The 9th Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America is the one that is NEVER talked about in legal or political circles. It's the one [they] don't want you to think about.
It preserves ALL rights that ALREADY existed before the Constitution was created, with the only exception being those rights that were delegated to government by the Constitution.
The 2nd Amendment is about We the People fighting off enemies, foreign or domestic.
But the right to self-defense, gun ownership in general, and all the rest are in the 9th Amendment.
Remember: All of the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) are to LIMIT THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and NOT to "create" any new rights of the people.
Most people do not know there even is a preamble to the Bill of Rights, much less have ever read it. Here is the Preamble:
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.
Catch that? RESTRICTIVE.
The Bill of Rights are ALL restrictive, as to what the federal government is NOT permitted to do.
The 1st: Congress shall make NO law ...
The 2nd: ... shall NOT be infringed.
The 3rd: NO quartering of soldiers ...
The 4th: ... shall NOT be violated ... (btw: "unreasonable" search or seizure means without a judge's signed warrant)
The 5th: NO person shall be held/compelled/etc. ...
The 6th: The government SHALL provide several protections to anyone accused of a crime.
The 7th: Anyone involved in a civil case SHALL have certain rights preserved.
The 8th: Excessive bail shall NOT ...
The 9th Amendment says that ALL rights of the People, that ALREADY existed BEFORE the government was created, were STILL IN EFFECT AFTER that government was created. Here is the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Get it? RETAINED.
Originally, Madison wrote 17 amendements, mostly modeled after George Mason's work on the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He scaled that down to 12. He did not omit anything, but merely rearranged them so that some of them were consolidated from two or three into one. The 5th, for example, has several restrictions of the federal government included within one amendment, rather than having them each in their own separate amendments.
The 12 amendments were presented to the States, and 10 were approved. The other 2 had to do with the number of representatives in the House, based on population, and congressional salary increases not taking effect until after the next legislative session. Those 2 did not pass. However, the one on salaries was given new life more than 200 years later, and was ultimately ratified in 1992, to become the 27th Amendment.
The 9th Amendment is KEY. It preserved ALL rights that humans had before the government was created.
https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/billofr_.htm
As the Declaration of Independence stated (which was written just 13 years earlier), certain truths are SELF-EVIDENT. Namely, that we have rights that existed BEFORE the government existed, and for which the government shall never be permitted to violate (inalienable/unalienable). And ...
... to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Government does not grant fundamental rights. Those rights existed before the government existed, and those rights were used to CREATE the government in the first place.
Once created, government CAN create "civil rights," which are rights that are really privileges, and can be regulated by their creator (the government). But the government cannot create civil rights that supercede natural/God-given rights, because those rights are inalienable/unalienable (untouchable).
1/2
According to BLD:
The Natural Laws are things which are established, according to which phenomena and actions follow. They are prescribed by a controlling authority, and have binding force.
Who is the “controlling authority” for the Natural Laws? Nature AKA The Universe AKA That Which Is AKA God. (Please allow me to equate these things and try to appreciate what I am saying, I will get to your definitions later).
Phenomena and actions follow the Natural Laws. ALL phenomena and actions follow Natural Law because there is no higher Law. Natural Law sits at the very top of the “law” food chain. How does Natural Law have binding force? That has already been stated: phenomena and actions follow the Natural Laws. In the case of the Natural Laws, there is no choice. Natural Law is the Laws that cannot be broken.
Lets assume you could break Natural Law. What would the punishment be? Who would enforce it? Is God going to smite you for breaking the Law? Of course not, because you can’t break the Law. How could you possibly break Natural Law since Natural Law is the Law from which all phenomena and action follows. It isn’t a “choice” no matter how intelligent the chooser. Natural Law is the set of laws that govern all behavior.
Instead of creating your “intelligent choice” Natural Law system, you could just as easily (and I suggest more honestly) say that what you are calling “Natural Law” is “the Morality that guides Civil Law.” Morality by the way changes in each society (both in time and space) and thus can’t be Natural Law, because Natural Law can’t change, unless Nature Changes on a fundamental level. Which is itself a ludicrous idea, because if Nature "changes," it's Natural.
