The Greek, Romans, Egyptians, Hebrews, Carthaginians, Babylonians, and Persians didnt believe in natural rights, and their societies did pretty well.

Umm...no. They can vote for anyone. They can write-in candidates that arnt on the ballot. Please post any evidence to the contrary.

Special interest money is irrelevant...the KKK could spend 4 billion on ads and still not get any of their candidates elected. Money isnt some kind of magic wand...Ross Perot is filthy rich, and he still couldnt even come close to winning.

I dont know of anyone that doesnt have access to ballots.

Really? Where are they now?

Just like you didn't know any Jewsih neo-cons? LOL. You are a hoot. Look up the ballot laws in your state. I GUARANTEE you will quickly find out write-ins really don't count. Sure, you can vote for them. But they can't win by law. And answer this one: It anyone can get ballot access why are there so many lawsuits fighting for that very thing? Hmmmmm. What are you, 16?

__________________
Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?

They were invaded. But, thats irrelevent. Their societies worked. Only, each was eventually eclipsed by more militarily powerful countries. We don't live in an age where countries being toppled by more militarily powerful countries is the norm. But again, thats irrelevent. I'm not saying they were better cultures and societies, I'm just saying they had a point when they said that maybe government's purpose should be to help the people lead as best lives as possible.

Furthermore, such an idea was not based on something that can be proven. I mean, when you think about it, where exactly do we get these rights? We all say that we naturally have them, but whose to say that we dont? Where is it written that we have the the right to freedom naturally. I mean, there are many things that I could say we have a natural right for, but everyone would excuse it as baloney. But, when it comes to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for some reason that is natural.

E.x. Just because I say that I have a natural right to be given a million dollars from the government, doesnt make it so.

The questions you're asking are the same as other philosophical questions of perception. If you are trying to prove that "we cannot know natural law, therefore natural law does not exist", the you are using the same argument as "we cannot know anything, therefore nothing exists,"... which is just foolish, and I think Aristotle would agree.

I was going to say something about how natural law derives from the nature of man and the world, just as the laws of physics are derived from the nature of space, time, and matter. However, I thought this quote from Ayn Rand would be more approriate since it incorporates Aristotle's Law of Identity: A is A...

[Also, I remember you once told me in your "Favorite Philosopher" thread that you had never heard of Ayn Rand, so I couldn't resist. She was a Russian immigrant to the United States in the 1920's. Despite the fact that English was her second language, she managed to become an amazingly successful novelist whose books are all still in print today. Her last book, Atlas Shrugged recently appeared in a (in)famous poll as the second most influential book of all time (1st was the Bible). In the later half of her life, she founded a philosophy called objectivism.}

Yeah, you quoted a total of about half a dozen Jew neo-cons out of hundreds of thousands...not sure if that is a reason to pat yourself on the back.

You imply that people are being denied access to ballot boxes deliberately on a wide scale...yet you refuse to provide any proof. Uh-huh.

So what? You CAN vote for whoever you want. You dont have to vote for any major party or any specific candidate. So your ridiculous statement:

...is WRONG. Not suprising since you seem to have a habit of pulling "facts" out of your a.s.s. and expecting people to believe you.

The way you know I am older than 16 is because I know how to use the internet to prove my claims. A 16 year old would be more likely to make outrageous claims and refuse to support them because he is either lazy or doesnt know what he's talking about.

So much for "doing pretty well". Anyone can do pretty well in a vaccum. The original statement seems to be accurate in that sense at least; Free societies now flourish while those societies are long dead.

Which in turn were exclipsed by us.

Because the most powerful nations share the attributes described in the original post. It is still might makes right (Iraq should prove that to you if nothing else)...invasions are no longer the norm because nations like US are the dominant force on the planet.

I think everyone can agree on that...at least all democratic governments can.

And I am saying our cultures are better than their's...in just about every way that matters. We may or may not adapt...but we know for certain that they FAILED to adapt. Therefore we know for certain they were inferior.

Mutual greed ultimately. We protect the rights of others because, in the larger scheme, our own rights are protected as well.

Its written in the club in my hand...the pistol in my grip...the bomb under my wing....and the button under my finger that launches my nuclear missile. It all comes down to might makes right. For whatever reason, free societies are stronger. That much should be obvious by now.

Natural rights are defined by the strongest. In democratic societies, the majority = the strongest.

I never mentioned any Jewish neo-cons. Not one. Ever. Further, as I clearly indicated you are free to vote for your mom if you want. But in no state that I know of can your mom legally win. You see, to win you have to complete a laundry list of items in order to be a "valid" candidate. If you don't do those things (it's different everywhere, which is part of the problem) the election will be nullified. Hence, even if your mom got 51% of the vote someone else would be in office. Hence, your write-in does no good, although you are free to vote that way. But you would know that if you ever read after completing your homework.

__________________
Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?

Well, that isnt what you said. What you said was:

Should I second-guess all of your quotes from now on?

Actually, all you need to be a "valid" candidate is enough votes. Political parties make it much easier to organize, but if David Duke was the only person on the ballot for President, it is still extremely unlikely he would win. People obviously would write in other candidates.

The truth is that those candidates are on the ballot for a reason: They represent the views of the VAST majority of Americans. Like it or not.

Therefore, no one is being "controlled". The candidates represent the dominant views of our society.

Prove it. If she got 51%, at worst, there would be a runoff election.

I think this is another "fact" you are pulling out of your a.s.s....but feel free to post evidence it you want. I'll be sure to hold my breath.

campaign laws. I know reading and research are not your thing, but try it. You have to BOTH be a valid candidate per your state's laws AND have enough votes. That's right! You can get 100% of the vote via write-in and not be elected. Look it up. Maybe they will give you class credit or something. And you'll learn something that did not come from the daily fax. It's a win-win.

__________________
Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?