Natural Law


Suverans2's picture

The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. - Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9

For anyone, even the least bit interested in freedom, NATURAL LAW; OR THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE: A TREATISE ON NATURAL LAW, NATURAL JUSTICE, NATURAL RIGHTS, NATURAL LIBERTY, AND NATURAL SOCIETY; SHOWING THAT ALL LEGISLATION WHATSOEVER IS AN ABSURDITY, A USURPATION, AND A CRIME by Lysander Spooner is the "foundational stone"; it is the stone that the builders rejected.

"The science of mine and thine --- [the natural law of man] the science of justice --- is the science of all human rights; of all a man's rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person.
It is the science of peace; and the only science of peace; since it is the science which alone can tell us on what conditions mankind can live in peace, or ought to live in peace, with each other."

Samarami's picture

Geoffrey Allan Plauché at

has comments on Roderick Long's "Inside and Outside Spooner's Natural Law Jurisprudence". At the bottom of his comments is a clickable link to Rod's paper. I'm such a computer klutz I have no other way to post a link directly to Long's treatise, as it posts as a word file. Sam

Suverans2's picture

"The natural law is, in essence, a profoundly “radical” ethic, for it holds the existing status quo, which might grossly violate natural law, up to the unsparing and unyielding light of reason. In the realm of politics or State action, the natural law presents man with a set of norms which may well be radically critical of existing positive law imposed by the State. At this point, we need only stress that the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo and a standing reproach to the reign of blindly traditional custom [common law] or the arbitrary will of the State apparatus [statute law].

In fact, the legal principles of any society can be established in three alternate ways: slavish conformity to custom [common law], by arbitrary whim [statute law], or by use of man’s reason [natural law]". ~ Murray N. Rothbard

My thanks go to tzo for reminding me of these.

tzo's picture

"neither by nature, then, nor contrary to nature do the virtues arise in us; rather we are by nature adapted to receive them..."


Suverans2's picture

″Natural law is that body of rules which Man is able to discover by the use of his reason.″ ~ Hugo Grotius

"...adapted to receive them..." = " to discover by the use of his reason"

It is precisely because you are "...adapted to receive them...", that is to say, a man of reason, brother, that you have "always felt a kind of natural and intuitive appreciation for natural law".

It is for this same cause that no "government", thus far, has ever been based on the natural law (of man).

"Government is not reason..." ~ George Washington

But, does, "is not", necessarily have to mean, "can never be"? What if....?

"These [natural law] precepts will serve for the government of our conduct." ~ Noah Webster (Adapted)

Suverans2's picture

Someone wrote: I have seen...natural law references in your posts, and so I don't think I would be mistaken in assuming you are interested in the subject.

My response: It is much more than mere "interest", my friend.

Individual Secessionists return to their original state. Their status reverts back to that of Natural Persons, which A Dictionary of Law (1891) defines as, "Such as are formed by nature, as distinguished from artificial persons...formed by human laws for purposes of society and government."

What one creates, one controls, and since Natural Persons, i.e. men and women, are not "formed by human laws", they are therefore, not subject to "human laws", (without their consent). It is obvious, (to me at least), that I did not form myself, just as governments did not form themselves, therefore neither of us may create "our own law", we are both subject to the law of our respective creators. So, it took no stretch of the imagination to realize that if Natural Persons are formed by nature then they are subject to the Law of Nature, the Natural Law (of man).

Thus began my love of the Natural Law (of man).

Suverans2's picture

Legibus sumptis disinentibus, lege naturae utendum est. When laws imposed by the state fail, we must act by the law of nature. 2 Roll. R. 298. [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 899]

They have failed!

    "The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose, but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law has become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself is guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!" Ibid.
Suverans2's picture

"A philosopher can choose to disbelieve in Newton's laws, but this will not enable him to fly. He can disbelieve in natural law, but political and social institutions built on false law will fail, just as a bridge built on false physical law will fall..." ~ James A. Donald

Suverans2's picture

“Ius Naturale” [natural law] does not derive from the customs of civilized peoples. Instead it provides [us] with a ground on which to judge which peoples are civilized. ~ James A. Donald

Suverans2's picture

"Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another...” ~ Voltaire

As with virtually every other word in the English language, those who wish to LORD it over their fellow man, i.e. wish to play God, have clouded the succinct and simple meaning of the word “right”, when used as a noun. The question of “Who has rights?” is easily answered when we use the correct definition. That definition can be found in Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, under RIGHT, n. at positions 5, 6, and 7; and it uses only two words: “Just claim”. Now watch what happens when we apply the correct definition.

