Natural or Common law

[Kentactic]

I had a few thoughts and posted them on my Facebook page as below.

Does Natural law exist to you? Do you think that no matter the geographical location or the society built upon it, that honest, good people will always believe that you should not physically harm another that has not shown the will or acted to harm you? Or do you believe that Common law must exist? (I.e. the US Constitution) a set of laws based on a society's collective opinion of what is right and wrong?

 I do support the US Constitution. However i think I simply support ideas that the constitution may align with from time to time. To support the US Constitution is to submit to Common law and in turn fall under the jurisdiction of all that that society collectively decided is the law. Then the next step is to play by the rules of that society. Yes the federal government is in conflict with the US Constitution. There are ways to hold them accountable within the society's rules. Of course they have shown to be futile methods. So of course you then have the Declaration of independence thats states that when the tyranny is unbearable and the problem cannot be corrected within the system, you then are morally obligated and per your society's set of common laws are in the right to go outside of that system to stop the tyranny.

What say you?

[Kentactic]

Some of you might already know my general opinion based on past posts.

To be honest I haven't totally formed a conclusive opinion id like to preach to the world yet. Its a work in progress and should remain so my whole life.

[Kentactic]

Ironically as one example, if I am to be a supporter of the theory of natural law and take the stance of an Anarchist, my reasons for going to the bundy ranch are reversed. I stated previously that I was there to defend the US Constitution and THEN Bundy's personal property(the cattle). However as an Anarchist I wouldn't be there to defend the constitution at all. Id be there to defend the people from a tyrannical force. Id be defending Clivens property and the land from thieves. However do I have any right in stepping in at all when a man in support of the US Constitution has agreed to be a part of the US and its society? He acknowledges the US as a society and he claims its jurisdiction in some forms. Who am I to get involved in their domestic dispute over right and wrong? However as an Anarchist I have the right to defend against any form of ruler trying to rule over myself at the least.

I think many men go to battle with the same evil with very different reasons in mind. Is that a bad thing? I dont think so.

[JohnyMac]

Before I jump in with my opinion lets get a few things straight.

1) Natural law (s) are God given, e.g. The Ten Commandments

The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17 NKJV):
1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6 “You shall not murder.
7 “You shall not commit adultery.
8 “You shall not steal.
9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”

2) Our founding fathers were Christians, many of great faith.
3) Our founding fathers wrote signed and ratified The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
4) The founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights, to protect American citizens from the government.

Bill of Rights Ratified December 15, 1791:
I.Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
 II.Right to keep and bear arms
 III.Conditions for quarters of soldiers
 IV.Right of search and seizure regulated
 V.Provisons concerning prosecution
 VI.Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
 VII.Right to a trial by jury
 VIII.Excessive bail, cruel punishment
 IX.Rule of construction of Constitution
 X.Rights of the States under Constitution

5) We are a nation of laws. What does that mean you ask. It means that there is nobody above the
    law. The rule of law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. "For as
    in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there
    ought to be no other." Thomas Paine Common Sense (1776):
6) The US Constitution is not the word of God, like the Ten Commandments, it is a instruction
     booklet on how our founding fathers thought the country should be ran. Some people look to the
     Constitution as God-like, which violates the Second law of the Ten Commandments.

With all of that gibberish written this is what I think.

A) As long as I live within the Ten Commandments, I am O-Kay with God.
B) As long as I live within the paramiters of the Constitution and the laws of the land, I am O-Kay.
C) Once something happens to my family or me and it is outside of A & B from above, natural law
    kicks in.

Scenario I:
It is against the Ten Commandments to murder. The laws of the land state you can not murder someone. O-Kay... A person, breaks into your home and tries to kill and you kill that person in self defense. Natural Law kicks in.

Scenario II:
It is against the Ten Commandments to murder. The high law of the land is you can own a tool to defend your family and ones self from harm. Men come to your house to take away the tool the high law gave you a right to own and you preceive that your family or you are threatened with leathal consequences. Natural Law kicks in. 

Just the start of a long thread Kentactic  Thanks for starting it 

[Kentactic]

Good post JMAC.  I agree with your premise(if I understand you correctly) that natural law is our default law. If Common law or societal law fails our right to life, liberty and property we then can fall back to natural law, even if in violation of both. That begs the question, why do we need any laws beyond natural law?

Common law seems to be ever expanding from the minute it exists. Once it is put on paper to protect natural law, you then require a government to uphold the newly created document. That leads to more laws above and beyond natural law... it snowballs into America 2014 pretty quickly. For common law to remain somewhat in mirror to natural law as I believe the founding fathers tried to do with the constitution,  it requires intense vigilance on the part of the people. They weren't kidding when they said we need a bloody revolution every few decades... it gets out of control THAT fast.

