal of knowledge and experience. Original sin itself predisposes society to certain savage behaviors that continue for sundry reasons including demographic changes, resource depletion, the will to power etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position


The cultural and religious prevailing opinions of the founders led them, with philosophical and historical insight, to write a constitution that supported their values.  If one knows the New Testament well enough one realizes that the founder said his kingdom is not of this world. The founders of the U.S.A. knew that and designed a constitution for the world that would allow their faith to be practiced without intimidation by any government structure or persons in government. The prophet Jeremiah related in the Old Testament that one day the laws of God would be written on the hearts and minds of the faithful. That prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus Christ and what he taught. It isn’t a secular judicial code.

Separation of church and state was a need learned from history (European history) with the 30 Years was, 100 years war, the Smalcaldian War etc.

With a particular cultural norm and beliefs pervasively accepted and internalized concerning behavior, laws need be made about aberrant things that aren't. There is no mention of laws against homicide and numerous other behaviors or acts in the U.S. constitution, yet a structure was created that allowed people through legislators to promulgate laws where needed ("Article Three, Section Two, Clause Three of the United States Constitution provides that: Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.").

 Laws were made that reflected cultural norms and beliefs then and now over the course of U.S. history. Self-government in the U.S democracy allows people to make laws suitable to their beliefs, while in theory respecting the rights of dissenters. In practice the nation and world are becoming over-populated and cultural norms are driven by dynamic pressures toward conformity, authoritarianism, communism and equality in thought consistent with keeping pigs happy in feed-lots. In my opinion Rawls' original position is most suitable for a B.F Skinner kind of behaviorist paradigm for brainwashing and social control of the masses. It seems to be based on incorrect assumptions and explanations of why wars and civic injustice occur.

Governments are some of the most egregious propaganda purveyors. Most are guilty of shaping events to serve their own interests over history. Big business is up there too in issuing propaganda and thought conditioning, as are some of the more corrupt advocates for scientific atheism. Don't overlook the media as primary propagandists! They just go too far. God is a serious, perennial concern for philosophical and even scientific thought within the realm of Christian philosophers. Cosmological systems, eternity, artificial intelligence that could create forms and manufacture Universes, the nature of good and evil, original sin and more benefit from Christian philosophical and theological inquiry. Maybe the central problem is in that people from all walks of life may want to force other people to think about particular topics and content instead of what the subjects would think about for-themselves. Sapere aude (think or know for-oneself) did not mean to put blinders on about eternity, God or the history of the appearance of Jesus Christ in-the-world as related through the Bible.

A Red Blur Remembered

A red blur is a wet rag hounded
packs running over green waves
dying desiccated with hot breaths
shadows in time futuring rudely
awakening with little feet
pounding a disappointed nose
ahead of horses’ hooves
riders howling through the wind

fur and froth bites end being
in a tassled pile actually seeming
with fanfare for the common fox
nevered again to be elsewhen.

Pluralism vs Multiculturalism

One can have a multi-party system yet not have multiculturalism. Political parties and cultures are different kinds of social groupings. Monism and pluralism are the largest philosophical differentiators; one universal substance with a plurality of forms. Metaphysics has a different lexicon than social philosophy though some of the words are the same; the meanings differ.

 Political monism could be taken to be monarchy; pluralism might be regarded as democracy and multiculturalism as confusion or chaos, though not necessarily. Political pluralism differs from authoritarian systems; i.e. dictatorships, communism and other one-party or no-party systems. Plainly China could have one culture and many parties (pluralism) if it was an open society. A culture would seemingly be dominant geographically or on the road to extinction. Cultures may be many things with some subcultures of trivial stature and others upsurging into being a dominant culture. Political cultures and political economy exist within the full spectrum of political and government forms of course. Pluralism could even mean cultural pluralism =multiculturalism. Multiculturalism could refer to social groupings besides those of racial or national composition as primary characteristics, and just point to Goths or hip hop cultures and so forth. There is a lot of overlap in the terminology.

I read an article recently about the interaction of human culture with Neanderthalers, and why the Neanderthals became extinct. There was quite a large period of overlap where the two cultures intersected and shared genes. The article hypothesized that human illnesses brought from Africa to Europe slowly killed off the Neanderthals that had no immunity to the diseases humans brought, while the Neanderthals had fewer lethal diseases to decimate humans. Eventually humans overcame the burden of illness/immunity problem before the Neanderthals and about 40,000 years ago I believe it was the last of the Neanderthals faded away.

For a time the hybrid human-Neanderthals may have had a pluralist social environment that was multicultural too. If the hybrids shared the same tool-kit and lifestyle plus art and religious belief then they would have been monocultural. In that case if they elected one chief for all, perhaps including volunteer pure-breed Neanderthals and humans, they could be said to be politically pluralist or monistic with little loss of meaning. I would favor pluralism since pure bred humans, pure bred Neanderthals and hybrids may have held different political values.