All living beings have a natural “right”, that is to say, a “just claim”, to their life, liberty and property. This is what makes it “right” [adjective], i.e. “just”, for them to defend these things. These “rights” [just claims] can only “rightfully”, i.e. “lawfully”, be lost by forfeiture. Forfeiture is “the losing of some right, privilege, estate, honor, office or effects, by an offense, crime, breach of condition or other act”; in other words, only by trespassing upon someone else's rights [just claims]. Trespass is defined, in law, as a “violation of another's rights”. But, make no mistake about it, though natural rights are in-alien-able, (except through forfeiture), they most certainly can be trespassed upon, i.e. violated.

The men and women of your government prove that “rights” can be trespassed upon every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day, of every week, of every year. Some men prove that “rights” can be trespassed upon when they kill an animal that is not trespassing against them, i.e. one that is not trying to kill them, steal their food, or destroy their property. The “rights” of trees and flowers and vegetables are trespassed upon by nearly all men. Oh, you think that is silly?

Is there any reader who can honestly tell me that a tree, or flower, or a vegetable, or a new born baby, or individuals who are mentally deficient or suffering from dementia don't have a “just claim” to their own life, liberty and property, simply because they are unable to defend these “rights”, or are evidently unable to understand these “rights”? Think long and hard, dear reader, before answering that question, because your answer will tell everyone volumes about you.

Suverans2's picture

Does a child have a "right" to life, liberty and property"?

The answer to part one of that three-part question, does a child have a "right" to life, is found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1324, where it says a right is, “an interest or title in an object of property; a just and legal claim to hold, use, or enjoy it”; that “property”, in this case, being the child's life.

There are some that have, (irrationally in my opinion), put forth the idea that a father and/or mother should not be able to tell their child how (s)he can "use, or enjoy" their life, liberty and property. I believe that this is utter nonsense and here is the reasoning behind that belief.

Liberty and responsibility go hand-in-hand.

For as long as a mother and/or father are responsible for the maintenance of a child's life, (food, water and shelter), and, to some degree, responsible for the child's actions, this child's “just and legal claim to...use, or enjoy” his life, liberty and property can, according to the Law of Nature, be controlled by those who are responsible for him.

Some of you may also see this as a metaphorical explanation as to why the government can lawfully control your “just and legal claim to...use, or enjoy” your life, liberty and property.

Suverans2's picture

“If the Coal Age promised anything thrilling to the kind of mind which thrives on managing the behavior of others, that promise would best be realized by placing control of everything important—food, clothing, shelter, recreation, the tools of war—in relatively few hands, creating a new race of benevolent, godlike managers, not for their own good but the good of all. Plato had called such benevolent despots "guardians."” ~ Excerpted from The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto

Suverans2's picture

Much, (if not most), of what the average U.S. citizen believes to be natural rights are, in fact, political or civil rights. Since all rights are "entitlements" conditional upon membership in a group, one must first be a member of the political group, the body politic[1], in order to be “entitled” to these political or civil rights, and, he must also meet all the other “conditions” that his benefactor, the god[2] called STATE, wishes to place upon these rights. And, like the so-called "laws" of the STATE, these conditions can change with the mere flick of the pen, so that one may, in the blink of an eye, find that he is no longer "entitled" to these rights.

[1] MEMBER, n. ...Every citizen is a member of the state or body politic. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

[2] ″…in modern society, with its religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity, it would be much harder for any single group to demand allegiance — except for the state, which remains the one universally accepted god.″ ~ Roderick T. Long, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Suverans2's picture

"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights . . . and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him . . . and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right." ~ Thomas Jefferson (c.1816)

Suverans2's picture

The STR quote of the day for 10/29/2011 will be a fitting reply to the above comment.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Suverans2's picture

Natural Rights clause of the New Hampshire Constitution.

[Art.] II. [Natural Rights.] All men* have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness.

*It is important to note that, all "men" [humans] have natural rights, not all "persons" or "citizens". Governments give "citizens" civil rights and/or political rights; Natural Rights are "inherent rights".

Then at Article three we read this:

[Art.] III. [Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others...

Oh, really? It would be interesting to see the list of "natural, essential and inherent rights" that members of their society have to "surrender up", would it not? Let's see now, would it be their right to life, their right to liberty or their right to natural and justly acquired property?

As we have seen in a previous comment here, one of their most notable "founding fathers", and author of their manifest notice of secession, the Declaration of Independence, so-called, apparently disagreed with that constitutional article, and in no uncertain terms.

