1/2

According to BLD:

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

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.

As such, "Natural Law" must ALSO include the fact that we have the ability to determine not only WHICH actions to take to accomplish something, but also to consider which actions we SHOULD take. We have a CHOICE, that the other animals do not.

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.

(1) I disagree with your definitions of "right," "God Given Right" and "Civil Right." When we disagree with something at the word definition level, then we cannot really get past that.

So, the basic point of agreement we must reach is that there are SOME rights (ability to take action, and have that action respected by others in society) that are NOT granted by other humans. Those are God-given or fundamental, or natural rights.

A "civil right" is a right (ability to take action that is respected by others in society) that is granted by other men, via their employment status in a "government."

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?

I do not agree that simply violating someone's rights is a "war."

That is not what I said at all (not the correct context).

Such a claim is hyperbolic and not valid.

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.

Therefore, using that term is a sign (to me) of non-critical thinking.

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.

The so-called "social contract" will NEVER have a meeting of the minds of all parties (which is all humans in existence), so it fails as a contract.

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.

They live on instinct, and not reason, logic, intellectual thought. They do not possess that ability.

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.

Therefore, when anyone claims that "Natural Law" means "law of the jungle" and they OMIT the fact that humans are an intellectual creature, who ALSO lives in that jungle, and who MUST use intellect, then they are omitting a CRUCIAL fact of reality.

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.

It is NOT true that both you and your attacker have the same right to the same food. Nobody has a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to any particular food.

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.

PROVIDED WE OBTAIN IT HONESTLY.

“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.

The early political philosphers who the founders studied also rejected that view.

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

According to BLD:

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

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.

As such, "Natural Law" must ALSO include the fact that we have the ability to determine not only WHICH actions to take to accomplish something, but also to consider which actions we SHOULD take. We have a CHOICE, that the other animals do not.

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.

(1) I disagree with your definitions of "right," "God Given Right" and "Civil Right." When we disagree with something at the word definition level, then we cannot really get past that.

So, the basic point of agreement we must reach is that there are SOME rights (ability to take action, and have that action respected by others in society) that are NOT granted by other humans. Those are God-given or fundamental, or natural rights.

A "civil right" is a right (ability to take action that is respected by others in society) that is granted by other men, via their employment status in a "government."

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?

I do not agree that simply violating someone's rights is a "war."

That is not what I said at all (not the correct context).

Such a claim is hyperbolic and not valid.

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.

Therefore, using that term is a sign (to me) of non-critical thinking.

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.

The so-called "social contract" will NEVER have a meeting of the minds of all parties (which is all humans in existence), so it fails as a contract.

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.

They live on instinct, and not reason, logic, intellectual thought. They do not possess that ability.

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.

Therefore, when anyone claims that "Natural Law" means "law of the jungle" and they OMIT the fact that humans are an intellectual creature, who ALSO lives in that jungle, and who MUST use intellect, then they are omitting a CRUCIAL fact of reality.

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.

It is NOT true that both you and your attacker have the same right to the same food. Nobody has a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to any particular food.

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.

PROVIDED WE OBTAIN IT HONESTLY.

“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.

The early political philosphers who the founders studied also rejected that view.

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

According to BLD:

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

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.

As such, "Natural Law" must ALSO include the fact that we have the ability to determine not only WHICH actions to take to accomplish something, but also to consider which actions we SHOULD take. We have a CHOICE, that the other animals do not.

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 Natural Law, because you are a Part of it, you do not in any way define it.

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.

(1) I disagree with your definitions of "right," "God Given Right" and "Civil Right." When we disagree with something at the word definition level, then we cannot really get past that.

So, the basic point of agreement we must reach is that there are SOME rights (ability to take action, and have that action respected by others in society) that are NOT granted by other humans. Those are God-given or fundamental, or natural rights.

A "civil right" is a right (ability to take action that is respected by others in society) that is granted by other men, via their employment status in a "government."

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?

I do not agree that simply violating someone's rights is a "war."

That is not what I said at all (not the correct context).

Such a claim is hyperbolic and not valid.

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.

Therefore, using that term is a sign (to me) of non-critical thinking.

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.

The so-called "social contract" will NEVER have a meeting of the minds of all parties (which is all humans in existence), so it fails as a contract.

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.

They live on instinct, and not reason, logic, intellectual thought. They do not possess that ability.

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.

Therefore, when anyone claims that "Natural Law" means "law of the jungle" and they OMIT the fact that humans are an intellectual creature, who ALSO lives in that jungle, and who MUST use intellect, then they are omitting a CRUCIAL fact of reality.