Instead of appreciating that Natural Law is the “rules that can’t be broken”, you suggest that it demands that we think through our actions, it demands a responsibility. This suggests that Natural Law places a limit on our actions of “decision of rightness”. To that I say, bull-fucking-shit. If Natural Law demanded such things, then all people would have the exact same morality. All beliefs would be the same. There would be no free will. There would be no murder, or thievery, or micro-aggressions, or whatever, because the universe wouldn’t allow it. If you reject my definition that Natural Law == That Which Is == The Laws of the Universe == The Laws That Can’t Be Broken, then what would you call That Which Is == The Laws of the Universe == The Laws That Can’t Be Broken, and why are you redefining Natural Law as other than those concepts when that is the original intent, built into the very phrase “Natural Law” AKA “The Laws of Nature?”
Natural Law is the Limits and Grants of That Which Is. I don’t know what the Limits are, but they are in there somewhere. When I find them, I’ll let you know. I suggest the Grants (AKA God Given Rights) are intuitive, some of which have already been stated.
“Natural Law is exactly What It Is”, and it can’t be stated any more clearly than that, because our limited words and knowledge are insufficient. While you can influence Nature (AKA the Universe AKA the world around you), because you are a Part of it, you do not in any way define its Laws.
Natural Law == Is What It Is. It Defines Itself. It doesn’t matter if there is a human there to hear it, the Natural Law Tree that Falls in the Universe Forest still makes the Same Noise.
You say you disagree with my definition of Rights, then go on to describe pretty much exactly what I said about Civil Rights (rights granted by Civil Law), then you go on to describe God Given Rights (rights granted by That Which Is), both in complete agreement with my definition of them. So which part exactly did you disagree with?
That is not what I said at all (not the correct context).
It is not hyperbolic but rather an attempt at extreme precision, exactly encompassing it without anything extraneous. It is also valid, but only if you say it correctly.
The “act of war” is not an infringement of rights as you repeated back to me, but an infringement of God Given Rights, i.e. Inalienable Rights, from one Sovereign onto another Sovereign. Violations of civil rights are not included in that, and no where did I suggest they were.
Please hear my words:
act of war: an infringement of a Sovereign's God Given Rights by another Sovereign.
While I didn’t include “God Given” in the definition the first time around, I did clarify that in the next sentence. Ignoring that context is unfair. If you wish to offer an argument against my definition, please address the definition I offered.
Before you do, please look up “acts of war” and you will see that in every case where someone claims an “act of war”, my definition exactly encompasses all such acts.
If you are going to continue with ad hominem, I will be leaving this conversation. It is both unpleasant and suggests you truly don’t give a shit what I have to say to you, i.e. this debate is not engaged in earnest.
Regardless, you not agreeing with my definition or usage of context is not a lack of thinking for myself (the definition of Critical Thinking). On the contrary, it is exactly Critical Thinking that allows me to suggest what I am suggesting. Our disagreement here may just be a point of semantics, or it may be a lack of your understanding my intent. It may even be my misunderstanding (though I do not think so, but I concede the possibility). It has nothing to do with Critical Thinking however, and I suggest you learn what that term means, because a general lack of understanding of that term is an intentional fraud of our education system.
It doesn’t have to be agreed upon by everyone. It only needs to be agreed upon by everyone who wants to partake in some specific social system, and only for as long as they want to partake in it. That is why it must be optional, and why there must be an exist clause, which I have said about a billion times, and you seem to want to ignore.
There are numerous animals that can make and use tools:
Giant squid, large octopi, some birds, dolphins, elephants, whales, orangutans and other simians, etc. Some orangutans have a human vocabulary on the order of thousands of words. There are birds that can do math. There are monkeys that can solve complex puzzles faster than a human. Many dolphins understand the full mode of human speech. All of those animals mentioned have their own complex language, complex societies, they build homes, create and use tools, etc. Are humans the best at all those things? The evidence supports a positive assertion, but to think that Humans are the “only real thinking life form” just because we may be the best is not supported by the evidence.