"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare [not create] and enforce only our natural rights . . . and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him . . . and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right." ~ Thomas Jefferson (c.1816)

Suverans2's picture

According to the Natural Rights clause of the New Hampshire Constitution, "men have a natural, inherent, and inalienable right of “defending their lives and liberties.” This, of course, means that they have a right to defend them against any injustice on the part of the government, and not merely on the part of private individuals; because the object of all bills of rights is to assert the rights of individuals and the people, as against the government, and not as against private persons. It would be a matter of ridiculous supererogation[1] to assert, in a constitution of government, the natural right of men to defend their lives and liberties against private trespassers.[2]"

[1] "Performance of more than duty requires." ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of American English

[2] Excerpted from An Essay on the Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner

Suverans2's picture

Well as I (Rob S.) quoted in my book The New History of America, the case of Cruden v. Neale, where the court states a principle of natural law so clear that it cannot be twisted by any lawyer, that man is only bound by the laws of nature. Here is what the court stated:

"...That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. IT IS NOT A RULE BINDING UPON MANKIND IN THEIR NATURAL STATE. THERE, EVERY MAN IS INDEPENDENT OF ALL LAWS, EXCEPT THOSE PRESCRIBED BY NATURE.. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." ~ CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70 Excerpted from an article entitled HOW "CITIZENS" ARE TRANSFORMED INTO "PERSONS" found HERE

Suverans2's picture

In a true[1] republic “...the rule of law limits the authority of men exercising governmental power.”

Quod prius est verius est; et quod prius est tempore potius est jure. What is first is truest; and what comes first in time, is best in law. Co. Litt. 347. ~ Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary [Emphasis added]

Therefore, the Supreme Law of the Land is the Law of Nature, the Natural Law of Man.

NATURAL LAW. The rule and dictate of right reason, showing the moral deformity or moral necessity there is in any act, according to a reasonable nature. Tayl. Civil Law, 99. ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black's 1st c.1891), page 801

Law of nature, is a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator, and existing prior to any positive precept. Thus it is a law of nature, that one man should not injure another, and murder and fraud would be crimes, independent of any prohibition from a supreme power. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added]

This law of nature, being coeval[2] with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. ~ 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries at 41 [Emphasis added]

The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9 [Emphasis added]

[The natural] law is the paramount law, and the same law, over all the world, at all times, and for all peoples; and will be the same paramount and only law, at all times, and for all peoples, so long as man shall live upon the earth. ~ Natural Law; or the Science of Justice by Lysander Spooner

" is everyone's right and duty to forcibly uphold natural law..." ~ Natural Law and Natural Rights by James A. Donald

[1] REPUB'LIC, n. [L. respublica; res and publica; public affairs.] 1. A commonwealth...

COMMONWEALTH, n. 1. ...A commonwealth is properly a free state...

[2] COEVAL, a. Of the same age; beginning to exist at the same time; of equal age; usually and properly followed by with. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added]

Suverans2's picture

Since there is nowhere one can comment on the daily quotes here at STR, I decided that this was an appropriate place to do it.

The quote on 3/19/2011 was attributed to the facist, Ezra Pound, "Liberty is not a right but a duty."

Let us start with this, Ezra. Bullsh*t!!

    Liberty. Freedom from all restraints except such as are justly imposed by law. Freedom from restraint, under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of this same RIGHT by others; freedom regulated by law. The absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interests of community. Brazo v. Connecticut Real Estate Commission, 177 Conn. 515, 418 A.2d 883, 890. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, (c.1991), page 918 [Emphasis added]

What "law" might that above modern definition be referring to? Well, that depends on what jurisdiction[1] one has consented to be under. If one does not consent to "submit himself to the dominion of a man-made government for the promotion of his general welfare and the protection of his individual rights" then he is a "man", (as opposed to a "person", i.e. a "juristic personality")[2], and is governed by the "law of nature", and he therefore has "natural liberty".

    Natural liberty. The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless [except] by the LAW OF NATURE. The RIGHT which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the LAW OF NATURE, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same RIGHTS by other men. Burlamaqui, c. 3, @ 15; 1 Bl. Comm. 125. ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black's 1st c.1891), page 716 [Emphasis added]

This is the same definition, word-for-word, found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991) on page 918. Imagine that, NO CHANGE IN DEFINITION IN ONE HUNDRED YEARS.

Because natural liberty is a natural right, a "just claim" that each of us has, each of us has the prerogative, individually, to exchange it for civil liberty, (which, of course, is a civil right, restrained and controlled by "human laws"), if we so choose.

    Civil liberty. The liberty of a member of a society, being a man's natural liberty, so far restrained by HUMAN LAWS (and no further) as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public [the state]. 1 Bl.Comm.125. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 918 [Emphasis added]

Allow me to take that out of context so that it may be seen more clearly, "The liberty of a member...restrained by HUMAN LAWS.

[1] "Jurisdiction, in its most general sense, is the power to make, declare or apply the law..." ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

The default jurisdiction, if one chooses not to consent to a man-made jurisdiction, is the "law of nature". This so because, "[The natural] law is the paramount law, and the same law, over all the world, at all times, and for all peoples; and will be the same paramount and only law, at all times, and for all peoples, so long as man shall live upon the earth." ~ Natural Law; or the Science of Justice by Lysander Spooner

[2] Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis--Man is a term of nature; person of civil law. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), page 2136

Suverans2's picture

According to Joint Resolution 175 of the 103rd Congress, "the phrase in the Declaration of Independence 'All men are created equal' was suggested by the Italian patriot and immigrant Philip Mazzei." (Source: Wikipedia)

Tutti gli uomini sono per natura egualmente liberi e indipendenti. Quest'eguaglianza è necessaria per costituire un governo libero. Bisogna che ognuno sia uguale all'altro nel diritto naturale.

