Natural Law

Word for the day: Isonomy

"...we need to promote the idea of natural law, that an act is lawful or criminal on its own merits, and not because of the decree of some group of rulers. The idea of natural law is more important than the specifics of its content, because once this idea is accepted, the state and its statutes are no longer relevant when discussing the lawfulness of an act." ~ Rule-of-law Anarchism: A Strategy for Destroying the State's Legitimacy by Kevin S. Van Horn

"The natural law always buries its undertakers." ~ Etienne Gilson

"...the fact that natural-law theorists derive from the very nature of man a fixed structure of law independent of time and place, or of habit or authority or group norms, makes that law a mighty force for radical change."

"The reaction of the State to this theoretical development was [and is] horror..." ~ Introduction to Natural Law by Murray N. Rothbard

A must read article by tzo, regarding the Natural Law.

"Congress CANNOT Write Any Law It Wants" according to Judge Napolitano

"The right of revolution, which tyrants, in mockery, accord to mankind, is no legal right under a government; it is only a natural right to overturn a government. The government itself never acknowledges this right." ~ Excerpted from An Essay on the Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner

"In his own time, [John Locke] was famous for arguing that the divine right of kings is supported neither by scripture nor by the use of reason. In developing his theory of our duty to obey the state, he attacked the idea that might makes right: Starting from an initial state of nature with no government, police or private property, we humans could discover by careful reasoning that there are natural laws which suggest that we have natural rights to our own persons and to our own labor. Eventually we could discover that we should create a social contract with others, and out of this contract emerges...the institution of private property [beyond "our own persons and our own labor"]. This is how reasoning places limits on the proper use of power by government authorities.
...
Labor is the origin and justification of property; contract or consent is the ground of government and fixes its limits." ~ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource gfywi

"Traditionally, Natural Law is called "natural" for two reasons. First, Natural Law is distinguished from conventional law; in other words, Natural Law does not depend on or derive from manmade institutions and customs. (If it did, it would not be able to serve as a standard by which to judge manmade law.) Second, Natural Law is distinguished from supernatural law; in other words, Natural Law is accessible to human reason rather than requiring divine revelation. (Historically, Natural Law theorists have disagreed with one another about whether Natural Law derives its authority from God's commands; but even those who have held — wrongly, in my view — that Natural Law does indeed depend on divine commands have nevertheless insisted that Natural Law represents that portion of God's commands that we could figure out for ourselves as being rational and reasonable, through our own unaided intellect, without appeal to scripture or other forms of revelation.)" ~ Excerpted from The Nature of Law by Roderick T. Long , Part IV, by Roderick T. Long

p.s. tzo, you may find this entire treatise interesting

libel is a false, malicious statement published in mainstream media (i.e. on the internet, in a magazine, etc.). It is somewhat synonymous to defamation.

Please, I would like the moderator of this website to show me my "homophobic tirade".

homophobia unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

tirade A long angry or violent speech, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature.

If it cannot be shown, I politely request that that libelous remark be removed.

Thank you Glen.

Dear Reader I shall move onto what one would/could conclude if they read the link I supplied in my prior post instead of following non-sequiters, but first...

What an Intentional Fool (IF) counts on is the fulcrum of complexity. Can he insinuate a plausible derailment of what a casual blogger has no time to sift thru (in effect waving them off an issue)? And at the same time can he/she inveigle a poster to correct the IF's derailments?

Now at this point the issue is. Does one say ok, I will check the link and see if there was a derailment. I understand some will just keep reading and file this point for later reference. Whether the derailment is a modus operandi does not come up until one makes the connection for themselves.

Once enough folks make a definitive identification, and some clearly have--Glen, livingfreeretiree, Suverans2, etc --the Intentional Fool's power is lost and the word Troll/Knave comes to have a clear and understandable meaning....

Where was I (as it relates to my prior posts)? Ah yes!

While the Lockeian tradition of mini-statism - includes some of the followers of Ayn Rand it cannot be reconciled with her moral code. Which is the point of the article.

Those who accept the premise that individuals (and only individuals) possess equal and reciprocal rights, and if one insists that these individuals must consent to be ruled by a government, and if one condemns as illegitimate all governments that rule without consent - then all governments, past and present, have been illegitimate.

There is no Objectivist politics nor economics. If some conflate Locke's politics with Rands followers that is hardly a refutation of her moral code which does indeed lead to agorism.

Understanding Rand's Objectivist Ethics led me to embrace agorism and The Covenant of Unanimous Consent--which gets one out of controlling others (including giving a fig newton about religion. It is a non-issue. I merely posted possible refutations for those who are interested).

But whilst we have some troll arguing about whether "dolphins are evil" or conflating Rand's moral code with some of her followers, this IS going on...

"Today, the Wikipedia community announced its decision to black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide, beginning at 05:00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18 (you can read the statement from the Wikimedia Foundation here). The blackout is a protest against proposed legislation in the United States – the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate – that, if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia.