Anyone who insists that only humans use “intellect” does not understand, or is intentionally misusing that word. If you think animals do not make conscious and intelligent choices, you have never watched or interacted with animals. Orangutan society, vocabulary, and tool making skills are on the order of what the common narrative (likely a total fraud, but that’s a different discussion) suggests humans were at not too long before H. sapiens. They create hammers, spears, specialized tools. They build homes and other tools with those tools. They have a broad vocabulary and within their society they specialize.
Your facts are not Truth, they are instead your beliefs which are not supported by the evidence.
I have a Right to pursue my life as I see fit. That is a God Given Right. Included in that pursuit of my life is my need for food. That is fundamental. It is fundamental to all life, to all of the universe, “alive” (carbon based “life form”) or not. Everything eats (uses energy, i.e. changes energy from one form into another more useful form, to sustain itself). The Sun does it, planets do it, solar systems do it, galaxies do it, animals do it, humans do it, trees do it, oceans do it, the atmosphere does it, blah, blah, blah. It is intrinsic to all things, and therefore a fundamental right.
“Honesty” is a human concept. To Natural Law, all ways of obtaining it are "honest" because you can't break Natural Law. In other words, Natural Law couldn’t give two shits about how it was obtained. That is what Civil Law determines. I suggest that is the entire fucking point of Civil Law. You equate morality with Natural Law repeatedly. Hopefully I have addressed that sufficiently and it will not be done again unless it is in direct address to the argument I have presented.
No they did not. Not if you mean someone like John Locke. They did not reject that view at all. They understood it completely. They chose to create a Civil Law (a Social Contract) that incorporated Natural Law, and fully appreciated it. They made clear statements of Sovereignty in their Declaration of Independence. You can’t truly understand Sovereignty nor Jurisdiction until you understand Natural Law, since that is the true parent concept of both Sovereignty and Jurisdiction.
1/2:
We can agree that there is "something out there" that has an influence or control over the actions of all things.
My objection to the use of the term "natural law" is that that SOME people OMIT a part of nature so that they can arrive at certain conclusions. The part of nature that SOME people purposely neglect is the human intellect, which obviously is also a part of nature (or "reality" or the "Universe").
The conclusion they then arrive at is that "law of the jungle" is a VALID way to organize a society. THAT is the CONCEPT that I reject, regardless of what words are used.
But in terms of "something out there" that nobody can overcome because the "laws" of nature prohibit overcoming them, I agree.
We cannot overcome the law of gravity. We also cannot overcome the law of cause and effect, in that if we choose to not work, and we have no other source of obtaining money (such as Hunter Biden's criminal family funneling him money), then we will be broke, poor, and likely homeless.
But ... we made a choice to not work. That was free will. Humans have the ability to make choices by using our intellect (hey, it will be waaaay more fun to smoke pot all day than get a J.O.B. ... so ... let' do that!). The other animals and plants cannot make free will choices. They act by instinct, because that is their nature. It is not our nature, however.
You continue to think of natural law in a vacuum, where natural law is the ultimate arbiter, and human intellect is not part of natural law. It is part of it. And because humans do not want to live by the "law of the jungle," we CHOOSE to live otherwise. THAT is ALSO part of "natural law."
Take away all the roads, all the buildings, all the structures built by mankind, and we are back to nature. In nature, humans exist. In nature, humans exist and have human intellect, which no other living thing has.
THAT is ALSO part of nature, and therefore part of "Natural Law."
Anyone who ignores it or denies it is engaging in logical fallacy, and the end result of such reasoning leads to death and slavery, because it pretends to justify "law of the jungle" being a VALID way to organize society.
We just had a bunch of degenerates perform a drag queen show for little children in Dallas. Some would argue that this is just "natural law." But they made a CHOICE to do those things, and we have every right to make a CHOICE to put a stop to their harming of children.
