Natural Law


Darkcrusade's picture

Creating "robots" without free will would have been meaningless. God wanted his children to choose good, not evil. Without knowledge of good and evil, there was no sin. Conscience means "with knowledge". We all know what is evil, and choose to do it anyway, and so it is sin, separating us from an eternity of blessed fellowship with a righteous and holy God.
And so... evil began in Paradise, bringing death into the world. To compound the problem, around the 450th year of Adam's life, the Fallen Ones began to convey forbidden knowledge and evil practices to mankind, and married the daughters of men. This very nearly resulted in the extinction of the human race, and culminated in the Great Flood. But that didn't end the problem, since the Bible tells us that there was more mingling with the Fallen ones after the Flood, producing more giants.

The seed mingling theme runs deep in the Bible. The Serpent may have had something to do with the birth of Cain, Abel's brother. The wording "she bare again" indicates (in my mind at least) the possibility that the boys were not both sired by Adam. Cain was a prototype of the Antichrist. Eve thought Cain was the Redeemer, and gave Abel a name that means '"useless".

Abraham got in trouble with God by allowing the Pharaoh to take Sarai into his harem. God intervened and protected her, but later in life Abram took the Egyptian handmaid Hagar and the resultant mingling produced Ishmael and centuries of conflict.

Moses' wife came from among the Egyptians... more mingling of seed? You see, the Angels that sinned had polluted the bloodlines of various races, and the bloodline of Jesus Christ had to be from the untainted seed of Adam, not mingled with demon seed. The mingling of the Fallen with the daughters of men filled the Earth with violence and bloodshed, and threatened to prevent the coming of the Redeemer, either by polluting the gene pool or killing off His forebears in the bloodline of Mary.
When I think of "aliens" and demons, I think of the Fallen Ones and their part-human, part-angelic offspring. I think the demons are disembodied spirits of demon seed beings that died in the Great Flood. The "armies of the aliens" that were turned to flight through faith (Hebrews 11:34) were heavily influenced by the demon seed giants, offspring of the Fallen Ones and demi-gods mingling with humans. Because of the extreme violence, cruelty, perversion, and Satanic religious practices of their culture, God ordered Joshua to kill them and destroy everything. Israel and the bloodline of the coming Messiah were nearly destroyed on numerous occasions through corruption of their religious practices by association with these mingled people.

WhiteIndian's picture


~Robert Anton Wilson
The Illuminatus! Trilogy (1975)

AtlasAikido's picture

What I care about is liberty and I will point out flaws in any system that would diminish it.

I would also challenge any system that is totalitarian in nature and any attempts to reconcile dictatorship with liberty/ self ownership.

My *moral grounds* for rejecting murder stems from property rights and self ownership. You do not need religion to justify basic morality. You know that murder is wrong without anyone telling you. And it is still wrong when done or commanded by imaginary friends (and its corollary The Most Dangerous Superstition--Authority).

George H Smith points out "...Rand's principles, if consistently applied, lead necessarily to a repudiation of government on *moral grounds*".

Do bible believers honestly not see the inherently illogical and unsolvable conundrum they face by trying to resolve two antithetical systems? I don't understand how anyone who cares about ethics can be religious after having read those "holy" books. The power of denial is amazing. Cue George Carlin...

WhiteIndian's picture

Locke's Divine-Right-Of-Property is Bible-based. Are you still in denial about that?

WhiteIndian's picture

Locke's Divine-Right-Of-Property is Bible-based, and is just as plausible as the Divine-Right-of-Kings.

" is very clear that God, as King David says (Psalm 115:16), 'has given the earth to the children of men'..."

~John Locke
Two Treatises on Government (1680-1690)
Book II, Chapter 5
Of Property

"To date, however, no philosopher has ever successfully divorced Lockesian property rights from monotheism."

~Jason Godesky
The Right to Property
18 July 2005

AtlasAikido's picture

As George H. Smith points out, Ayn Rand's own moral code does NOT lead to mini-statism. It leads to anarchy.

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 nor Locke's so called bible issues if in fact there were any. It is a non-issue. I merely posted possible refutations for those who are interested.

A lesson to be drawn? I read links/article first and come to my own conclusions before others inveigle non-sequiters, especially when there is a "troll"/"vandal" lurking.

Suverans2's picture

...the natural law is fundamental to human existence... ~ C.S. Lewis

According to Clive, it is the "deep magic" that everyone knows.

Suverans2's picture

Word for the day: Isonomy

Suverans2's picture

Natural law.
This is the rules of conduct necessary for people to live and work in peace, based on human nature.

A central feature of customary or natural law is that law is not made, it is not legislated, it is not decreed; it is discovered. The development of customary law is an ongoing effort to discover what the natural law is. It always focuses on resolving the specific issues of the specific parties to a specific case, and thus is far less vulnerable to lobbying and politicking than the process of legislation.

