We don’t know precisely what lies ahead in this territory, but there certainly be dragons, red socialist and autocratic ones. One is called UVDL. https://fb.watch/Jo-e3_dNg1/
Once we were humans and citizens, then the rug was pulled and we became consumers and residents, and now the rug is to be pulled again we are to become cannon fodder and “investors” …note the dissolution of natural rights, being subsumed by end user legal agreements and the rules based values.
Rights for rules.
What is “natural rights”, it is as obtuse as “natural law”. Many believe they know what it is an thus give it their personal meaning. That is why it never amounts to something. People need rights and demoracy = same thing and on and on we could go. That is why politics love generalizations, it sounds good!
In Catholic teaching there are five natural God given rights, and each right comes with a concomitant obligation:
Juris naturalism. Your right to swing your fists ENDS where my nose begins.
If you think Natural Law is obtuse, you’re basically have eliminated the backbone of the philosophy that is responsible for our entire legal system.
William Blackstone the English jurist and author of the influential Commentaries on the Laws of England, presented a very clear definition view of natural law in the Introduction Section II: “Of the Nature of Laws in General”).
Once upon a time, it was widely read in Britain and America and shaped legal education and thought among the Founders. NOT ANY MORE!!
John Adams: Affirmed natural rights to life, liberty, and property. He linked the law of nature to reason, experience, and moral duties (justice, temperance, etc.), arguing that rights are “derived from the great Legislator of the universe” and cannot be repealed by human laws. He saw education in knowledge and virtue as essential under natural law.
Alexander Hamilton: In The Farmer Refuted he wrote: “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
The lengthy essay exemplifies the found
ing generation’s fervent embrace of natural rights and
natural law, or “natural liberty,” that justify revolution
and provide the principles of legitimate government.
I can write a long list of founders and a Loong list of Philosophers back to Aristotle including the Stoics, John Locke, the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, Thomas Aquinas,who not only could define both terms but gave lengthy dissertations on the subject. All widely accepted and appealed to natural law (often paired with natural rights) as a foundational principle for independence, government, and individual liberty.
The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic by Hugo Grotius
Thomas Hobbes: A LAW OF NATURE (Lex Naturalis) wrote " is a Precept, or general Rule, found out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same; and to omit, that, by which he thinketh it may be best preserved.”
I can assure you that none of these men were neither obtuse or bias that they injected their own personal meaning without some serious observation and contemplation on this subject.
Knowing full well that most people aren’t going to read texts by dead men who wrote fancy words, I’d like to represent to you, again and again, Richard Maybury, who might be the foremost expert in natural law and has been writing about it for 50 years in his Early Warning Report, I have all 50 years worth of obtuse writings as well as all his books used for home schooling that dismantles statist history. He’s also a far cry from the influencers on social media giving pseudo advice on the state of affairs of America.
“Maybury distinguishes between political law (often referred to as ‘ruler’s law’ or majority-rule legislation) and natural law (or common law), which he defines as being based on ethics rather than edicts. He emphasizes that historically, common law was rooted in two fundamental principles: keeping one’s agreements and not encroaching on others or their property”
I think that’s not evidence to refute your assertion that NOBODY can define either term.
Here he defines natural law with great specificity. In 17 words and tells you how he arrived at those 17 words which out of respect must be repeated exactly as he wrote them.
Whatever Happened to Justice is almost a cult classic. And being a guy that isn’t much into cults, I didn’t even belong to the boy scouts, this is the one exception because LIBERTY is dear to my heart.
Been reading about natural law most of my adult life. Don’t think three sentences is sufficient enough to erase 2000 years of history.
Tyranny is coming closer because this knowledge has been purged by the war mongers and the power holders. I must say they’ve done a damn good job of keeping this stuff out of public view.
… What (if any) is / are the connection(s) between Natural Rights, Natural Law, Natural Theology and Natural Religion?
They are all organic with no pesticides?
I never heard of the terms natural connected to theology and religion. So I can’t answer the question although I get the jist of your question. This is a topic that probably is better discussed on a zoom type meeting with like minded people.
You’ll find rants online about how nat law is BS. But everyone of them didn’t read your book on informal fallacies. Dang. Try explaining to someone who never heard of deductive reasoning how important it is. I tried. Imagine attempting to explain an ephemeral principle to a guy that knows nothing about innate reasoning, the laws of a higher power. You’ll take up drinking right quick.
This is for some reason a very difficult topic for people to get their head around. I have my reasons why that might be, but no matter of throwing book names, quotes, definitions. They’ll still blow it off as nonsense. Which is their right under the laws of free speech, but not under the laws of reasoning.
I was on a forum for many years, we used to cross post Josephs News from the Nefarium and there was one guy on there that was passionate about natural law. He eventually went out and tried to give lectures. He totally gave up. He was more of an anarchist than I was and we would argue for hours on the subject (with respect) I’d call his mother names and he’d call my mother names and then agree to go meet for a beer.
Despite years of posts on discussions of natural law, those who read, still couldn’t get their head around it. That makes the Founders GIANTS in my book. I don’t care that they had slaves. I don’t care if they liked their rum punch and were a little bawdy. They were tapped into something that you’re lucky comes around every 5000 years. But we went ahead and ruined it.