The "natural law" that you are defending would support their actions. I reject that.
THIS is EXACTLY my objection to this line of false reasoning that you continue to pursue. It is BECAUSE it necessarily leads to "anything goes" in society.
And that conclusion is reached BECAUSE your position denies human intellect and free will.
The fact that we cannot overcome gravity and make the apples stop falling from the trees DOES NOT mean that ALL things that happen in nature are a result of similar forces. Human actions are, in large part (not entirely), very different.
BTW ... I am NOT the one who is "demanding" that natural law requires we think through our actions. We DO think through our actions because we MUST.
The lion eats a gazelle and not the grass that is all around him because he MUST, not because he decided he should. Humans think through our daily actions because we MUST. It is our nature.
If it could be said we do not have a choice in the matter due to natural law, then the lack of choice is that we do not have a choice to simply refuse to CHOOSE. We MUST choose. Every day.
And because we choose, we can also use our intellect to determine a good choice from a bad choice (that which is in our best long-term interest versus that which is harmful to it).
Nonsense. People make different choices and choose to have different choices. THIS is why they do not all have the same morality. It is ALL about choice, which is to say it is about intellectual decisions.
It is important to note that humans do not always (in fact, usually) think through their beliefs or actions at a conscious level. Young children have not yet developed the ability for complex rational thought at the conscious level. This is why the evil people want to get at them while they are young, in order to indoctrinate them when they have no critical thinking skills to defend themselves against evil ideas.
Most Muslims live in certain parts of the world (until the recent invasion of the West, organized by the Globalists). Most Hindus live in a different part of the world. Most Buddhists live in a different part of the world, and most Christians live in a different part of the world. This is not because each individual thought about each religion, past and present, as well as atheism, at a conscious, critical level, and then just so happen to have have arrived at the same beliefs as their family and neighbors.
No, it is because we learn many things through our culture. Our society. Here at the GAW, many of us are learning that things were learned earlier in life were in fact, lies. We figured that out about Santa Claus, but not about much more important issues. Now, we are awakening to the lies of our own culture.
But that method of learning through others in our culture (family, friends, school, media) is also rational and intellectual thought, in that we simply don't have the time to think through everything at a detailed level. So, we have a tendency to take short cuts, and just accept the ideas of those around use.
That would include morality. If we see and hear people all around us with a particular morality, we tend to adopt that ourselves, even if it is very different from others. But some individuals overcome that indoctrination and begin to explore certain ideas for themselves, and they change their views. Of course, they do that through intellectual reasoning.
Our beliefs form our values. Our values determine our actions. Our emotions are a result of phenomenon we see, hear, experience, and think about, as these things agree with or conflict with our values.
Change our beliefs, and we will change our values, which will change our emotions and our actions.
What I am rejecting (again) is the idea that "natural law" necessarily excludes the reality that humans have intellect, and therefore make CHOICES, and those choices AFFECT what does or does not happen, because unlike other animals, we choose what we SHOULD do, not merely what we MUST do.
The concept of natural law does NOT have to exclude this, but many people who make an argument like you are making do so and arrive at the conclusion that "law of the jungle" is a valid way to organize society. The degenerates in Dallas are a-ok, as is the raping of a 9-year old.
The ONLY thing that prevents natural law from becoming "law of the jungle," is when we ACKNOWLEDGE that humans are different, have intellect, and make CHOICES about how we SHOULD live, both as individuals and as we relate to others in society.
And THIS ... is where the concept of RIGHTS comes into the picture.
As I said before, rights are a HUMAN CONSTRUCT. They do NOT exist in nature. You canNOT go out into the forest and grab a bundle or rights.
Rights are the IDEA that humans SHOULD interact with one another in one way and not in another way. We SHOULD form a civilized society, and we should NOT live by law of the jungle.
These are moral decisions and are based on the conclusions reached when using human intellect. This is WHY Jefferson wrote, "We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT ..."
He did NOT say he could prove it. He simply said that this idea is SO OBVIOUS, that anyone should be able to agree with it, and anyone who does not must have ulterior motives.
