§. 90. >Were it not for this right of being nourished and maintained by their parents, which God and nature has given to children, and obliged parents to as a duty, it would be reasonable, that the father should inherit the estate of his son, and be preferred in the inheritance before his grand-child: for to the grand-father there is due a long score of care and expences laid out upon the breeding and education of his son, which one would think in justice ought to be paid. But that having been done in obedience to the same law, whereby he received nourishment and education from his own parents; this score of education, received from a man’s father, is paid by taking care, and providing for his own children; is paid, I say, as much as is required of payment by alteration of property, unless present necessity of the parents require a return of goods for their necessary support and subsistence: for we are not now speaking of that reverence, acknowledgment, respect and honour, that is always due from children to their parents; but of possessions and commodities of life valuable by money. But though it be incumbent on parents to bring up and provide for their children, yet this debt to their children does not quite cancel the score due to their parents; but only is made by nature preferable to it: for the debt a man owes his father takes place, and gives the father a right to inherit the son’s goods, where, for want of issue, the right of children doth not exclude that title. And therefore a man having a right to be maintained by his children, where he needs it; and to enjoy also the comforts of life from them, when the necessary provision due to them and their children will afford it; if his son die without issue, the father has a right in nature to possess his goods, and inherit his estate, (whatever the municipal laws of some countries may absurdly direct otherwise;) and so again his children and their issue from him; or, for want of such, his father and his issue. But where no such are to be found, i. e. no kindred, there we see the possessions of a private man revert to the community, and so in politic societies come into the hands of the public magistrate; but in the state of nature become again perfectly common, no body having a right to inherit them: nor can any one have a property in them, otherwise than in other things common by nature; of which I shall speak in its due place.

Hello everyone and thank you for your interest with this question. I have been reading so much to try and answer this question for my introductory political philosophy class that I don't even know what to think anymore, I feel at a loss. I have so many threads of thoughts going in all directions on the question that I can't seem to be able to form a concrete response. Examples of my thoughts:

• Unequal possessions were already happening in pre-monetary societies, because people are born with unequal bodies (and our property stems from our labour) and may thus have an advantage when it comes to bargaining. Those unequal possessions could be said to have been consented to on a transactional basis.
• Tacit consent is insufficient to create obligation, in this case anyway, according to the requirements of Simmons for valid consent.

I don't know if it's because of the stress-inducing repercussions of covid19 affecting my life that I don't seem able to focus my thoughts anymore. For a while I thought I had figured my answer out, then I realized my answer didn't actually quite match the question. That's when I started to lose my grip and I've just been stuck running in place since. Please help me clarify what to think of this question, /r/AskPhilosophy! Thank you so much.

I’m an incoming college student who is interested in taking classes on political science and philosophy. So I decided to buy this book and I’m not sure if I’m an idiot or not, but it’s a bit difficult to read. The writing style just seems so archaeic. Is it just me? Would it be better to take some classes on this subject before attempting to read this? Or is political philosophy just not my thing?

I’m probbaly a bit sleep deprived so maybe that’s it.

Tammy is an agent of the state. A damn good one, too. She infiltrated into hostile territory, took stock of the situation, and found a sideways method of ingress into a cabal of dangerous felons and war criminals sought after by the galactic government for years.

Now, we don't know the extent of Rick's crimes, nor Bird Person's, but the implication at the wedding is that they are all guilty, in the eyes of the ruling galactic body of law, of war crimes. Now, I doubt that those crimes include blowing snot out of one nostril, or cheating on your taxes. Razing villages, burning civilians, targeting the families of government officials for reprisals are not out of the realm of possibility here. It is possible that people died at the hands of Rick and Co who should not have died, and it is also possible that it was not an accident, and merely how they chose to wage their conflict, flouting intergalactic rules of engagement and harming non-combatants, or at least having no concern for their safety.

So Tammy is an agent of the state, a highly skilled secret operative. Seal Team 6, SAS, MI5, commandos pale in comparison to the kind of training she must have received. A highly trained operative, doing the most dangerous job on any world, to bring justice to the lost lives of a galactic conflict that we can't imagine.

Having said all that, FUCK TAMMY!! Who the FUCK even does that?! Waits until the fucking RECEPTION to spring the trap?!?! Just when Bird Person's marital bliss was at it's peek, she breaks his heart and every hollow bone in his body!?! You couldn't have done this before the vows? Or while photos were being taken!?!?