Bloomberg Seems Like a Rare Rational Democrat

The entrance of Michael Bloomberg into the 2020 Democrat presidential primary is probably a good thing since he is the sole candidate that reasonable people would be at all comfortable with in the White House on the Democratic side. Most voters recognize that he is probably competent with money  and not likely to force new trillions of dollars of bet to be added to the federal accounts. That may be why his venture could be doomed.

Voters might be less worried about a possible ban of vast right-wing soft drink cups full of sugary beverage than piling on trillions of dollars of new public debt that candidates like Elizabeth Warren salivate about. Michael Bloomberg will worry the extreme Bilderberg-Iluminati global Jewish conspiracy people of course; it would be a terrible thing to some people if a regular excellent establishment candidate were not elected; one of those that repair the damaged environment, create full employment, pay off the federal debt, balance the federal budget, rebuild national infrastructure along ecological economic line and defend free enterprise and a welfare state that assures lifetime participation of every citizen that wants to play in the economic game while the nation's borders are secure and well-defended. History shows that such candidates are more rare and unlikely than the return of Barbarossa.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/09/michael-bloombergs-potential-2020-bid-is-getting-hammered-online/

Don't Food, Water and Energy Nexus Social Metabolism(s) Have Innumerable Possible Configs?

There are some that regard the food, water, energy nexus for sustaining human life as a simple complex system.There probably are innumerable possible configurations, as with several systems including medical provisioning, housing and transportation. Expert systems may model some of the structures. it is unfortunate that government probably does not use expert systems to increase efficiency of its own political economy and actualization methodology.  An ecospheric wild integrity nexus is another malleable management configuration structure.

Events and Proximal Causes

Didn't Hume deny the existence of causes? I believe that no particular event or process is a consequence of just one cause for being. That is, if there are numerous elements that make an event or things exist, then there isn't one cause. It is something like a large swell in the ocean having numerous  causal inputs of waves from different directions coinciding, water temperature, windstorms and so forth.

 Besides that problem, there is the point of view that causality is a subjective, human idea that doesn't exist in nature itself. With atoms and molecules being 'frozen' into a steady state because of quantum symmetry breaking, and those comprising the physical world/Universe of mass-energy, an arbitrary selection and abstract isolation of a local 'event' is an unnatural removal of the area-event from the contiguous field in which it exists. In a sense even human perception and identity of particular events (like a tiger running through a jungle) differs from the monistic character of the field-for-itself.  

Humans identify events and proximal causes for legal purposes obviously, yet it may be that causality is more of a practical for human-use language item of observation that an actual thing of nature. That is not to say that the things people have to say about nature are not meaningful, it simply acknowledges that some convenient terms that have practical application may not be technically accurate if applied to physics in-itself.

One-third of California's methane emissions arise from a few super-emitters
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7535

I suppose the word-object relationship is that a rock is a space-time event coordinate. Words are something like addresses. 'Objects' are just characteristics of the steady-state of matter field humans perceive, the way humans perceive (as opposed to the way insects or creatures made of neutrinos might perceive) the field.

Origin of the term 'religion'...

Religion is more derived from allegiance, a liege-lord, feudalism and to whom one has allegiance. It may be a little like ex-ist, somewhat of a doubling down of a term as if it were a superlative. In its monastic use; of binding. One can discern that it is like the more general usage of allegiance. The term moved synthetically from the secular to the monastery One had a liege-lord whom was sovereign and to whom vassals and servants had allegiance.. The Lord Jesus is a true Lord of course, to monastics.

Richard Burton and John Wayne in Sigma 5 CGI?

James Dean (who dies in a car crash in the 1960s)  will star in a new movie about abandoned dogs of war in Vietnam through computer generated graphics. That provides hope that a new movie with Richard Burton and John Wayne with ample shooting and treacherous enemies will appear with aliens fighting to capture the mountains of Mars for-themselves.

Innumerable good movies with computer generated graphics could appear, so much so that voters would disregard Presidential candidates even if they wear man-buns thus fulfilling the saying about politicians having their heads up their a's.

While bun-headed aliens may be thwarted with enough CGIO stars it is unlikely that CGI will improve Democrat candidate ideas at all. That is something of an empty shelf sort of thing.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/james-dean-movie-james-dean-to-star-in-movie-six-decades-after-death-thanks-to-cgi/

Democrats Have Faith and/or Proof in President Trump's Impeachment-worthy Perpetrations?

One may have faith and evidentiary proof together; Prosecuting attorneys do that all the time. It would be a terrible thing if they prosecuted people they believe innocent. They should need some faith in the guilt of the accused. I believe Democrats working the impeachment proceedings are an example of faith in the culpability of President Trump while they seek to build evidentiary proof. It does not mean that if Rep. Shiff has faith President Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses that he therefor has no proof (well, there may be exceptions to the rule), or that to have proof of the President's impeachable offenses means that Democrats need have no faith in that (or maybe it does).

