MOST OPENED BY SUBSCRIBERS:
MOST ENGAGED BY SUBSCRIBERS:
LEAST OPENED BY SUBSCRIBERS:
Here’s an excerpt, the best part bolded:
It is impossible that men should not at length have reflected on so wretched a situation, and on the calamities that overwhelmed them. The rich, in particular, must have felt how much they suffered by a constant state of war, of which they bore all the expense; and in which, though all risked their lives, they alone risked their property. Besides, however speciously they might disguise their usurpations, they knew that they were founded on precarious and false titles; so that, if others took from them by force what they themselves had gained by force, they would have no reason to complain. Even those who had been enriched by their own industry, could hardly base their proprietorship on better claims. It was in vain to repeat, “I built this well; I gained this spot by my industry.” Who gave you your standing, it might be answered, and what right have you to demand payment of us for doing what we never asked you to do? Do you not know that numbers of your fellow-creatures are starving, for want of what you have too much of? You ought to have had the express and universal consent of mankind, before appropriating more of the common subsistence than you needed for your own maintenance. Destitute of valid reasons to justify and sufficient strength to defend himself, able to crush individuals with ease, but easily crushed himself by a troop of bandits, one against all, and incapable, on account of mutual jealousy, of joining with his equals against numerous enemies united by the common hope of plunder, the rich man, thus urged by necessity, conceived at length the profoundest plan that ever entered the mind of man: this was to employ in his favour the forces of those who attacked him, to make allies of his adversaries, to inspire them with different maxims, and to give them other institutions as favourable to himself as the law of nature was unfavourable.
With this view, after having represented to his neighbours the horror of a situation which armed every man against the rest, and made their possessions as burdensome to them as their wants, and in which no safety could be expected either in riches or in poverty, he readily devised plausible arguments to make them close with his design. “Let us join,” said he, “to guard the weak from oppression, to restrain the ambitious, and secure to every man the possession of what belongs to him: let us institute rules of justice and peace, to which all without exception may be obliged to conform; rules that may in some measure make amends for the caprices of fortune, by subjecting equally the powerful and the weak to the observance of reciprocal obligations. Let us, in a word, instead of turning our forces against ourselves, collect them in a supreme power which may govern us by wise laws, protect and defend all the members of the association, repulse their common enemies, and maintain eternal harmony among us.”
Far fewer words to this purpose would have been enough to impose on men so barbarous and easily seduced; especially as they had too many disputes among themselves to do without arbitrators, and too much ambition and avarice to go long without masters. All ran headlong to their chains, in hopes of securing their liberty; for they had just wit enough to perceive the advantages of political institutions, without experience enough to enable them to foresee the dangers. The most capable of foreseeing the dangers were the very persons who expected to benefit by them; and even the most prudent judged it not inexpedient to sacrifice one part of their freedom to ensure the rest; as a wounded man has his arm cut off to save the rest of his body.
Such was, or may well have been, the origin of society and law, which bound new fetters on the poor, and gave new powers to the rich; which irretrievably destroyed natural liberty, eternally fixed the law of property and inequality, converted clever usurpation into unalterable right, and, for the advantage of a few ambitious individuals, subjected all mankind to perpetual labour, slavery and wretchedness. It is easy to see how the establishment of one community made that of all the rest necessary, and how, in order to make head against united forces, the rest of mankind had to unite in turn. Societies soon multiplied and spread over the face of the earth, till hardly a corner of the world was left in which a man could escape the yoke, and withdraw his head from beneath the sword which he saw perpetually hanging over him by a thread. Civil right having thus become the common rule among the members of each community, the law of nature maintained its place only between different communities, where, under the name of the right of nations, it was qualified by certain tacit conventions, in order to make commerce practicable, and serve as a substitute for natural compassion, which lost, when applied to societies, almost all the influence it had over individuals, and survived no longer except in some great cosmopolitan spirits, who, breaking down the imaginary barriers that separate different peoples, follow the example of our Sovereign Creator, and include the whole human race in their benevolence.
Seen by the most readers this last (secular) month:
Almost the same as last time. We need… something else.
דוגמיות מתוך מענה הבינה המלאכותית בתכנון אדריכלי חינוך הפרוגרס (הראשון מופץ ע”י תורת לחימה, את השני קיבלתי מחבר שהלך לבדוק בעצמו אחרי שראה את הראשון):
Something I found by Project Shevach Ha’Aretz on Kol Halashon:
Q Why is there no Bracha on Yishuv Ha’Aretz?
A. “This Mitzva is Tmidis” (always) (Sefer Aleinu LeShabeach)Q Should one make a Bracha of Shechiyanu when he moves to Eretz Yisroel?
A “It is fitting to take a new fruit”Q. What is better – to be a Rav in Chut La’Aretz or to be a regular Jew in the Eretz Yisroel? There are
Rabbonim in chul that are unsure if it is better for them to be Rabbonim in chutz la’aretz or to go up
to Eretz Yisroel, since in Eretz Yisroel there is no lack of Rabbonim?
A. In Eretz Yisroel (written response).Q. A person who lives in chutz la’aretz – and if he would come to live in Eretz Yisroel would need to rely
on others (parnassah, etc) is he Chayav to come up or pattur?
A. Chayav (written response).Q. Someone who comes up to Eretz Yisroel with intent to return, does he fulfill the Mitzvah of Aliyah
to Eretz Yisroel?
A. He fullfills and if he returns it is mevutal (written response).Q. Is there a Mitzvah to travel to Eretz Yisroel, just to see the land?
A. “Even just to be there one moment in the land of Eretz Yisroel is a Mitzvah, and even if he can’t be
there in the Holy Land just to see it is kedai. (Shut Yadun Moshe)Q. Is it possible to liberate lands of Eretz Yisroel by shepherding herds?
A. Why not? (written response).Q. “Anyone who goes 4 Amos in Eretz Yisroel is promised that he is Ben Olam Haba (Kesuvos 110a). Is
every 4 amos an extra Mitzva or the same Mitzva?
A. Another Mitzva (written response).Q. Is there an issur to dirty Eretz Yisroel also when it’s destroyed (see Beitzah 5b)?
A. Yes (Sefer Arieh Shag).Q It says in the end of Ksuvos that the Gedolei haAmorayim would remove stumbling blocks in Eretz
Yisroel is this just because of Shevach Ha’aretz, or is there in this action also Mitzvas Yishuv Haaretz?
A. “It is not proven that there is yishuv Haaretz and it is more probable that this is from chivas Haaretz.
(shut Yadin Moshe).