AND FUCK YOU TAMMY FOR SHOOTING FIRST! If justice was so important to you, why not bring a fucking stasis gun or something?! You made that man love you, and you gunned him down like the feckless, ice-hearted monster than you are. No chance for him to work through his confusion, no chance for him to even surrender. You shot an unarmed man who loved you unconditionally because you wanted to. You wretch. Fuck you, Tammy.

I just finished John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government. In specific, I read the kindle edition with a brief opening commentary by Macpherson.

For those who don't wish to pay 99 cents, it is available for free on Kindle or at this link.

I'm going to do my best to keep this post as politics free as possible. Where I touch on a sensitive issue I'll try to report as objectively as possible. If I fail in my objectivity, feel free to engage me on it and I'll do my best to clean up this post.

Locke's treatise, published in the 1690s, is the font from which much subsequent thought and scholarship on civil government springs. If you are familiar with the founding documents of the United States, you will be immediately struck by the powerful influence Locke's thought had on the unfolding of the American Revolution.

Locke lays out the rationale for why civil governments are established and exist; the preservation of the innate right to life, liberty, and property of its citizens.

Further, Locke deals extensively with when one ought or ought not be able to defend one's own life, liberty, and property, when and how states of tyranny and despotism come about, and when it is or is not acceptable to replace one's government.

Many readers may take issue with several of Locke's assertions, including but not limited to how ownership of property comes about and whether innate rights exist. Locke frequently falls back on theist justifications for his position, but I contend it is possible to find secular justification for most of his assertions.

The book was a dense read in places and Locke's 1690 vernacular can be a little tough to follow, but overall I found it to be an engaging read.

Macpherson's commentary is essential, as it lends some key perspective on Locke's writing by discussing Locke's social class (he was a member of the landed, wealthy class) and pointing out some of the broader claims made by Locke outside of this specific work.

Macpherson also makes some important fundamental points I hadn't considered. For example, he notes that before one can have a well-developed theory of government, one must first propose a theory of human nature to serve as a foundation for the theory of government. (We need to

What exactly is Locke's idea of limited government? This is my understanding and I feel that it is too shallow.

>Legitimate government is a limited government based on consent, in which the majority rules but may not violate people’s fundamental rights.

I am currently reading it and I am going to die. It's not uninteresting; it's just very dense. If you could enlighten me on just how spectacularly revolutionary this piece of work actually is, I think I can appreciate it and Locke more.

I'm a high school teacher whose next lesson involves breaking down Locke's Social Contract for my sophomores. I want to pick sections out of his second treatise to weave together a full scope of the Social Contract, but I'm having a hard time choosing the right sections to do so. Any Locke enthusiasts out there who could lend a hand?

Inclusion is vital to the human spirit. There are few pains in life more acute than the feeling of being excluded. Our very instincts drive us to seek inclusion through the gimmick of being "normal". From inclusion comes the pleasant social experience of life. Collaboration, conversation, recognition, even affection and competition have as their prerequisite the genuine inclusion into some group.

A government that is perceived as fair is invariably one that includes all of the citizenry in the process of its daily workings. Such a government not only seeks input from its people but also effectively and reliably publishes records that disseminate information to the people so that decisions can be made based on accurate information and with reflection on a complete and truthful historical record.

In the declarations of governments, namely laws, there is a distinction that must be made between de jure and de facto. When a law or rule is made, it is sometimes the case that it is not enforced. People are often given rights that are never exercised or cannot be exercised because of other arrangements. Titles conveyed on people are often meaningless. To discuss this distinction between image and reality, the term de jure is used to describe the law or rule as it is written and de facto is used to describe the situation that occurs in practice.

What happens in practice is, of course, important. It is not the de jure government that conveys the sense of fairness onto people, but the de facto community in which people feel included and valued. That is why a "Monarchy" may be more loved than a "Democracy". It is also why a government may receive broad support up until the point that laws or regulations are actually enforced, at which time discontents will emerge to complain that others are "pulling rank".

Power is not a sword – it is a relationship between people. The word is used for many things but in relation to government it is the ability of one person or group to compel or prevent action by another person or group. Certainly, access to weapons and other physical tools of war is source of power, but one man (or woman) cannot accomplish much even with the best weapons. Rather, the greater source of power is the ability of one to call upon many to join in a common cause.