All men are by nature equally free and independent. Such equality is necessary in order to create a free government. All men must be equal to each other in natural law. ~ Philip Mazzei, The Virginia Gazette, 1774. (Translated by a friend and neighbor, Thomas Jefferson.)

Suverans2's picture

Natural law, natural rights, natural liberty, et cetera, are only relevant[1] to free men and women, that is to say men and women who have not voluntarily "subjected themselves to the dominion of a [man-made] government", or those who have withdrawn from membership in all man-made "political" groups.

Perhaps this explains why there has been only one solitary vote of ten for Lysander Spooner's treatise entitled, NATURAL LAW; OR THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE: A TREATISE ON NATURAL LAW, NATURAL JUSTICE, NATURAL RIGHTS, NATURAL LIBERTY, AND NATURAL SOCIETY; SHOWING THAT ALL LEGISLATION WHATSOEVER IS AN ABSURDITY, A USURPATION, AND A CRIME; and why there has been only two commentors, on this, the most important topics for free men and women, e.g. natural law, natural justice, natural rights, natural liberty and natural society, in over a year.

[1] relevant adjective▸directly connected with and important to what is being discussed or considered ~ Macmillan Dictionary

Suverans2's picture

"There is only one fundamental right [just claim] (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right [just claim] to his own life." ~ Ayn Rand

Suverans2's picture

"The cause of America is, in a great measure, the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which, their affections are interested. The laying a country desolate with fire and sword, declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the concern of every man to whom nature hath given the power of feeling; of which class, regardless of party censure, is THE AUTHOR." ~ Excerpted from Common Sense by Thomas Paine [Emphasis added]

Those who desire to rule over all of the Earth's inhabitants are determined to extirpate[1] the defenders of "the natural rights of all mankind".


[1] EX'TIRPATE, v.t. [L. extirpo; ex and stirps, root.]

1. To pull or pluck up by the roots; to root out; to eradicate; to destroy totally; as, to extirpate weeds or noxious plants from a field.

2. To eradicate; to root out; to destroy wholly; as, to extirpate error or heresy; to extirpate a sect.

Suverans2's picture

I was unable to edit, because it triggered the spam filter, so I will attempt to post my edit separately.

Those who desire to rule over all of the Earth's inhabitants are determined to extirpate the defenders of "the natural rights of all mankind"; of which class, regardless of party censure, is THIS AUTHOR.

Suverans2's picture

Those who desire to rule over all of the Earth's inhabitants are also determined to extirpate the defenders of the natural law (of man); of which class, regardless of party censure, is THIS AUTHOR.

    "Nowadays, the study of natural law virtually has been banned from the training of lawyers. What remains of it in the academic curriculum of most law schools is no more than a little bit of 'intellectual history', which is devoted mainly to the works of a handful of ancient, medieval and early modern writers and philosophers. Often, students get the impression that natural law is something that can be found only in books (in the same way that statutory law, the verdicts of courts and international treaties are mere texts). They are led to believe that the natural law is nothing but a collection of theories of natural law. It is not. Nor, of course, is the physical universe nothing but a collection of theories of physics.

    The practice of natural law also has been eliminated almost completely by the legal profession. Very often, the study and the practice of natural law are scorned if not ridiculed.

    ...the most important reason for the negative attitude [toward natural law] is that the legal profession has discovered that there is much more money to be made from focusing on highly politicized complex, constantly changing systems of social regulation than it ever could hope to make from the study and practice of natural law." ~ Natural Law by Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law. [Emphasis added]

Suverans2's picture

Natural Law by Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law.

This, in my opinion, is a MUST READ, for sovereign men and women.

Suverans2's picture

Just curious, if any of you "sovereign men and women" read Frank's short treatise on Natural Law, and, if so, what is your feedback on it?

Natural law, natural rights, natural liberty, et cetera, are only relevant[1] to free men and women, that is to say men and women who have not voluntarily "subjected themselves to the dominion of a [man-made] government", or those who have withdrawn from membership in all man-made "political" groups.

"That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to [coming after] the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, [in the natural state] every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." ~ CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. [Bracketed information added]

[1] relevant adjective ▸ directly connected with and important to what is being discussed or considered ~ Macmillan Dictionary

Samarami's picture

I have made a copy for reading on the road if I get the chance. For a numb-head like me it's not a "short treatise" (12 pages, single-space in Word). In looking at van Dunn's home page I ran across this quote:

    "We are now a people of the government, for the government, by the government".
    Theodore Dalrymple

That rather goes along with my understanding of the Hebrew book DarkCrusade quoted extensively. Whatever your persuasion regarding that book, it appears that in the story of the creation of the first man and woman that first smiling, waving gangster we've come to think of as "politician" (incorrectly translated "serpent" in some versions of the Book) convinced the woman that The Creator was lying. He had promised those partaking of the tree of life essentially "...government of The Creator, by The Creator, and for the people.." -- and later contracted with their progeny to that effect on two tablets of stone.