[Well-Prepared Witch]

I have a significantly different definition of "natural laws" than JM. (Shocking, I know. )

To me a natural law is an extension of human nature.  If you look at human psychology, specifically look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, humans crave safety and security first after the physical needs.  Closer to the top, we desire respect from others. 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Maslow's_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg

We cannot be safe or secure in a world where we cannot trust our neighbor or the stranger on the street.  However, we can't seem to stop killing each other.  So, we codify it in an attempt to control and put rules around it.  No killing without reason (self-defense), or only killing at the order of the king/government (war). 

We desire our peers to think well of us. Chaos-bringers are rarely well thought of.  For better or worse, humans are not fans of change.  Unlimited, ungoverned killing causes change and distress.  We naturally build bonds with people and if someone is casually breaking those bonds by murder, I think people will get upset.

You'll find that cultures all over the world in different eras all have come up with similar rules, maybe not exactly the same, but similar.  Common law is merely a reflection of natural law, of our priorities.  Some priorities do change over time (yay gender equality, 40-hour work weeks, child labor outlawed, etc. to name just a few, even if it's only in portions of the world) and societies can change.  However, I think some core needs and values are intrinsic to the human condition.

[Burt Gummer]

When in doubt? Rothbard...
http://mises.org/daily/2426
I realize I quite regularly drop a link to this guy but he knows his stuff.

The term "natural law" implies as Jmac asserted correctly a strong christian origin but it's a much later change to the Chirstian/Catholic religion. Then what is shown in the bible which does not reflect it accurately. And quite often goes against it.
When discussing "natural law" a lot of people will assume that the discussor is trying to "sneak God into the back door" so to speak. And by god I mean religion in general. While nothing could be further from the truth.
Thomas Aquinas sourced his notion of natural law from the Greek philosopher Aristotle (Reason). Which was highly controversial at the time.
Natural law merely attempts to use logic as a science in discerning what man's nature is.

And no Ken I don't think you are contradicting yourself with constitutionalism & anarchism. Look at Ron Paul. It's the most practical approach to reducing state power. As long as you don't hold on to the "We must have SOME government" to keep us safe." or the "The Constitution BINDS the government to it's limits"  notions, You should be pretty solid. 

[rah45]

And no Ken I don't think you are contradicting yourself with constitutionalism & anarchism. Look at Ron Paul. It's the most practical approach to reducing state power. As long as you don't hold on to the "We must have SOME government" to keep us safe." or the "The Constitution BINDS the government to it's limits"  notions, You should be pretty solid. 

I think that anarchy is feasible until you hit a certain population density, in which case either due to more frequent interactions with others or due to very dangerous, coordinated foreign governments/empires you need a more organized civilization. I think the democratic republic as the Founders envisioned is about the closest thing to a "perfect" government we could hope to attain. However, it is still very flawed, as we can see. Like we've stated before, no organization (government or not) can survive and thrive as it was intended without significant awareness and support from its members. Apathy kills.

[Kentactic]

And no Ken I don't think you are contradicting yourself with constitutionalism & anarchism. Look at Ron Paul. It's the most practical approach to reducing state power. As long as you don't hold on to the "We must have SOME government" to keep us safe." or the "The Constitution BINDS the government to it's limits"  notions, You should be pretty solid. 

Makes sense Burt. I suppose i must approach my stance on the US Constitution as using government against itself in order to reduce it. Its not exactly being totally honest but if it gets the job done it is worth it. I just dont want to be viewed as a selective user like a "sovereign citizen" where i do recognize the power of the constitution and the agreement with all the participants in a society but only the  parts I like.

I dont think that a human in government is "Bound" by the US Constitution, but in the back of their head they do. Atleast they believe the people believe it does. So thats a good tool for the freedom tool box.

Good stuff Burt. You outline it very well.

Here's a funny little chat I had via comments on Facebook underneath this same OP.

Her- Kenny and that IS with consequences..imagine without it.. people have always created a higher arcy.

Her- "Guess you'll find out when that time comes. lmao You sound like Feinstein, if you tell them to stop raping you they will.  sorry but Yes, that's the same line of thinking. Anyways have fun with all this..I'm out of here."

Me- "If I hold up the constitution will they stop raping me?"

[Burt Gummer]

I really hope you read/listen to some Rothbard WPW as he will systematically explain the (very complex) argument and in historical context. With so much source material it'll bring you to tears. (in a good way).