The main elements of natural law as commonly understood are these: lawful behavior means to avoid physical damage to another's person or property; to honor one's contracts; and to compensate those whom one has harmed by infringing on their person or property. In other words, Ayn Rand didn't invent the Non-Aggression Principle; it is of ancient origin. The natural law has no notion of victimless crime; there is no case without a plaintiff to claim injury. Thus customary law tends to focus on compensation for injuries suffered, rather than on punishment. The purpose of law is to see that justice is done — that injured parties are made whole, to the extent possible — rather than to exact vengeance against evil-doers. ~ Excerpted from Rule-of-law Anarchism: A Strategy for Destroying the State's Legitimacy by Kevin S. Van Horn

Suverans2's picture

"...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

Suverans2's picture

"I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don’t be gagged. The time of trial is always. Now is the appointed time." ~ John J. Chapman, Commencement Address to the Graduating Class of Hobart College, 1900

Suverans2's picture

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

Suverans2's picture

A little more on the law of free men and women.

"...there are those libertarians who would simply and uncritically adopt the common law, despite its many anti-libertarian flaws." ~ Introduction to Natural Law by Murray N. Rothbard

Suverans2's picture

"...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

Suverans2's picture

One of the greatest quotes to ever grace the pages of Strike the Root, "The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves (John Locke)", is based on Natural Rights, that "all men are created equal", that [is to say] they are endowed by their Creator with certain un-alien-able Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and [Natural & Justly Acquired] Property.

Suverans2's picture

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

Suverans2's picture

"In Indigenous societies, we are told that Natural Law is the highest law, higher than the laws made by nations, states, municipalities and the world bank. That one would do well to live in accordance with Natural Law, with those of our Mother [the Earth]." ~ Winona LaDuke, of the Mississippi Band of the Anishinaabe of the White Earth Reservation, Minnesota

Suverans2's picture

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

Suverans2's picture

"...the primal rights pertaining to men are undoubtedly enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law". ~ A Dictionary of Law (Henry Campbell Black's first edition, c.1891), page 1044 [Emphasis added]

    PRI'MAL, a. [See Prime.] First. [Not in use.] ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Man's "primal rights" are his "First" rights, i.e. his innate, or natural, rights. They are "Prime", that is to say, they are "paramount", they "take precedence or priority of", and they "outrank" all other "claims".

    PRIME. To stand first or paramount; to take precedence or priority of; to outrank. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1191

And, as we all should know, that which "stands first", is "best", in the law.

    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. ~ Maxim of Law, Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary

So, why do most (wo)men settle for the lesser man-made legal rights? Because they want the "carrot at the end of the stick" held by their self-proclaimed masters[1]; they want, what they perceive to be, the benefits and privileges offered in exchange for their natural liberty[2]; they want a "parent" (parens patriae) to feed, clothe, medicate and protect them, so that they don't have to take responsibility for their own life. Then, like the "spoiled brats" that they are, they have the audacity to complain because they don't like the food they're being forced to eat, they don't like the clothing they are forced to wear, they don't like the medications they're forced to take, and they don't like the protection that is forced upon them.

Some children just aren't happy no matter how much their "parent" does for them.

[1] "The kings of the earth set themselves..." ~ Psalm 2:2 (KJV)
[2] Natural liberty is 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. Buriamaqui, c. 3, § 15; 1 Bl. Comm. 125 ~ A Dictionary of the Law (c. 1891), pg. 716

Suverans2's picture

"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

Suverans2's picture

"Natural law never went away those who ignore it will (are) continuing to experience the consequence as witnessed [by] the slow motion collapse of all the western financial systems." ~ AtlasAikido

Not to mention, and more importantly, by the slow motion collapse of all 'civilized'[1] society. "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature."

The natural law of the human world "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." ~ Lysander Spooner

[1] civilized adj. ...humane, ethical, and reasonable ~ American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

Suverans2's picture

"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

WhiteIndian's picture

Careful reasoning?

" is very clear that God, as King David says (Psalm 115:16), 'has given the earth to the children of men'..."

~John Locke
Two Treatises on Government (1680-1690)
Book II, Chapter 5
Of Property

Suverans2's picture

"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

WhiteIndian's picture

Regarding your homophobic tirade, are dolphins breaking "natural law?"

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior

Suverans2's picture

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.

WhiteIndian's picture

Yours was the worn out "homosexuality isn't natural" harangue. Now you're going to deny you said that? Cute.

P.S. You never have answered if dolphins are un-natural, either here, or in my question about other species' homosexual behavior in reply to your homophobic tirade.

AtlasAikido's picture

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
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.