The politician (perhaps "serpent" is not such a poor translation of that critter after all) argued (and won) that they should safely partake of that "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (simply stated: human government systems). That would allow them to "...enjoy government of the people, by the people, for the people..."


Suverans2's picture

G'day Sam,

Hope you enjoy Frank's treatise as much as I did, brother.

One discrepancy I find with what you just wrote, according to "that book", I believe it talks about a "...government of the Creator, by the Anointed.

The use of oil in consecrations, was of high antiquity. Kings, prophets and priests were set apart or consecrated to their offices by the use of oil. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

And, who are the "anointed"? "Ye are a...royal priesthood"

Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

According to "that book", the commonwealth of Israel, (not to be confused with the STATE OF ISRAEL), as I understand it, is made up of "fellow citizens", that is to say, all members have equal rights.

FEL'LOW, n. [Heb. to tie or connect, to be joined or associated.] ...3. An equal. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Suverans2's picture

Your submission has triggered the spam filter and will not be accepted.

"The natural law and the positive law are not alternative systems of rules that apply to the same thing. The natural law is the law of natural persons and positive law is a law of artificial persons." ~ Natural Law by Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law

Suverans2's picture

Since the previous one was so well received by all you "sovereign men and women", here's another one for you. It too is by Frank van Dun. It is his treatise on the difference between Lawful and legal. Hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

    Abstract. This paper presents an etymological approach to the confusing language of law and rights. It attempts to uncover the archetypical situations and relationships that appear to have been the original referents of words such as 'law' and 'rights', 'legal' and 'just', as well as other words that are indispensable in discourses about law and justice: 'freedom', 'equality', 'peace', 'authority', 'society' and others. The concepts of the lawful and the legal can be clearly distinguished. The distinction between them sheds an interesting light, not only on the lawyer's conception of law, but also on the old controversy over natural law. From the analysis there emerges a distinctly liberal conception of social order as well as a naturalistic, non-normative conception of natural law, with no metaphysical or theological connotations of a "higher law". The elements uncovered by the analysis provide a coherent scheme of law that can serve as the basis for a non-deontic, rights-based logic of law. ~ The Lawful and the legal by Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law [Emphasis added]


ElasahBazlith's picture

I was taught that law meant -that which is laid or fixed, to lie-.
'Tis established OR enforced by a sovereign authority.
Where lies the law in conformity to the constitution?
Over the hill?
Care to mutilate the feet?
The -law burrows- deeply?

Suverans2's picture

Artificial. As opposed to "natural", means created or produced by man. California Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. Industrial Accident Commission of California, 13 Cal.2d 529, 90 P.2d 289 Created by art, or by law; existing only by force of...[human] law. Humanly contrived. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 113 [Emphasis and bracketed information added]

"A mature adult is supposed to know the difference between the real world and the games people play, between the natural and the artificial. He or she is supposed to be able to keep such things in perspective." ~ Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law.

Suverans2's picture

Why are our natural rights sometimes referred to as our "inalienable rights", or "unalienable rights"?

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments’ rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws..." ~ John Adams

Because a man cannot be "alienated" from his natural rights "by human laws", but rather only by his own individual authority, either by express or tacit consent or by forfeiture (a form of implied consent).

Suverans2's picture
    "The shallow consider liberty a release from all law, from every constraint. The wise see in it, on the contrary, the potent Law of Laws." ~ Walt Whitman

And just what is this "potent Law of Laws"? The answer, as we have posted here twice before is...

    "The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9
Darkcrusade's picture

Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.~ Frederic Bastiat

Regardless of what the natural man may design, God has instructed all men through His Spirit to "judge all things by His Word." And:

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20
We know that man's laws and governments act beyond their humble task; it has little to do with law and much to do with religion--Mammon and Hedonism. What one worships, one imitates, and one's law is that imitation. Given enough time, all systems of man's law self-destructs in a fit of tyranny. God's Law is Truth and Eternal, so when the Truth provokes all of us, and it does, be diligent and remain grounded in the Word of God. All your life you have probably been told what you are allowed to know, and we have all been guided down the primrose path of half-truths which are lies. Maybe you have or have not really considered all things--why we exist; what our purpose is; what is real and what is not? Would you like to know the Truth of these things?