Can the Von Warren Medicare for All Incld RIch Subvert Social Security?

The 52 trillion dollar Von Warren plan to force everyone to get medical coverage through the federal health program designed for the elderly seems so spaced out that it could subvert the social security system. Already the Federal Government borrows money from the social security system earnings surplus to finance its debt and unbalanced budget.

The Democrat Party has become so spaced out, depraved, dopey, globalist, communist and anit-American regarding border security that the maturation of the decay has produced the fruit of belief in Lafferian Economics on hyper-steroids. The true heirs of Reaganomics are Democrat leaders.

It seems as if they are a fifth column for those that would gut all of the nation's safety net by forcing the government into permanent insolvency.

The only people getting federal retirement payouts should be those that actually need them. medicare for the prosperous who can afford their own health coverage is as stupid as unemployment payments for everyone including the employed. What a sh-t for brains party the Democrats have become. They may even end up kissing the butt of the Oxford homo the Brits have supplied running in the 2020 primaries. What a daft collection of idiots.

In the 1960s and 70s the Democrat Party still had their oars in the water. Presently they are without any practical sense, have no interest in secure borders with zero illegal entrants nor balancing the federal budget. Politicians are supposed to do things like that at a minimum.

Democrats became a party of non-white males. That is they became females, homos and non-whites moving to leadership roles. In that process they forgot to watch the budget and economics across classes for anyone irrespective of race or gender, and that was a nearly fatal budget for democracy. Democrats would be better off changing their name to the socialist or neo-corporatist/communist sympathizer party so people would understand what they are. Even for socialists thought the Democrat Party candidates would be shamefully incompetent as if they don't know what proper socialism is or how it works.

When a nation tries to weasel through costly programs as if no one has to pay the contemporary trick seems to be to include everyone in it and claim it will save money. As if no one needs to pay for it except for the rich that own factories and get unlimited nearly zero interest loans so they can issue their own newly minted e-dollars at the pace of 400% per every dollar deposited into their account by the government and federal reserve, Democrats splurge without limit on inefficient programs.

In Obamacare the poor actually fell through the cracks. If one earns 15,500 annually one doesn't qualify for Medicaid and would need to enroll when the 'window' for enrollment opens at some hundreds of dollars monthly for insurance. If one is poor and travels interstate it is quite an unreasonable program designed apparently for the middle class, many of whom don't need it. I am sure that Medicare forced on everyone would exclude the poor from solid coverage at least regarding prescription drugs. The Democrat Party designs for the middle class and queers rather than the poor.

Fox and Rest of MSM Support the Most Rich in Coporatism

Fox news provides a right wing alternative to the leftist mainstream media. Yet Fox does sometimes seem like butt-kissers of the most rich Americans. A tax increase on the richest 1000 Americans of 10% would be helpful in paying down the public debt. Instead of advocating that practical move one Fox commentator attacked the homeless, poor and down-trodden for going to warm places in the winter. You need to be a real a-hole to attack homeless people for trying to be warm. Cold weather injuries are not too amusing; they are a pain that keeps on giving.

There are innumerable reasons why some people cannot buy a home and a Volvo; or even a Tesla. Making life more difficult for them isn't helpful. 

There are major forks in the road of life that keep some people out of comfort and security such as the prosperous may have. Some need be nothing more than media air-heads attacking the poor.

If people really had solid, recurrent opportunities for a job that worked and allowed them to save money for upgrading lifestyle yet choose to use illegal drugs and be homeless instead then there would be some justification for criticism. When the practical and real chances for a job does not exist; such as a place to live is required a priori, there is no justification. It would be very challenging to work even for Wal-mart from a homeless starting place. For certain grocery stores won't hire people that can't smell sweetly like Fox news casters every day.

It is unfortunate that the Democrat Party has no moderates these days as in the 70s and 80s; just extremist lunatics that with socialism support corporatism as much as Fox.

The MSM Y has two approaches that yield the same destination of concentrated wealth and power approaching that of royals. The left takes the Troskiite branch of global socialism to end democracy, free enterprise and free speech with political self-determination of nations. The right takes the Hitler branch of corporatism to end free enterprise, free speech and political self-determination. Neither major American party or the bulk of the broadcast media support democracy with a human safety net that keeps everyone in the game for life. each MSM and political party and building global plutocracy with a corporatist-socialist entity for the underclass.

I should point out that the President is more of an independent than a Hitler-figure. For the left President Trump may seem that way, yet that is a fruit of the main stream media propaganda rather than a fact-in-itself. Though the Trumps are of the rich class, that does not require that they are intentional plutocrats seeking to repress democracy. Actually they may be in favor of it. The problem arises from uncorrected political economy and historical demographic progression.