the "a priori" and its like are (I think) what define the limits of policy (manifestos)--a friend of mine suggested that we need a new rule book, that everyone in the world can subscribe to. The Koran is a rule book, the Torah is a rule book, Paul's letters in the New Testament are, when put together, a rule book--
So why not a new rule book? I'd have a non-hoarding rule in there--maybe a multiple of the minimum wage as the maximum an individual is allowed to own--including properties, etc--so when one reaches the limit one can by all means acquire more things, but at the same time other things must be given away, and they'll be given freely because profits would push the amount over the maximum again...
Only a pithier version.
What I'm thinking is: you're right, I don't want policy makers to be using The New Testament to make rules--
Eye of a needle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:24
has managed lo these many years to be comfortably spoken to rich people without them being hounded from the church or if they have been hounded, there have been other churches happy to accomodate them--shifting interpretations! More like: I have my idea of what it means, and I'm right!
So: as a non-rhetorical question, given that religious texts are not valid as the basis of policy due to their inevitable internal contradictions, inconsistencies, and historical and other confusions or limitations, on what basis should one make policy? I mean, what texts should be used, or is the written word in itself dubious because all texts are open to various interpretations, the keener the mind the more ingenious (but that's what lawyers do with rules--)--so I think you're right and I wonder--if one can create, say, twelve rules that all humans could find acceptable--without that meaning that--or would it mean that six billion interpretations would flow and shift--so yes, but if I were a believer in one of the world's rule books I would ask: what are your rules--that limit the a priori concepts from which policies will flow? I suppose because a person whose actions are limited and determined by a specific set of texts will have a different approach to a person whose actions are--changing based on ever-changing information from an endless supply of texts...ach! And all the positions in between! Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