It is said, "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse." That does not refer to the over 60 million laws of men on the books in America, but it refers to God's Law. Our Heavenly Father, the Creator of all, has written His Law not only in Scripture through His prophets and apostles, but also on every man's heart; that is why you ultimately know what is just, what is right, what is good and what is evil. That is why we are warned that:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." Romans 1:18-23

The Truth that He has written on all of our hearts is the inherent gift to man from our Heavenly Father. But, through the spirit of the world, those truths become perverted when one takes his eyes off of God's Truth.

So, in all of the issues in your life, you have the choice to be diligent, to believe, to trust, and to walk according to the ways of God, in faith! Or, through the help of many around us who serve the prince of this world, there is the choice to be influenced to turn your back on God through reason and compromise following men and their false images.

Throughout history, the spirit of the world has woven an intricate web around the disobedient and ignorant, influencing them by their temporal surroundings and lusts of the flesh to be "recreated" in the image of man. In Matthew 15:3, Jesus warned us of how man's traditions, i.e. denominations, family traditions, etc., nullify the Word of God, "my parents are I grew up a and I'll always be a" Too many will continue to cling feverishly and relentlessly to a tradition rather than obey the Word of God. Our Lord said, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:14). And:

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:15-17
As seekers of the Truth, we must be cognizant of how powerfully blinding traditions can be, in that they can rob one of the Truth. In other words, many "Christians" say in their hearts, "Don't confuse me with the Truth because God's Grace is sufficientmy mind is already made upand besides that, God knows my heart" In Truth, what they are admitting: "I don't care what the Word of God says, I know my pastor, teacher, parents, loved ones, peers, media, government, schools, doctors, and lawyers, are all correct in their understanding and beliefs, and they would never lie to me.

An a priori law would be the fundamental economic axiom "humans act".

An empirical "law" would be the law of gravity.

The former is known to be absolutely true, just by considering it. The latter must be proved, and can never be known to be absolutely true.

Suverans2's picture

G'day Darkcrusade,

    "I don't care what the Word of God says, I know my pastor, teacher, parents, loved ones, peers, media, government, schools, doctors, and lawyers, are all correct in their understanding and beliefs, and they would never lie to me." ~ Darkcrusade

And, presuming you do, just how is it that you came to believe that the BIBLE is "the Word of God"? My guess, it was from neither a priori or empirical evidence that you came to believe this, it was because some of those persons on that list told you it was, and you believed them; you believed them because, "they would never lie to me".

Darkcrusade's picture

Mellow Greetings Suverans2, Sorry for the delay in responding to this all important topic.

You might establish a belief on a truth and work down from that reference point.Say, maybe
that ''All men are created equal.'' From my perspective means that-God(The Sovereign) has granted all men personal sovereignty. Which leaves them to offend(sin) against a righteous Creator,(to their detriment)or accept the(Free) provision God has supplied for all.

Their is a proof(many),That puts the fingerprints of God upon the Holy Scriptures.

2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

The Fact that God tells the future as a history.(prophecy)
You might be familiar with the Septuagint?These, the(old testament) Hebrew scrolls that were translated into Greek,300 hundred years before Christ.(ref-any encyclopedia)
The Septuagint contains over 300 prophecies concerning Christ and was translated almost three centuries before his birth.
Christ fullfilled every single prophecy! The odds of one historic personage fullfilling every single prophecy written almost 300 years before his birth are unfathomable.(impossible really)

All of Christianity would come crashing down in a rubble pile if one(1) prophecy of christ were shown to be unfullfilled.The critics have had 2,000 years to no avail.

Nowadays,the best testimony against Christianity,would seem to be so called Christians.
There is reason for this.
The first century true christians were martyred by the thousands and the truth grew in spite of persecution.Onced the state legalized and endorsed it,it could control it.The modern apostate church has been infiltrated.We have wolves in sheeps clothing sheperding the laity to destruction.

The Holy Scripture is the inexhaustible word of God.Libraries of books have been written on one verse.
Generation after generation of men have studied it all their lives and have NOT plumbed the depths.
There is reason for this.
You would expect that ,from a writting that had the audacity to claim the exalted status as the ''word of God!''

I find a lot of intersting truths from the Scriptures that point to God.

Exd 20:3 ¶ Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Which is to say-First is God,than is man.The creature is not above the creator.Do not bow down to the idol
of a manmade government.


Christ Jesus has said;
“And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.21 Luke 22:25..."But ye shall not be so."

Jesus said in Matthew 20:25 “But Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you

Mar 10:42 But Jesus called them [to him], and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
Mar 10:43 But so shall it not be among you

Christ's admonition is wise than, and wiser today.
Those who will not be governed by God,will be ruled by tyrants.

“And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9)
Governments operate under the doctrine of Parens Patriae. Christ cautions us.(This verse also condemns the universal 'catholic chuch' wher they call preist and pope Father.)
1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

You maybe familiar with the contractual nature of governments.
The Scripture speaks-

When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what [is] before thee: And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat. Proverbs 23:1

“A man void of understanding striketh hands, [and] becometh surety in the presence of his friend.” (Proverbs 17:18)

Man has been warned over and over that he should be cautious at the table of rulers whether they be singular monarchs, elected executives or mobs of the majority.