Remember, this message was directed at the KING, and telling the king, for the first time in human history, "Hey buddy, you put your pants on one leg at a time, just like everyone else, so you have NO RIGHT to tell us what to do. Fuck off!"
That was a revolutionary idea, and it lead to war. A REAL war, not a mere "you stole my apple" fake war.
Natural Law describes how the world works. Gravity, zebras eating grass, the Earth revolves around the Sun and not vice versa, etc. Within that understanding of how the world works, we also know that humans have intellect and live their lives via that intellect.
The very fact that you are debating ANY of this PROVES that this is true.
Try continuing this debate WITHOUT using your intellect and making decisions based on it.
This is the PROBLEM with "Natural Law" theory ... IF that theory EXCLUDES this necessary element of human intellect. Which, from my experience, is THE #1 method used by the evil people to pretend to justify their actions -- like the degenerates in Dallas, and other pedophiles amongst the Globalists.
Also, I object to your use of the word "grants" in your statement above. Natural law just IS. It does not "grant" anything. It is simply our understanding of what IS.
If you want to say that God created Natural Law, and through it He grants things, then that is a different discussion, and we can likely find some agreement. But your statement does not say that. Natural law itself is simply an understanding of how the world works -- like gravity and lions and zebras.
I call it the law of Cause and Effect. But they are just terms to describe concepts, and it is the concepts that are important, not the words.
I agree, and you also cannot EXCLUDE something that is by nature a part of it.
And therein lies my basic objection (when people do that).
That is not a definition. That is circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy.
"My dog is what it is." There, I defined what a dog is.
Nonsense, of course.
Now, we can get into Aristotle's Law of Identity, which is "A = A" or "a thing is what it is, and not something else," but that is not a definition of anything. That is merely pointing out that things which exist have specific characteristics, and they cannot be something else which does not have those characteristics.
For example, a human male is a human with both X and Y chromosomes. It makes no difference what changes might be made on the surface, or what a person might think, the fact remains it is a male. It is further a fact that this maleness was determined in the womb, and not on an application for entry into a girl's wrestling match.
You clearly DID use the word war to mean a mere violation of rights -- any violation of rights, and I objected to that.
If you did not mean that, then please be more precise.
We can agree that the BLD definition of "war" is basically correct, and any other use of it would be hyperbole (which is what I said).
2/2:
Make up your mind. You are contradicting yourself. You used the word "war" in a hyperbolic way, then claimed you did not mean it that way (was the wrong context), and now you say you did use it for "extreme precision," making your entire position clear as mud.
Precision would be nice.
And you JUST SAID ...
Fuck, you are just giving me a headache.
Earlier, you said that if someone tried to take your apple, it would be ... "AN ACT OF WAR."
That is just ridiculous and stupid, which is WHY I said it was hyperbolic.
As I pointed out (and you ignored), it was not established that it even WAS your apple.
As I also pointed out (and you ignored), you seemed to be equating the fact that BECAUSE you held the apple ("food" is what you said) in your hand, it NECESSARILY WAS YOURS. I gave an example of where that MIGHT not be true.
But you ignored all that.
The reason I wrote all that was to point out that claiming the theft of food was an "ACT OF WAR" is hyperbolic. I stand by that statement.
Irrelevant, because possessing an apple (or "food") is NOT a God-given right. I prefer the term "fundamental right" because (a) it implies it was a right that was NOT granted by other men, and (b) it includes all who believe whatever they believe about God. This is why Jefferson wrote, "... Nature and Nature's God."
But I understand your use of "God-Given" and I do not disagree. But THOSE types of rights do NOT apply to SPECIFIC PROPERTY.
Maybe this is one of our fundamental disagreements.
These "fundamental rights" (aka "God-given rights," aka "natural rights," aka "rights that exist at nature," aka "rights inherent to being a human") are GENERAL PRINCIPLES, and NOT about SPECIFIC things.
They are ABSTRACTS and not CONCRETES.