Like a horse attached to a lead, law and reality always move toward each other. But which is the horse and which is the man? Behind the de facto equality that members of a smal

Lots of players use stat as a measure of strength. You might see smegas like “R> nlucid 25k stat+” or something similar, or maybe you’ll see people asking what stat they need to do certain bosses or 1 shot in certain maps. There are some good reasons for this (as this post will discuss), but some recent discussions with some maple friends of mine have led me to realize that this metric is often misapplied. This post is going to try to explain and discuss a few major topics:

1. Why stat is used as a measure of strength
2. Why using only stat is sometimes bad, and what only looking at stat misses
3. Other useful metrics for comparing strength of characters

1 - Why Stat?

While there are some drawbacks to using stat as the main metric for comparing characters, it’s important to remember that there are good reasons for this.First and foremost, stat is easy. With the exception of demon avenger and xenon, you can open your stat window and you can see it. (For DA you can take your hp and divide by 17.5, and for xenon you can take your str+dex+luk and multiply by 0.66 for approximate comparisons, although I’m sure DA and xenon mains can give more specific advice here) Damage ranges differ greatly by classes due to differences in damage%, final damage%, weapon multipliers, and more, but stat is pretty consistent. While stat isn’t perfect, the simplicity of it makes it useful.Stat also tracks reasonably well with progression. Pretty much any gains you make on your gear will correlate with an increase in stat. Star force, flames, potential, and scrolling (in reg server) all usually come with an increase in your stat. Some other gains you can make, like WSE (weapon, secondary, and emblem) potentials, boss damage, ied, and critical damage will not show in your stat, but since sources of these things are relatively limited and reasonably standardized in other ways, it’s not too much of an issue.

Stat tracks well enough with progression that it can be used to create some useful benchmarks. While this isn’t the point of the post, here’s a little chart tracking some rough stat benchmarks you can use for contributing in a party for some select bosses (assuming you also meet level requirements and some other nice benchmarks, like 6k legion for hlucid/hwill, and 8k for BM for example):

This is not your typical submission, I suppose. I'm a music theory prof who has an interest in old counterpoint treatises. In the years that I have taught Counterpoint, I have come to the following realization: the study of counterpoint inevitably means the study of either sixteenth century (Renaissance) counterpoint, or eighteenth century (Baroque) counterpoint. With that in mind, I've also been dismayed at the rising cost of current academic Counterpoint textbooks, which can easily (far) exceed $100, and usually do not come with an accompanying workbook, anthology, or audio examples.

A couple years ago, I quietly wondered, why can't a textbook from the nineteenth century regarding 16th or 18th century counterpoint still be relevant today? After all, it's not like the rules from those centuries have changed. So, I started looking for an answer to that question that would also save my students a lot of money.

The result is that I have created new digital editions of two (old) counterpoint treatises:

1. Counterpoint, by J. Frederick Bridge (1878) - see Title page for my editor's note
2. A Treatise on Counterpoint and Fugue, by Luigi Cherubini (1854) - again, see the Title Page for my editor's note

The Bridge treatise is a musical primer on species counterpoint, more relevant to the style of the sixteenth century. Cherubini's monumental treatise, on the other hand, is a contrapuntal tour de force, moving beyond the species and covering nearly every imaginable type of counterpoint.

Both of these treatises have updated musical vocabulary, and more importantly, feature working musical examples. Students can just "press play" directly from the page. As a side note, I used Lilypond for the examples in Bridge's treatise, and MuseScore for the Cherubini. There's an EPUB available for the Bridge; I'm still working on a downloadable ebook for Cherubini.

The two treatises were old enough to be public domain, and these updated versions are released (for free) under Creative Commons. Anyone can use them at no cost. I used both of them the last time I taught counterpoint with positive feedback from my students. They were especially appreciative at not having to purchase an expensive textbook. An upcoming

The Government, money and price

The private sector produces goods and services that it uses amongst itself. Money that is used exclusively by the private sector would net out to 0, as one person would spend, another would save. You could have a rich person for a while, but he would have most of the money in the society and eventually would need to spend on what he needs anyway. But all transactions net out to 0. But using technology, the private sector produces a surplus. Where should that surplus go? The Government now steps in. The Government consumes some of that surplus. All it has done is give out money, it's not really 'spending' as it never had resources in the first place. It's just giving the private sector money for use of some of that surplus. But there is surplus leftover after the government has taken its share. And this is what the private sector and Government now competes for. And this final surplus, is what enables people to get sustainably wealthy. So the Government has given out money to the private sector for the initial surplus that was created. It (or more accurately, the Central Bank) now has to 'price' the final surplus. You have to ensure the private sector has enough money to buy the surplus, otherwise the Government can have money printed and simply buy the final surplus. It would outbid the private sector in this scenario. This would be tantamount to confiscation, since it's not allowing the people who produce to have access to the surplus. It also removes incentives for people to work harder to get access to more money to then get a larger share of the surplus. The Government creates enough money to properly price the surplus goods and services so that you don't have deflation or too much inflation. And this is where you have to be careful that the rich don't consume too much of the surplus pie from the poor. And you want these prices to be relatively stable, so that people can make projections, people can start businesses and so on. Now this is simplified of course, but it's a broad overview of what happens.

