4 ms·

> the Judeo-Christian principles It may shock you to learn that legal systems other than the Mosaic law have that "don't kill or steal" stuff. I was thinking o

> the Judeo-Christian principles It may shock you to learn that legal systems other than the Mosaic law have that "don't kill or steal" stuff. I was thinking of the more tasteless parts of Leviticus. In fact it was worked out and written down thousands of years before anyone was thinking about leaving Egypt. Another name for it is "Judeo-Greco-Persian-Roman-Christian-Celtic principles", given the roots of the western culture which Britain transmitted to the colonies. > Why this is a good thing? Because it leads to a Benthamite political culture. Australian politics is either boring or depressing, American politics is either exciting or depressing. But the boring-or-depressing option leads to occasional outbreaks of good policy. Australia is one of the less-worse governed countries in the world over the past 30 years. Neither side of politics needs to pander to a narrow base, except as mild lip service. So they tend to be centrist managerialists. Boring but sometimes effective.

smsm42 12y ago
> legal systems other than the Mosaic law have that "don't kill or steal" stuff. It wouldn't shock me, but it so happened one that is in force in US and Australia draws largely from Christian law and moral traditions, which borrows a lot from Judaic tradition (not only, Roman too, some Celtic, very little Persian as far as I know). In other countries, it is different, but in those two specific ones that's where the roots are, that's just history. > Australia is one of the less-worse governed countries in the world over the past 30 years. How do you know that? Australia doesn't have the same problems the US has, by many dimensions, and is very different geographically, population-wise, traditionally and so on. How you would even compare the governance, on which basis? > Boring but sometimes effective. Effective doing what? I don't know much about Australian politics, I admit, but I know Australia has no freedom of speech - people were imprisoned or otherwise sanctioned by government for merely expressing various political positions. Or this one: https://wikileaks.org/aus-suppression-order/ https://wikileaks.org/aus-suppression-order/. But maybe the government is efficient doing something else than protecting basic rights - but what?
- jacques_chester 12y ago
  > one that is in force in US and Australia draws largely from Christian law and moral traditions Nonsense. The Common Law doesn't take the Torah as a source of precedent, neither does it look to the continental law for precedent. The bible is useless as a source of anything other than motherhood statements. It spends less than a page listing the "ten commandments", of which only 4 (killing, theft, adultery and false witnessing) are actually enforceable laws of social consequence. It then goes on to spend pages and pages and pages listing interior decoration instructions for the Holy Tabernacle. Even a few scribbled pages of notes about common moral questions ("is killing in self-defence murder?", "do Moses's instructions to commit genocide override the commandments?") would have been helpful. Not a peep. It was left to Rabbis and Churchmen to make any sense of. What does the Bible say about the common defences to a murder charge? Nothing. About the intricacies of trial law? Not a peep. The bread-and-butter legal issues -- property, trusts, estates, torts, duties, equity -- that occupy 99% of the daily life of the law and most of its positive value to society? Nowhere to be seen. Any major actually-used legal system utterly ignores the Bible as a source of law. Probably because it was not written by lawyers. > How you would even compare the governance, on which basis? Very much a matter of opinion. But if I had to gamble on which country will be bankrupt in 100 years, I'd be asking to settle the bet in Australian dollars. > Effective doing what? I don't know much about Australian politics, I admit, but I know Australia has no freedom of speech - people were imprisoned or otherwise sanctioned by government for merely expressing various political positions. Actually, the High Court has consistently found that the Australian Constitution provides freedom of communication on political matters, starting with ACTV v The Commonwealth, proportionate to public safety.

smsm42 12y ago

> legal systems other than the Mosaic law have that "don't kill or steal" stuff. It wouldn't shock me, but it so happened one that is in force in US and Australia draws largely from Christian law and moral traditions, which borrows a lot from Judaic tradition (not only, Roman too, some Celtic, very little Persian as far as I know). In other countries, it is different, but in those two specific ones that's where the roots are, that's just history. > Australia is one of the less-worse governed countries in the world over the past 30 years. How do you know that? Australia doesn't have the same problems the US has, by many dimensions, and is very different geographically, population-wise, traditionally and so on. How you would even compare the governance, on which basis? > Boring but sometimes effective. Effective doing what? I don't know much about Australian politics, I admit, but I know Australia has no freedom of speech - people were imprisoned or otherwise sanctioned by government for merely expressing various political positions. Or this one: https://wikileaks.org/aus-suppression-order/ https://wikileaks.org/aus-suppression-order/. But maybe the government is efficient doing something else than protecting basic rights - but what?

jacques_chester 12y ago
> one that is in force in US and Australia draws largely from Christian law and moral traditions Nonsense. The Common Law doesn't take the Torah as a source of precedent, neither does it look to the continental law for precedent. The bible is useless as a source of anything other than motherhood statements. It spends less than a page listing the "ten commandments", of which only 4 (killing, theft, adultery and false witnessing) are actually enforceable laws of social consequence. It then goes on to spend pages and pages and pages listing interior decoration instructions for the Holy Tabernacle. Even a few scribbled pages of notes about common moral questions ("is killing in self-defence murder?", "do Moses's instructions to commit genocide override the commandments?") would have been helpful. Not a peep. It was left to Rabbis and Churchmen to make any sense of. What does the Bible say about the common defences to a murder charge? Nothing. About the intricacies of trial law? Not a peep. The bread-and-butter legal issues -- property, trusts, estates, torts, duties, equity -- that occupy 99% of the daily life of the law and most of its positive value to society? Nowhere to be seen. Any major actually-used legal system utterly ignores the Bible as a source of law. Probably because it was not written by lawyers. > How you would even compare the governance, on which basis? Very much a matter of opinion. But if I had to gamble on which country will be bankrupt in 100 years, I'd be asking to settle the bet in Australian dollars. > Effective doing what? I don't know much about Australian politics, I admit, but I know Australia has no freedom of speech - people were imprisoned or otherwise sanctioned by government for merely expressing various political positions. Actually, the High Court has consistently found that the Australian Constitution provides freedom of communication on political matters, starting with ACTV v The Commonwealth, proportionate to public safety.