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.

It is NOT true that both you and your attacker have the same right to the same food. Nobody has a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to any particular food.

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.

PROVIDED WE OBTAIN IT HONESTLY.

“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.

The early political philosphers who the founders studied also rejected that view.

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

According to BLD:

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

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.

As such, "Natural Law" must ALSO include the fact that we have the ability to determine not only WHICH actions to take to accomplish something, but also to consider which actions we SHOULD take. We have a CHOICE, that the other animals do not.

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 Natural Law, because you are a Part of it, you do not in any way define it.

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.

(1) I disagree with your definitions of "right," "God Given Right" and "Civil Right." When we disagree with something at the word definition level, then we cannot really get past that.

So, the basic point of agreement we must reach is that there are SOME rights (ability to take action, and have that action respected by others in society) that are NOT granted by other humans. Those are God-given or fundamental, or natural rights.

A "civil right" is a right (ability to take action that is respected by others in society) that is granted by other men, via their employment status in a "government."

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?

I do not agree that simply violating someone's rights is a "war."

That is not what I said at all (not the correct context).

Such a claim is hyperbolic and not valid.

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.

Therefore, using that term is a sign (to me) of non-critical thinking.

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.

The so-called "social contract" will NEVER have a meeting of the minds of all parties (which is all humans in existence), so it fails as a contract.

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.

They live on instinct, and not reason, logic, intellectual thought. They do not possess that ability.

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.

Therefore, when anyone claims that "Natural Law" means "law of the jungle" and they OMIT the fact that humans are an intellectual creature, who ALSO lives in that jungle, and who MUST use intellect, then they are omitting a CRUCIAL fact of reality.

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.

It is NOT true that both you and your attacker have the same right to the same food. Nobody has a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to any particular food.

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.

PROVIDED WE OBTAIN IT HONESTLY.

“Honesty” is a human concept. 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.

The early political philosphers who the founders studied also rejected that view.

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

According to BLD:

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

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.

As such, "Natural Law" must ALSO include the fact that we have the ability to determine not only WHICH actions to take to accomplish something, but also to consider which actions we SHOULD take. We have a CHOICE, that the other animals do not.

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 Natural Law, because you are a Part of it, you do not in any way define it.

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.

(1) I disagree with your definitions of "right," "God Given Right" and "Civil Right." When we disagree with something at the word definition level, then we cannot really get past that.

So, the basic point of agreement we must reach is that there are SOME rights (ability to take action, and have that action respected by others in society) that are NOT granted by other humans. Those are God-given or fundamental, or natural rights.

A "civil right" is a right (ability to take action that is respected by others in society) that is granted by other men, via their employment status in a "government."

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?

I do not agree that simply violating someone's rights is a "war."

That is not what I said at all (not the correct context).

Such a claim is hyperbolic and not valid.

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.

Therefore, using that term is a sign (to me) of non-critical thinking.

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.

The so-called "social contract" will NEVER have a meeting of the minds of all parties (which is all humans in existence), so it fails as a contract.

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.

They live on instinct, and not reason, logic, intellectual thought. They do not possess that ability.

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.

Therefore, when anyone claims that "Natural Law" means "law of the jungle" and they OMIT the fact that humans are an intellectual creature, who ALSO lives in that jungle, and who MUST use intellect, then they are omitting a CRUCIAL fact of reality.

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.

It is NOT true that both you and your attacker have the same right to the same food. Nobody has a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to any particular food.

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.

PROVIDED WE OBTAIN IT HONESTLY.

“Honesty” is a human concept. 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.

The early political philosphers who the founders studied also rejected that view.

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

According to BLD:

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

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” (intelligent choice of morality) 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.

As such, "Natural Law" must ALSO include the fact that we have the ability to determine not only WHICH actions to take to accomplish something, but also to consider which actions we SHOULD take. We have a CHOICE, that the other animals do not.

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 Natural Law, because you are a Part of it, you do not in any way define it.

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.

(1) I disagree with your definitions of "right," "God Given Right" and "Civil Right." When we disagree with something at the word definition level, then we cannot really get past that.

So, the basic point of agreement we must reach is that there are SOME rights (ability to take action, and have that action respected by others in society) that are NOT granted by other humans. Those are God-given or fundamental, or natural rights.

A "civil right" is a right (ability to take action that is respected by others in society) that is granted by other men, via their employment status in a "government."

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?