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Romans 13:8-10
(no tax,no tribute,no voting,as that is a trespass and a violence to your neighbors.)

Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.


Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
(No room for a Government of rulers here.)

The next verses are prophetic and point to the rulers(kings) and their creatures(corporations,merchants)
and how we should ''come out of the mystery babylon.'')

Rev 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.


2Cr 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you,
2Cr 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

My purpose in this posting is that maybe you have not read the Scriptures in light of these truths that i am attempting to share with you,and hopefully you consider them in a 'new light'.
let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written.


P.S. Believe nothing that i have wrote,unless you can verify it with the truth.
As it is written>
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Suverans2's picture

And mellow greetings to you too, Darkcrusade.

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed response.

Do we have any witnesses, other than the so-called “New Testament”, that Jesus [sic] fulfilled those "over 300 prophecies concerning Christ"?

Darkcrusade's picture

He who trammels the debate,directs the outcome.

The rejection of the truth in the new testament would tend to steer the debate.While it was the eyeWITNESSES who wrote the vast majority of the new testament,it would be an almost fruitless endevor to find an eyewitness who was not changed into a believer!(that is,if Christ is,who he says he is.)
If there was no Christ,there would be no Christians,as that is where the moniker comes from.

Paul was given power to unrestrained persecution of the Christians,stoning husband and wives and imprisoning children.Paul,a powerful jew and enemy of the Chritians, had an impecable pedigree that he counted for dung after his eyes where opened.
See-Philippians, Chapter 3:4

Another great historic evidence>

Flavius Josephus, who was a Jewish authority, a Roman scholar and who lived from 37 A.D. to 100 A.D., has recorded in his work, The Antiquities of The Jews. Josephus verifies that Jesus was an historical figure who was called Christ, who was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and who rose again on the third day. Listen: "He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned Him to the cross, those that loved Him at the first, did not forsake Him, for He appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning Him.(from-The Complete Works of Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Kregel Publications, Chapter.III, page 379.)

1 John 4:9-10: "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." Propitiation simply means "to atone or make amends for." In other words, Jesus came and died in our place (atoned for our personal sins) so that we could be freed from sin's penalty, which is death. Jesus died so that you and I could be saved.

John 15:13 says, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

How can a Holy God show his justice and mercy and love? Justice demands you be punished for your transgressions. But God is pure love and wants to show mercy.

A lot of readers wonder why in the Scriptures there are so many pedigree,name of so and so, begat so and so and so on &c.

Try this ,take the genealogy in Genesis Chapter 5 and write down the names Adam thru Noah. (Every name in Hebrew has a meaning)Look up the meaning of each name and it should look like this.


You have a picture of salvation in the first book of the Bible.
The ancient hebrew patriarchs did not encode the new testament gospel in the 'old testament scrolls' on purpose. This is the fingerprint of God. To be honest in our search for truth ,demands investigation.

Darkcrusade's picture
Suverans2's picture

Thank you, Darkcrusade.

"There are indeed certain arbitrary customs used among civilized nations. But, if a sovereign think fit to give full and due notice that he does not intend to observe them, he can only be blamed at most for a want of courtesy and liberality, provided he do not violate any principle of natural law. But it is no doubt best to observe those customs and in general it would be a violation of natural law to disregard them without giving full and due notice to the other party. It is evident however that they cannot be considered as laws."

Darkcrusade's picture

CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through
the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome,
Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from
26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius.

"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the
reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea,
where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Annals XV, 44

What this passage reveals and how it confirms the Biblical account:

Jesus did exist

Jesus was the founder of Christianity

Jesus was put to death by Pilate

Christianity originated in Judea (With Jesus)

Christianity later spread to Rome (Through the Apostles and Evangelists)


GAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS (69 - 130 A.D.) Suetonius was a prominent Roman historian who recorded the lives of the Roman Caesars and the historical events surrounding their reigns. He served as a court official under Hadrian and as an annalist for the Imperial House. Suetonius records the expulsion of the Christian Jews from Rome (mentioned in Acts 18:2) and confirms the Christian faith being founded by Christ.

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from Rome." Life of Claudius 25.4

WhiteIndian's picture

It would be fascinating to study the connection between biblical Fundamentalism and economic Fundamentalism; I suspect the correlation is high.

AtlasAikido's picture

On those trying to reconcile liberty w the bible

To those who imbibe in a bible (amplified) and ask if one needs be a believer? The bible is a theocratic totalitarian system and cannot be reconciled with the concept of liberty and peace which is what i am living. Why try to?