Your possession of the apple is real. You DO possess it. But that does not mean you have a RIGHT to possess it. You MIGHT have a right to possess it, but you ALSO might NOT. That would have to be determined with knowing more about the situation.
Someone ELSE might actually hold that right, and YOU are the one who violated it.
If your concept of natural rights is "finders, keepers," then we are back to "law of the jungle," which I reject (for what should be obvious reasons -- especially in this example).
I do not believe that calling out non-critical thinking is an attack on you, personally. I consider it an attack on method of thinking.
However ...
To be honest, based on conversations we have had in the past, and how we seem to be butting heads so much in this one ... I think it is probably best to end the conversation here.
If we were sitting down face-to-face, I think it would be productive, enlightening, and enjoyable. You might even convince me to adjust my thinking.
But this format is just too difficult to really hash things out, and has already taken too much time.
Maybe the next one will be more productive.
Best wishes.
^ I just thought of one more thing, not to debate further, but just to think about.
Let's take "the law of gravity."
We use the word "law" to describe it, but it is not the same concept as a law of man.
It would be more accurate to say "the force of gravity."
These "laws of nature" are not really laws or rules in the same sense that we think of laws and rules made by man. They are not really even laws or rules made by God.
They are merely our observation of how the world works, and specifically the forces of nature.
Maybe that is what I am objecting to when the term "Natural Law" is used to really mean the "forces of nature."
CAN someone punch someone for no reason? Sure, there is no force of nature stopping it.
But what if we don't want society to be a place where this is accepted as a routine thing? The vast majority of people would be constantly in peril, and we don't want that due to how we think people SHOULD engage with each other in society.
Humans have learned to co-exist without doing these things ... for the most part.
Why?
Because we prefer it that way.
And THIS is where we get into a discussion about the human concept of "rights."
Rights are not a force of nature. There really is no "law of nature" in the same sense that there are man-made laws to deal with the man-made concept of rights.
These are really two different concepts.
Maybe that is my true objection to this whole thing.
But we could only find agreement if we were discussing this in person, probably over a few drinks.
1/2 (Sorry it's 1/2 again, it's "barely" 2 if that helps)
That’s fair. I will not expect a response, but I wrote some things before I got to this point, so I will post anyways. Plus this stuff is really helpful for my book. Making arguments for really difficult concepts (like Natural Law, Rights, Sovereignty, etc.) works out so much better if I have to make the argument against a hostile intelligent audience (hopefully not too hostile).
I defined the word (idea) of Law in the beginning of my last post using BLD. I then showed that the Natural Laws were exactly the same as our Civil Laws in their construction. The only differences between Natural Law and Civil Law are; who is the “controlling authority,” what phenomena and actions are allowed, what is the punishment, and what force binds those actions. The BLD definition of law applies perfectly well to all Laws, including Natural Laws.
I also went through and explained all of those differences. They really are very similar. The biggest difference is, there is no punishment for breaking a Natural Law because you can’t. Because you can’t break a Natural Law, all actions are in congruence with Natural Law. That is so fundamental. You keep saying all these reasons why “that’s not Natural Law” or “Natural Law is this other thing.” What you want Natural Law to be is not what it is. It is exactly and precisely the Limits (Restrictions) of allowable action. (I’ll take away “Grants.” I meant it a little bit differently than you suggested, but I’ll concede your objection).
All phenomena follows Natural Law. All phenomena in society follow Civil Law, except those that don’t. When they don’t (and someone is caught) a person is punished for not acting according to Civil Law. That’s really the difference in the levels of Law. In order to enforce Natural Law, Nature just says “no.” There is no punishment because the statement is just “no.” The Authority is Complete. In order to enforce Civil Law, society also says, “no,” and we get a spanking if we choose to say “yes.” The Authority is incomplete.
All of your suggestions of Natural Law being something else require a choice. There can be no choice in Natural Law. You keep ascribing all these other things, and saying “but intelligence” etc. Yes, intelligence is a part of it, but that has nothing to do with what is allowed action by Nature, i.e. the Laws themselves.