I do not agree that simply violating someone's rights is a "war."

That is not what I said at all (not the correct context).

Such a claim is hyperbolic and not valid.

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.

Therefore, using that term is a sign (to me) of non-critical thinking.

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.

The so-called "social contract" will NEVER have a meeting of the minds of all parties (which is all humans in existence), so it fails as a contract.

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.

They live on instinct, and not reason, logic, intellectual thought. They do not possess that ability.

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.

Therefore, when anyone claims that "Natural Law" means "law of the jungle" and they OMIT the fact that humans are an intellectual creature, who ALSO lives in that jungle, and who MUST use intellect, then they are omitting a CRUCIAL fact of reality.

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.

It is NOT true that both you and your attacker have the same right to the same food. Nobody has a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to any particular food.

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.

PROVIDED WE OBTAIN IT HONESTLY.

“Honesty” is a human concept. 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.

The early political philosphers who the founders studied also rejected that view.

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

According to BLD:

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

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” (intelligent choice of morality) 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.

As such, "Natural Law" must ALSO include the fact that we have the ability to determine not only WHICH actions to take to accomplish something, but also to consider which actions we SHOULD take. We have a CHOICE, that the other animals do not.

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 Natural Law, because you are a Part of it, you do not in any way define it.

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.

(1) I disagree with your definitions of "right," "God Given Right" and "Civil Right." When we disagree with something at the word definition level, then we cannot really get past that.

So, the basic point of agreement we must reach is that there are SOME rights (ability to take action, and have that action respected by others in society) that are NOT granted by other humans. Those are God-given or fundamental, or natural rights.

A "civil right" is a right (ability to take action that is respected by others in society) that is granted by other men, via their employment status in a "government."

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?

I do not agree that simply violating someone's rights is a "war."

That is not what I said at all (not the correct context).

Such a claim is hyperbolic and not valid.

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.

Therefore, using that term is a sign (to me) of non-critical thinking.

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.

The so-called "social contract" will NEVER have a meeting of the minds of all parties (which is all humans in existence), so it fails as a contract.

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.

They live on instinct, and not reason, logic, intellectual thought. They do not possess that ability.

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 life form” just because we may be the best is not supported by the evidence.

Therefore, when anyone claims that "Natural Law" means "law of the jungle" and they OMIT the fact that humans are an intellectual creature, who ALSO lives in that jungle, and who MUST use intellect, then they are omitting a CRUCIAL fact of reality.

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.

It is NOT true that both you and your attacker have the same right to the same food. Nobody has a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to any particular food.

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.

PROVIDED WE OBTAIN IT HONESTLY.

“Honesty” is a human concept. 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.

The early political philosphers who the founders studied also rejected that view.

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

According to BLD:

Law. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force.

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” (intelligent choice of morality) 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.

As such, "Natural Law" must ALSO include the fact that we have the ability to determine not only WHICH actions to take to accomplish something, but also to consider which actions we SHOULD take. We have a CHOICE, that the other animals do not.

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 Natural Law, because you are a Part of it, you do not in any way define it.

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.

(1) I disagree with your definitions of "right," "God Given Right" and "Civil Right." When we disagree with something at the word definition level, then we cannot really get past that.

So, the basic point of agreement we must reach is that there are SOME rights (ability to take action, and have that action respected by others in society) that are NOT granted by other humans. Those are God-given or fundamental, or natural rights.

A "civil right" is a right (ability to take action that is respected by others in society) that is granted by other men, via their employment status in a "government."

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?

I do not agree that simply violating someone's rights is a "war."

That is not what I said at all (not the correct context).

Such a claim is hyperbolic and not valid.

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.

Therefore, using that term is a sign (to me) of non-critical thinking.

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.

The so-called "social contract" will NEVER have a meeting of the minds of all parties (which is all humans in existence), so it fails as a contract.

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.

They live on instinct, and not reason, logic, intellectual thought. They do not possess that ability.

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 life form” just because we may be the best is not supported by the evidence.

Therefore, when anyone claims that "Natural Law" means "law of the jungle" and they OMIT the fact that humans are an intellectual creature, who ALSO lives in that jungle, and who MUST use intellect, then they are omitting a CRUCIAL fact of reality.

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.

It is NOT true that both you and your attacker have the same right to the same food. Nobody has a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to any particular food.

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.

PROVIDED WE OBTAIN IT HONESTLY.

“Honesty” is a human concept. 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.

The early political philosphers who the founders studied also rejected that view.

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.