WhiteIndian's picture

The link to Suverans2 homophobic tirade didn't magically disappear just because of your Obtuse Obfuscation (OO) you wrote there! Following is the, ahem, nuts and bolts of it:

Same-sex marriage is unnatural..."same-sex marriage" is, logically, "contrary to [the] nature" of man, just as the union of two nuts, or the union of two bolts, is, logically, "contrary to [the] nature" of nuts and bolts", while "different-sex marriage", is, logically, in harmony with the nature of man, just as the union of a nut and bolt is, logically, in harmony with the nature of nuts and bolts...their unnatural same-sex marriage...

~Suverans2, posted on January 11, 2012

Oh, look, Atlas dropped his SOPA on the shower floor!

AtlasAikido's picture

A new aspect. Something to be aware of. The troll becomes more friendly. Beware!

WhiteIndian's picture

Query for Atlas on "Self-Ownership:"

• To how many species on the evolutionary Tree of Life* does this "Principle" apply?

• If only one, at what point in biological evolution did "self-ownership" (which I correlate with the more widely used scientific term autonomy**) become "axiomatic" for that specie, and why only for that specie?

* Evolutionary Genealogy: The Great Tree of Life

** Life is a complex phenomenon that not only requires individual self-producing and self-sustaining systems but also a historical-collective organization of those individual systems, which brings about characteristic evolutionary dynamics. On these lines, we propose to define universally living beings as autonomous systems with open-ended evolution capacities, and we claim that all such systems must have a semi-permeable active boundary (membrane), an energy transduction apparatus (set of energy currencies) and, at least, two types of functionally interdependent macromolecular components (catalysts and records).
~Kepa Ruiz-Mirazo, Juli Peretó and Alvaro Moreno. (2004) "A Universal Definition of Life: Autonomy and Open-Ended Evolution." Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres. Volume 34, Number 3, 323-346.

AtlasAikido's picture
Suverans2's picture

Here is what is being called, by the Agenda 21 shill, my “long angry or violent speech” [diatribe], which demonstrates my “unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality” [homophobia].

    That is correct, Lawrence M. Ludlow, "marriages are things undertaken in nature by consenting beings", LONG BEFORE the existence of states. As you, and most people here probably know, I have no 'reverence' of any states.

    The only "just powers" of de jure (rightful) governments, (or whatever one wishes to call such an entity), is to protect its consenting members' natural rights. Same-sex marriage is unnatural.

    Quick definitions from WordNet (unnatural) ▸ adjective: not in accordance with or determined by nature; contrary to nature

    With no intention of being judgmental, or offending anyone here, "same-sex marriage" is, logically, "contrary to [the] nature" of man, just as the union of two nuts, or the union of two bolts, is, logically, "contrary to [the] nature" of nuts and bolts", while "different-sex marriage", is, logically, in harmony with the nature of man, just as the union of a nut and bolt is, logically, in harmony with the nature of nuts and bolts.

    So,what is the main reason that individuals would vote to have their unnatural same-sex marriage "legally recognized"?

    You got it, so the unnatural STATE will give them the same entitlements attached to natural different-sex marriages.

If a jury of my peers finds me guilty of making a “long angry or violent speech” [diatribe], which demonstrates an “unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality” [homophobia], then I ask, no, I demand, that, as punishment, I be permanently banned from this website.

Suverans2's picture

"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

WhiteIndian's picture

Then should we resolve conflicts via mutual masturbation?

In the Middle Ages, canon law cited “natural law” to point out that all animals copulated only for reproduction, and each species had a specific position. So, they said that the only valid form of sexuality was missionary position with the man on top, and then only in the context of marriage, for the purpose of reproduction.

This was done from a European frame; they had not yet discovered the bonobo chimpanzee. Bonobos are the only species besides humans which do not have an estrus cycle. Neither human nor bonobo females are ever “in heat.” Bonobos–like humans–have recreational sex. Bonobos–like humans–have multiple sexual positions. Suddenly all the inferences of “natural law” that continue to underlay our ideas of “sexual morality” were tossed out the window. In fact, if we are to take from that example of “natural law” that most closely mirrors our own sexuality, then we should resolve all conflicts by mutual masturbation.

Comment by Jason Godesky — 16 August 2005 @ 11:15 AM

Suverans2's picture

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'? ~ Internet for Beginners [Amended]

WhiteIndian's picture

Soviet2 purports gay marriage isn't "natural," yet throws a tantrum when empirical data—instead of his puritanical assumptions—about natural sexual behavior is interjected into the thread.

Apparently reality is a awful shock to Soviet2. The poor dear.

Suverans2's picture

Thinking leads to reasoning. Reasoning leads to right and wrong. Wrong leads to revolt. Revolt leads to bad citizens.

AtlasAikido's picture

Superb Suverans2.

Darkcrusade's picture

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

Suverans2's picture

"You are right, there is a natural law; but it is still more natural to many people to forget it." ~ Voltaire