Maybury shows that back in the early days before government and police, the Christian Clergy read and studied natural law and it was them who codified it into common law so everyone could understand it. You know, don’t kill your neighbors turtle. That makes sense to people even if they don’t understand why that’s bad.
And the founders did an amazing job and taking all this very elusive stuff and putting into concrete form.
Everyone knows time exists but find somebody that can give you an accurate definition of it and really comprehend it. Everyone knows intelligence exists but do you think two people would agree on what it is? So the clergy and the founders did the best to take these etheric principles and put them into form aka, don’t do this or you’re gonna make life bad for yourself.
natural law. You don’t learn it. You have to catch it. And once you catch it, and you watch our politicians at work, you know the day of reckoning is gonna come.
Pesticides …love that, hilarious. But genuinely there are two schools to my simple mind under trained mind. One either accepts that:
Natural rights as a concept which are unalienable immutable rights granted by dint of existence in God’s creation, thereby no man or men can supersede - traditional root of unalienable rights which have not changed.
Natural rights are unalienable rights under Man - derived from the Enlightenment, Materialist/Humanist roots by dint of changing philosophies over time. Which tends towards man made privileges, terms and conditions and rules which are not immutable.
Am sure there are many definitions, and as with many things in life more choice is not always better. More choice does not make for more freedoms or rights, which can be thus obfuscated, buried and/or removed altogether in time.
We all decide to adhere or not adhere to one definition or another. But in an epoch of death by data, and the paucity of information, wisdom/discernment and meaning, I think I prefer to return to first principles.
For example, in modern lawfare, a commonly used legal device in a discovery process, the opposing legal teams tend to dump the most data on the opposition legal team whenever possible and closest to the date it needs to be delivered (think what hundreds of thousands of documents the day of due delivery actually does) regarding discovery around one detail!
But I digress. Simply put, my preference within all of the multiplicity of options on unalienable rights, is to opt for one deriving from a higher locus, in my case namely God, which supersedes all of the machinations of Man, even when enshrined in constitutions. I feel a lot safer within that situation, than relying upon and being subject to the mob rule of democracy or autocratic/oligarchic rule of “European Values”, or “Liberal World Order” or any other humanist/materialist rooted definitions and orders.
Am not saying I am right, but simply expressing a personal preference.
You are on point!
Gravity isn’t an opinion. There might be disagreement on exactly it is. Quantum physicists will tell you it’s consensus reality. It exists because we’re told it exists. Could be.
A law is an immutable principle. It is the operating manual for the universe. The laws of thermodynamics, laws of power are easier to grasp.
All written law, including the Constitution, the Bible etc….can only be an approximation of higher law. How much we understand, consciousness, and how it should be written and applied in modern times. Jefferson said revisit the laws every 19 years. That’s a metonic cycle. Armstrong wrote about that one
The human judgement of right and wrong requires nuiance.
In America, most of us don’t eat dogs and cats for dinner. We innately sense something wrong with that picture. But slaughter a cow or a hog, it’s all good. In other places it’s flipped
In some cultures they allow a man to have sexual relationships with a woman after she has had her first menstrual event. Other cultures we randomly pick an age. 18 years old
These are culturally derived right and wrong. Relative morality
But Maybury’s two laws are fairly objective reality.
Do everything you’ve agreed to do is the basis of all contract law. Do not encroach, all criminal law.
He just found an easy and comprehensive way to explain it in 17 words. Your version is equally valid.
You have the inalienable right not to be popped on the nose. And the person who does it is in violation of higher law and criminal law.
Blackstone gets into the nitty gritty How England actually applied it
Maybury wrote an entire library of books on these subjects and non statist history written for homeschooling for those who didn’t want to subject their children to government education.
So he shows the effect throughout history and current day of ignorance to the subject.
People need to see it in action with real life examples
People will fight it. They will feature us in quacks dot com. MAGA and Trump will mock it as weak while advocating for policies in violation of fundamental principles of the law. Don’t encroach.
Humans think they get away with stuff. But we’re all going to have to pay.
natural law, aka Plato’s Laws, fall under the umbrella of Laws of Harmony or vibration
As well as the law of Opposites. Pendulum swings in one directions, and by the laws of action and reaction, fall to the opposite poll. This is more a Pythagorean explanation. All phenomena in our material world, human behavior, economies falls under these two laws. And I can find these concepts in most holy scriptures including the bible.
Society is slowing moving down the harmonic scale. Step by step, inch by inch.
As the man says, science has not acknowledge the presence of a third force. Man can’t see, therefore, he insists it doesn’t exist. It depends on your powers of perception.
Scott Adams was teaching natural law but he did in a way you wouldn’t protest. Another form of the Law of Vibration. The Law of Facsimiles in a way people could understand. Because if he would have talked like me, nobody would have taken notice. Ya gotta tweak this stuff for the public. Like putting medicine in a candy coating. You have less than 30 seconds to capture the publics attention before they have to run to the kitchen and turn their pork chops over for their netflix.
6th Spiritual Law of the Universe
Adams stated quite clearly, he didn’t understand why all this stuff worked. He was a non-believer at first but he kept an open mind.
There is nothing new under the sun. Just new ways to present it depending on the cognition of your audience.
Aren’t those politicians warmongers not 99%++ lawyers? Good job!
I have no idea what you are saying or what you’re referring to. You might have intended it that way.