Well Ken The modern notion of anarchism that we share is pretty new and did not come into fruition untill this last century. Our founding fathers were at the time as close to anarchists as feasible at the time. But if I may make a Lord of the rings reference. "They didn't throw the ring into the mount doom"... and created a new State. Which started very rapidly doing nasty State things such as killing tax protesters & veterans.

[Kentactic]

I really hope you read/listen to some Rothbard WPW as he will systematically explain the (very complex) argument and in historical context. With so much source material it'll bring you to tears. (in a good way).

Well Ken The modern notion of anarchism that we share is pretty new and did not come into fruition untill this last century. Our founding fathers were at the time as close to anarchists as feasible at the time. But if I may make a Lord of the rings reference. "They didn't throw the ring into the mount doom"... and created a new State. Which started very rapidly doing nasty State things such as killing tax protesters & veterans.

Thats the conclusion im coming to aswell. They were just one click off of freedom. Once you put pen to paper its all down hill. If there is a law in place, the first guy to read it will say "or what?".... and were off....

[Grudgie]

Great analogy Burt. For those who don't know the story, the free people of middle earth finally defeated the armies of Souron but when the King of Gondor had the choice to finally snuff him out completely he chose to keep the ring which only allowed the power of Souron to grow progressively stronger until a new generation had to come along and finish the job. The founding fathers of America are the free people of middle earth and the government is Sauron and the ring.

I am new to the hole anarchy thing, but I realize I have always been one deep down. Even when I was very young I fundamentally knew that government was silly, "Why should I follow their laws when they were made by people just as flawed as me? Why is it when I make dollar bills in my basement it's called counterfeiting but when the government does it's called sound economic policy? Why is it when I rob someone at gunpoint it's called theft but when the government does it it's called paying your fair share? Why is it when I kill someone it is called murder but when the government does it it is called patriotism? Why is it when I keep workers within my property borders at gunpoint it's called slavery but the government can keep us within its borders at gunpoint for the betterment of the population.

Anarchism is not a utopia, those only exist in theory. But deep down, fundamentally, at a certain base instinctive level, we were born knowing (you can call it natrual law) that we do not own anyone else and we can't regulate other people's behavior by force.

And I'm with you Ken in that I support the Libertarian movement because it's a step towards anarchy. Call us progressives because we are using progressive tactics to quietly take over the world and leave you alone.

Until anarchy stops being a bad word and it becomes more mainstream, it's a lonely position to have. It's annoying that you have thought about the concept of anarchy for years and people just come along and dismiss it at a passing glance. But it's not surprising at all that people reject the notion of anarchy. They have lived in government funded schools since they were old enough to remember being taught the inherent good of the state. I didn't immediately become an anarchist. I had to through steps over a gradual process; republican, conservative, libertarian, etc. I didn't go from A to C without first going through B and we can't expect general population to.

[Burt Gummer]

Tolkien was a self described anarchist and I always saw the trilogy as a massive political analogy. Probably why it's always been so popular.
Bear in mind that "no government" does not mean "no law". Our modern system of laws is founded on merchant law which was practiced without a State making it's self except from it.

This discussion reminds me of a movie link i've been meaning to post. Which I believe you all would like.
Called: Snowpiercer

[Kentactic]

Burt how do you "enforce" a law without government. Merchant law required courts. If someone is found guilty of a crime then who is carrying out the punishment?  How did these courts come to be. Were they elected?

[Burt Gummer]

A court would merely require an arbitrator (Judge) and the consent of both disputing parties to render a verdict. With a verdict the loosing party would make restitution to the winning. Enforcement of the verdict can be carried out in several different ways in case one party chooses not to honor his side of the arbitration arrangement ranging from exclusion (black listing) by local business for non violent crime. To hiring / calling upon the security company you already patronize to repossess property stolen / defrauded from the winner.

This is called "reparative justice"

With this method of law enforcement there both parties have a choice as to who will reside over their trial. There won't be jury's because there's no notion of being accountable to "the public" just private parties interacting voluntarily.
No victimless crimes are able to be persecuted, and no State body benefiting from it's fine's, seizures & incarceration funding.

[Kentactic]

Thank you for the informative reply Burt. 

[Grudgie]

Anarchy=without rulers. But there was another term that meant 'without rules' (I believe it was Anomism or something similar) which is different than Anarchy. People assume anarchy just means rampant crime, Molotov cocktails, grafitti, and motorcycle gangs.

[Burt Gummer]

You can blame the "Anarcho Syndicalists" (communist anarchists) for that...
These are your social studies college majors / CNN protest highlights / agent provocateurs.