Bible based amplified teachings? You can't address a person logically who is either a) someone claiming to be Christian/Jewish who is ignorant regarding what the bible actually says (Yahweh is a murderer and condones murder as well) or b) someone who know's of the bibles immoral nature and defends it anyway because common sense and morality don't apply to "god".

This is like arguing non-aggression with someone who thinks force is just dandy because it works so well. What could you ever possibly hope to say to such a person of this mentality?

With all due respect. Pointing out the incompatibility of theocracy and liberty is not disrespectful (although a waste of time to some but others may get the information they may need to become free). The religious system of a murderous entity claiming to be god is in no way in line with freedom or self ownership.

All one needs to do to see the tyrannical mentality of Yahweh is to peruse the list of laws in the Torah and see how many are absurd (much like our (mal prohibitum) laws are today) and how many are punishable by death. Or you can start with Joshua chapter 6 where Yahweh sanctions the murder of women and children, innocent people. This sort of *genocidal* edict is common in the Old Testament. has many examples of such behavior.

You can make excuses for why murder isn't really murder because god did it, or said it ok or they must have deserved it for being wicked. It's hypocrisy and fallacy.

Darkcrusade's picture

Some have advocated a bannishment of a new member on STR. Suggesting that it was somebodies 'house.'
If an omnipotent God has souvreignty over his creation,and the Body and soul of individuals,by your own
"logic???" He has the Just claim to decide to shorten an unrepentent body,if he so choses, and than have mercy on the everlasting soul.

The woefully misunderstood reading of Yeho-Shua, and the warfare-stratagems of the adversary addressed
throughout,from Genesis on. Reveals the principle of exposisitional constancy,although written by many different authors seperated by thousands of years.Why go to Yeho-Shua,When you could have pointed to the flood God sent.

One of the disturbing aspects of the Old Testament record was God's instructions, upon entering the land of Canaan, to wipe out every man, woman, and child of certain tribes inhabiting the land. This is difficult to justify without the insight of a "gene pool problem" from the remaining Nephilim, Rephaim, et al., which seems to illuminate the difficulty.(As the Scriptures state Noah was perfect in his generations! )

Further concerning a bannishment;the metaphor would be correct if some were invited to come to my house and use my crayons to color in my coloring books,but now i do not like the colors you are using so iam taking away my crayons and books and you must leave. As this is my house,crayons and books,It IS MY RIGHT! (Which i agree with, IF he does the financing of STR.)

WhiteIndian's picture

I'm not writing on walls with crayons in somebody's house; I'm writing in a space provided to invite public comment. What you're seeking is conformity to a religio-economic catechism, and I'm not playing along like a submissive true believer. Instead, I've provided documented evidence that you hold contradictions, and encourage you to check your premises.

But its easier to call me a troll or vandal than to think.

Darkcrusade's picture

Easy Tarzan, I never called you a troll and i have supported your commenting.Perhaps you mis-interpreted my challenge of some posters here calling STR their ''house.'' Some were acting like you forced your way into somebodies 'house' uninvited and started re-arranging the furniture. I cleaned up the metaphor to liken it to a childrens coloringbook party.Once you colored outside the lines(or used the wrong color crayons) some
called for your bannishment.(I think anyone should be able to post here,and if the posting is disagreeable,should be withstood intellectually by the members.)

As was pointed out to me;the financing of STR is from a poster that you were having an exchange with and he had to resort to insults when ,as he put it,his reason failed.

Now if someone(an owner) financially supports STR, I can see that person having the right to kick anybody off for any cause or no cause,but that seemed to fly in the face of the principals here espoused.The same way
a Creator has the right to shorten an unrepetent reprobate life.

(Truth is, i do not agree with most of what you have pimped on STR.Although i think you should be allowed to dialogue.I had posted earlier about birth-rates.Perhaps you should check your premises.)

It is your UN-civilised countries who have the biggest population growth.Majority of their time is spent obtaining sustenance for one day(and it seems procreating).Intersting that some call that a Game-show in this society.You might have seen it,it's called survivor.A T.V. show here,while it is a life and death reality for those living in a smoke filled tee-pee or mud-hut collecting buffallo chips to put on a fire to keep warm and cook a field mouse for dinner.

Every industrialised country is dying.
The total fertility rate is the average number of children that each woman will have during her lifetime. The TFR is an average because, of course, some women will have more, some fewer, and some no children at all.
Theoretically, when the TFR = 2, each pair of parents just replaces itself.
Actually it takes a TFR of 2.1 or 2.2 to replace each generation — this number is called the replacement rate.

The big surprise of the past twenty years is that in not one country did fertility stop falling when it reached the replacement rate -- 2.1 children per woman. In Italy, for example, the rate has fallen to 1.2. In Western Europe as a whole and in Japan it is down to 1.5. The evidence now indicates that within fifty years or so world population will peak at about eight billion before starting a fairly rapid decline.

It is the reason the elites on concentrating their eugenics programs on tribes and countries in Africa etc.