The spirit of the laws(the book)

[Harbringer]

Im currently reading it and I would say its a retty enlightening read even if some of the information is a little hokey. Ive already disagreed with the frenchie on the laws of nature, that is the laws of man in his most natural state but it definately enlightened on what exactly terms and differenciates different forms of government. Surprisingly, for a book on Governmental philosiphy it has simplified some things for me, like when is a monarchy a monarchy, and when is a despotism a despotism and who exactly the forms of government rely on.So what did you think of it?

 

[QuoVadisNation]

18th century century poltical philosophy is always good for getting to understand the relative origins of things; but I always found them to be incomplete, oversimplified, or just plain errornous. I do agree though about natural law though; the two natural laws, if there are any, is at least some kind of minimal right to liberty and some minimal form of right to life. Anything beyond that is just BSing.

 

[Harbringer]

18th century century poltical philosophy is always good for getting to understand the relative origins of things; but I always found them to be incomplete, oversimplified, or just plain errornous. I do agree though about natural law though; the two natural laws, if there are any, is at least some kind of minimal right to liberty and some minimal form of right to life. Anything beyond that is just BSing.

I never thought Ide ever gt to qote this but Heinlin in Starship troopers dexcribed he rites to liberty and the rites to life as being bunk in that liberty is a privelage that has to be won and fought for from time to time. The rite to life, although a little less solid was described as bunk becuase a drowning man in the ocean has no rite to live, nor does a person dying of old age. Tey are both privelages that must be earned.

But I wasnt even refering to those natural laws, those are natural rites(supposedly) I was refering to what he desribes as the natural laws of man in a natural state. He said the first law was self-preservation(paraphrasing) but we know from our good friend Freud and common sence that the first law of man in a natural state is self-preservation of ones desires which, from personal observation I would say is much more accurate.