The key is the word “allowed”. Your objections of “evil justifications” replace “allowed” with “support.” A person enslaves another by suggesting Natural Law supports (encourages) their action. Natural Law doesn’t give a fuck either way. It only restricts some actions. It obviously does not restrict slavery.
We The People have been enslaved for at least 5,000 years by the exact same group of people. That is how long The Matrix has kept us enslaved, in many cases throughout history (like today) without most people realizing it. My book will show the minutia of this slavery in great detail. It is going to shock a lot of people to see the evidence of the extent of The Matrix. The Matrix I define as: the Intentional beliefs systems, placed over the entire world, in purposeful opposition, through propaganda (half-truths and lies, through control of the “trusted leaders”/media, etc.), to enslave people and make them believe Reality is one way, when it is something very different.
I won’t be talking about the evidence going back too far, because the exposition is intended to avoid as much cognitive dissonance as possible (or feed it in at levels a person can reasonably handle, slowly reaching the full exposure of The Matrix). I start about 200 years ago, and work forward towards the present, but the evidence, once you dig in, supports the Cabal having created or subverted all of our societies, all of our works, all of everything (including things like the fuckery in our Constitution), for a minimum of 5,000 years (Sumerian/Babylonian Empire).
We The People, of the entire fucking planet (not counting places like the Amazon Rainforest, etc.) have been living in Slavery for at least that long (and we still do). So obviously Natural Law allows for slavery, and really doesn’t give a fuck about it, because you can’t break Natural Law and the entire human race has been enslaved for all of what we call "human history."
I want to address some sticking points. While you kinda started to appreciate what I am about to say at the end of your last post, I think you are confusing some fundamental things about how we describe Nature. I do not blame you, that is a purposeful fault of our education system (part of the fraud).
Neither of those things are "laws." I don’t mean they aren’t “laws” like you suggested (i.e. they are forces of nature), I mean they aren’t Laws at all. There is every indication that our actions are not “restricted” by gravity or time in any way. “Restriction” is fundamental to the definition of Law.
That was what I was trying to explain to you with my physics explanation in previous posts. We don't have any idea what "time" is (the driver of what we call "cause and effect"). We don't have any idea what “gravity” is. We have no idea if we can "overcome" either of those things or not. Indeed, our physics models suggest we can very well overcome them both, even if we don't know exactly how to do so with the technology we have at our disposal. It could very well be that the Natural Laws allow us to overcome them without any technology at all (not that I am suggesting that, I’m only saying we have no idea what the true Limits of Natural Law are).
While I hate to use credentials instead of argument, in the interest of time, one of my degrees is in physics. My senior paper was on manipulations of spacetime through certain solutions of General Relativity (AKA warp drive and wormholes AKA "overcoming" both gravity and time). I will be happy to present a more complete argument if you wish, but for now please allow me to say, physics has nothing definitive to say about any "law" of the universe, including gravity, or time or anything. We have useful models and axiomatic philosophies. We know exactly Jack and Shit about The Universe or the specific allowances or limits of Natural Law... and Jack left town.
I assert again (which you did not address) that this is an assumption that is not supported by the facts. I suggest you look deeper into what it means "to think" and what "instinct" means. There is not one type of decision that we make that (higher) animals do not make. There is not one type of action we can do that animals do not show the exact same behavior. For example, they can choose to not work (sustain themselves e.g.) they do it all the time. They can choose to not get food and to just lay there. There are experiments that show that given the option, that is exactly what certain animals will do, because it is more "fun" to do whatever they are doing. You think it's “instinct.” I say whatever it is, it is identical to what humans do. You can't possibly prove it otherwise, since neither you nor I are a species other than human, but by observation, and indeed, by the measurement of brain activity, which are the pieces of evidence we have, there is zero difference between how higher mammals act and how humans act, whether it be conscious choice, or instinct, or whatever you want to call it.