This will be the first time the English Wikipedia has ever staged a public protest of this nature, and it’s a decision that wasn’t lightly made. Here’s how it’s been described by the three Wikipedia administrators who formally facilitated the community’s discussion. From the public statement, signed by User:NuclearWarfare, User:Risker and User:Billinghurst:

English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout
Good for Wikipedia

PS I pointed out in point 11 of a prior post. It is hardly "easier to think" and explore ideas and trade with others--without getting bogged down in non-sequiters--if one has a "troll or vandal" around...It does end up being "submissive"--amongst other things--if one continues to give such by conceding the moral high ground and the benefit of the doubt.

Reference: http://www.strike-the-root.com/liberty-stability#comment-4968

"The laws shall be merely declaratory of natural rights and natural wrongs, and … whatever is indifferent to the laws of nature shall be left unnoticed by human legislation … and legal tyranny arises whenever there is a departure from this simple principle." ~ Elisha P. Hurlbut, nineteenth-century American natural-rights theorist

The Sad Truths of Internet Trolls:

1. Trolls enjoy using shock-value statements, [and bald-faced lies], to get angry responses from others.
2. Trolls gain energy by you insulting them.
3. Trolls gain energy when you get angry.
4. Trolls are immune to criticism and logical arguments. True trolls cannot be reasoned with, regardless of how sound your logical argument is.
5. Trolls do not feel remorse like you and me. They have sociopathic tendencies, and accordingly, they delight in other people having hurt feelings.
6. Trolls consider themselves separate from the social order.
7. Trolls do not abide by etiquette or the rules of common courtesy.
8. Trolls consider themselves above social responsibility.
9. The only way to deal with a troll is to ignore him, or take away his ability to post online. gfywi

More information can be found here: What Is an Internet 'Troll'? ~ About.com Internet for Beginners [Amended]

GOOD CITIZENS DON'T THINK
Thinking leads to reasoning. Reasoning leads to right and wrong. Wrong leads to revolt. Revolt leads to bad citizens.

Human Rights
''Alan Dershowitz in his book, Shouting Fire, has a chapter on the origin of human rights. Dershowitz says human rights is the belief that human beings are so worthwhile that regardless of age, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of gender, regardless of social status, or regardless of how much wealth you have, every human being is of great worth and has certain rights that can’t be exploited or trampled upon. Now the question comes, “Why should we believe that?”

The first possibility, Dershowitz says, is that we believe that God created human beings and therefore they are sacred; they are made in the image of God.

The second possibility is, “Maybe we find this in nature.” If we look out at nature, do we see that human beings as individuals are valuable?

“No,” Dershowitz says, because all you see out there is the strong eating the weak. That’s how you got here; it’s called evolution.

To believe in human rights is to say everything else in nature is wrong, but why would it be wrong unless you believe in God or a supernatural standard by which to judge? How can you judge that nature is unnatural? Where did you get your idea?

The third possibility is that human beings form human rights ourselves. Legislative majorities create human rights. They’re not discovered, they’re legislated. Morality is something man creates, so we created it.

Society, through a legislative majority, decided human rights make society work better and therefore it is more practical to believe in human rights. So man creates human rights, but Dershowitz says that will never work.

What the argument is advocating is a belief, for example, that genocide is only wrong because man says it is. Therefore if 51% want to vote to take away the rights of 49% and destroy them, nobody can say, “How dare you!” because genocide is wrong only because man says its wrong and now a majority doesn’t say it’s wrong. By this argument, the whole value of rights is to say to the majority “you have to honor the rights of others.”

Human rights are discovered. They can’t be created. They don’t come from nature, they aren’t created, they just exist. So if one doesn’t believe in God why does one believe in human rights? The answer would be, “They’re just there. We don’t know why they are there—they probably shouldn’t be there—but they’re there.”

So, do human rights prove there is a God? No. The point of the argument is that human rights make sense. If there is no God, human rights don’t make much sense, since one doesn’t know where they came from. If this is true, then a belief in God makes more sense than non-belief.

One can’t “prove” God, one can only show that in issue after issue, the existence of God makes more sense than the absence of one.

If there is a God, then the idea of justice and injustice and the idea of genocide being wrong make sense. If there is no God, it takes a leap of faith to say, “I don’t know why it’s wrong; I just feel it’s wrong.”

It’s a bigger leap of faith to believe in human rights if one doesn’t believe in God than if one does. It is a leap of faith to say somehow human beings are valuable if there is no God, than if there is.

So why would one say they do not believe in God? Why is it so hard to believe in God? The reasons would probably be linked to personal, social, and possibly some intellectual reasons. All of the above arguments only takes one through the realm of possibility. It only goes to prove that it is more likely that God does exist rather than not exist. It does not mean one can’t be certain.''~ by Steve Elwart
http://www.fixed-point.org/index.php/fixnews/545-rights