The army and religion

Religions and the army were the first exterior, non-productive sectors that received money first and spent it into a society. Government takes that role now. It was just a way to organise the first societies. An exaggerated example given in Debt: The First 5000 years is as follows: A King has a large army that he wants to maintain. But supplying it is difficult, expensive and time consumi

Am I just paraphrasing a lot of the work from Debt: The First 5000 years? Why yes I am. But I am adding important information and simplifying the narrative for anyone to understand because it's a dense book. Basically I want to help explain the behaviour of central banks around the world since the 2008 financial crisis. All the stimulus programs happening around the world basically. Finally, I want to help you understand wealth and the minimum wage.

In the beginning

The basic method humans used to interact with one another before the widespread use of money was social credit. This is best understood when you're out with your friends and you purchase something for one of them because they can't afford it right now. Do you set terms and conditions on the repayment like a bank does? Of course not, neither would you charge interest. In fact, you might not even care that much when it's paid back, since you're certain they will do at some point. Moreover, it may be the situation that you bought something for your friend for $10, but you don't expect them to pay you back exactly $10 or something else of the same value. You may accept that same friend just buying lunch or two small lunches and call the debt paid. If you can't imagine doing this with a person, then that person most likely is not your good friend. It really has to be someone you can trust.

And before the advent of coinage, which is as much a social revolution as a technological one, we lived in small villages and towns. In these circumstances, most people would have known each other, and trusted one another enough to use social credit/debt with one another. You might know the same 50 people your whole life, and this can be seen as basically an extended group of friends. You didn't need physical tokens in such an atmosphere, as everything was basically stored as a virtual 'ledger' that everyone held in their heads that was essentially a snapshot of the economy in that town/village. The economy existed in our heads. This by the way, is how we can think of Central Banks today; they are the virtual ledger for our entire economy, it's just an external representation (external to our minds) of our economy. Seeing it like this, we can see that the invention of Central Banks really isn't that revolutionary. What's important to note about this economy is that there are discrete transactions as all the interactions were simply in a flowing state, where you owed something to one person but someo

You must remember that money is an output of what we do and how we think, it's just the end, external result of our activities. So when people talk about giving people money or bailing out the people, that simply doesn't make sense. If nothing else in the economy changes, just giving the people (private sector) money won't change anything. The money is the output, just the result. You can't feed that into the private (producing) sector.

So finally, you can get a better understanding of what has happened since 2008. The QE for the most part just refilled lost liquidity. There was virtually no inflation because they didn't add too much to the total amount that the private sector was using. That's what central banks around the world have been doing. Refilling liquidity that was lost when mortgages went bad. But if velocity of money isn't picking up, that's another issue entirely. That's got to do with the behaviour of the people. Not with the money itself. What's the trickle-down effect the Fed is talking about? It's giving money to the financial sector and then hoping they spend it into the economy. The value of the money is in the decisions people make with it, and so forcing people to spend the money will lessen its value. So all the Fed or any central bank can do is give out money and then hope people spend it wisely (whatever that means in a given region or nation). The problem now is that we seem to have this overwhelming optimism in what central banks can do. If there's a structural problem, money will do nothing in that situation. If the King gives his soldiers coins, but only a small portion of them spend them, then the problem is not the coins. It won't matter what the King gives his soldiers as payment or what promises he makes. He has to use non-monetary means to get the other soldiers to spend their money. So he has to make structural changes. There could be dissatisfaction amongst the soldiers. There could be a problem with production amongst the producing sector. Either way, the fact that the money isn't being spent is just a symptom of something else going on. So in that case, adding more money to the economy won't change anything.

A few things to consider:

A Government can never run out of money that is has sovereign control over

It can always print the money it needs

It does not need a source of revenue

Taxes are not a source of revenue for the government

Tax is a political decision

--But

Why do tax collection agencies go