Please discard this topic as part of your argument unless you can provide something besides supposition. It has no basis in fact which makes it detract from your argument. If you would like for me to provide supporting documentation I can do so. I also have degrees in biology, so I've spent a lot of time looking into this shit and can provide very detailed arguments if you wish.
Lets look at the “Law of the Jungle” for a second. Do animals enslave each other? Do they have chaotic societies without laws or punishments? No. In fact they have organized societies, they have laws and punishments, and they do not enslave each other. So the Law of the Jungle when you go into the actual jungle is not what you are suggesting it is, yet this is the basis of your argument. Why?
We automatically live by the law of the jungle. We can’t live any other way. It is impossible. We can however, just like how other animal groups do it, create rules of cooperation, what we call Civil Laws.
Your argument is akin to the Natural Laws are "more moral" for humans, because humans (and only humans) have intelligence. But your argument does not account for the fact that animals have Civil Laws, and codes of ethics (morals) that guide their society. Your argument does not account for the fact that humans can and do do whatever they fuck they want, when they want to, which means that Natural Law does not restrict their aberrant actions, but Civil Law may change them, if they choose to adhere to Civil Law, or simply choose to live cooperatively and respectfully (something animal societies do very well in the actual jungle).
No it does not. Natural law defines how the world works. We describe how the world works, and we describe it all wrong in our models, just by varying degrees.
It proves that we think, it proves nothing more than that. Animals also debate. If you think otherwise, you have never had a pet. Granted their vocabulary is limited and the debates are rather shallow, but the intent, and the logical process are still a part of the conversation.
I didn’t say that. I said that God IS Natural Law. God IS the Universe. The separation of God from That Which Is is intentional fraud. As I said, that’s a very long discussion. I am only asking that you try to appreciate what I am saying (and allow me to say it). I am not asking you to agree.
My argument is that EVERYTHING is a Part of Nature and that NOTHING is excluded. I have excluded NOTHING, because NOTHING CAN BE EXCLUDED.
2/2
It is the only way it can be described, because it is EVERYTHING. We cannot comprehend everything, nor describe it, except to state that it is everything. That is not a logical fallacy because it is not using the language of logic. It is instead as complete a description as can be stated using our limited language.
Logic can’t accurately describe That Which Is, because the language of logic is itself incomplete and axiomatic. I have an entire section of my book dedicated to this topic. I am happy to provide a very detailed argument to support this if you wish. It gets into math a little bit, but it is completely supported by all research on the topic. Here is a place to start.
The bottom line is, Logic, like all of the other things we use to describe That Which Is (physics, science in general, math, etc.) are useful tools, they are not Truth.
I don’t agree. Please look up “act of war” and see if you can find a single instance where my statement doesn’t fit. Then attempt to contrive an instance of a Sovereign infringing a God Given Right of another Sovereign that is not an act of war. Only if you can find an instance that falls outside of my definition (on either side) will I agree that my definition is wrong. I only ask for one instance.
Your argument about the apple makes me feel like you haven’t heard a lot of what I’ve said, so I won’t address it except one thing:
I didn’t ignore it, I just didn’t respond to it directly. Implicit in other explanations was that Natural Law says if I have it, it’s mine. You disagree with that, but I assert that’s because you do not understand Natural Law and instead ascribe to Natural Law a social morality and individual responsibility. Your disagreement of what Natural Law is (The Laws that can’t be broken and nothing more) is not my fault. I can’t make all of my statements fit with your definitions because I believe you are incorrect.
There I will stop. If you really want to (not that I expect it) you can go back and reread my objections to your “It’s not necessarily your apple” argument in other posts. I’ve already addressed it implicitly in what Natural Law and Civil Law are, and what Natural Law and Civil Law have to say about it. I really feel you are conflating the two, and justifying it through your perception of what it means to be “intelligent” and “moral.”
I think that if you can agree that Natural Law has nothing to do with thought and morality (other than that they are a Part of That Which Is), because Thought and Morality do not limit action in an absolute sense like Natural Law does, and respect that all Natural Law REALLY has to say is what is allowed behavior, any conversation would go a lot smoother.