Does Natural Law Matter? [Introduction to Common Law] [No. 86]

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

The answer is yes. Always. The more we stray from it the more we are attempting to do something horrible and destructive in the long run.

[@waleedmahmoud9999]

This is guy knows it all by heart!

[@craigandrews2552]

legal has nothing to do with lawful! legal is contract law or positive law, whether written or verbal. Breaking that contract is then a civil matter. Lawful is to cause no harm or loss to another. which would be a criminal matter. Legal = contract law, Lawful = natural law.

[@DeepCycle9]

Getting people to contrive it as that though is like talking to a stud wall... I get embarrassed from the cowardice of people not realizing exactly what their status as a (wo)man is

[@kimboslice9445]

Grey Ford it’s definitely interesting. I’ve heard of natural law but never knew exactly what it meant. Been doing some studying on it and I’ve noticed exactly what u said has been brought up a lot. Lawful law. I new and it was kinda confusing to me. I mean does this even really exist? Sure doesn’t seem too or is it because not many know what their actual rights are? I sure don’t. I think ppl assume u would have to legit study law but that isn’t true is it?

[@eddielevine7304]

There are 7 principles of natural law: 1. The Universe is Mental 2. As above, so below 3 Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates 4 Everything is Dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites 5 Everything flows, out and in; everything has its tides; all things rise and fall 6 Every Cause has its Effect; every Effect has its Cause; everything happens according to the Law 7 Gender is in everything; everything has its Masculine and Feminine Principles These principles are based on truth. I hope you find yours.

[@lukaradojevic7195]

This are heremetic principles

[@yahbless1659]

No you talking about the 7 occult satanic hermetic principles you joker that is not natural law

[@vidyanandbapat8032]

Every individual is always and entirely entitled to the fruits of his own labour to the extent that he can burn it away. Period.

[@scintilae670]

Very relevant present day.

[@mickya7829]

Excellent

[@SuperJoobers]

How come men in there 60's and 70's win the right to rule a country?

[@bugherder]

Those are man-made natural law principles and can fall into the trap of moral relativism, true? Has anyone heard of and considered adhering to the sacred (capital letter) Natural Law principles which universally govern the consequences of human behavior? My thesis is that our species is at high risk of extinction relatively soon unless they are learned, adhered to, and taught en masse.

[@downwindspiral]

LaLa Land salient issue of tantamount concern.. institutions or corporations comprised of men have more legal rights than people and all life itself,, the abomination of desolation for the love of money

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

Any law which protects Wealth (property) is a man-made law therefore not a Natural Law. Any law which protects wealth/property originates from 'Consensus' or 'Power'. ( A lion can claim ownership of the kill for as long as he is able to defend that kill instead of relying on made up Wealth-laws designed to protect the kill for the convenience of the lion.)

[@johnellis7614]

REAL ISSUE: If life is an unalienable right that we deserve, than we have a right to amass wealth. On the other hand, if life is a free gift that we do not deserve, if global warming means that death is all that we deserve, than the one billion humans slowly starving to death, this is due to seven billion sinners refusing to feed them.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

The starvation of billions is due to the demand of the Wealthy to respect their claim for ownership of Wealth more than we respect human life. There is nothing natural about ownership. ( A lion can claim ownership of the kill for as long as he is able to defend that kill instead of relying on made up Wealth-laws designed to protect the kill for the convenience of the lion.)

[@soulfulserenity403]

There's enough wealth and food in the world for all. The problem is the billionaires are claiming it all and we're letting them, and supporting them by being good slaves and doing as their minions (govt agents) tell us.

[@hokalos]

This is not Natural Law.

[@Carolinagrace777]

Yes.....

[@soulfulserenity403]

Care to elaborate? To me, natural law is cause no harm or injury to others or their property. Do what is correct.

[@hokalos]

@@soulfulserenity403 the classical understanding of Natural Law is that there are universal laws by which not just natural processes, but morality is derived. Therefore, morality can be determined by reasoning with these natural phenomena. Classically Natural Law is determined from a thing’s end or target (Greek: telos) that can be observed in nature. For example, a wheel’s ‘end’ is to rotate. Another example would be an object’s end on earth is to always move towards the earth whenever subjected to gravity. This line of thinking is applicable as well to morality. Examples that I can give you would be that the end of sexual intercourse is to reproduce, therefore sexual intercourse is ‘naturally’ for reproduction; the natural end of human activities is for life and survival, therefore it is wrong to murder; etc. Christian philosophers and theologians have understood the moral law as identical to natural law, even so as to the conclusion that the Ten Commandments presents the summary of the natural/moral law. Natural Law has been held by most, if not all, classical moral philosophers such as Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Calvin, Zanchius, and to modern philosophers like the Roman Catholic Popes, Jacques Mauritain, Etiénne Gilson and J. Budzizewski.

[@blainefiasco8225]

"natural" it sounds more like sociological

[@johnellis7614]

If we have a right to own wealth, meaning to own more property than needed to have a comfortable life, than we have a right to do harm and humanity is domed to suffer extinction by global warming. On the other hand, if our wealth belongs to those suffering hunger, than humanity has some chance to survive.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

The dude in the video is a stooge for the Wealthy. There is nothing natural in ownership of Wealth. There is nothing "natural" about the demand to respect the claim for ownership of Wealth by others over your own life and wellbeing. In Nature , you own only what the others agree that you own or the whatever they are unable to take from you. 'Ownership' originates from a 'Consensus' or from 'Power' , there is nothing natural about it. Why should those without wealth respect the demand of others for respect of their Wealth.