Natural Law

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The People’s Civil Purpose;
In the Defense of Our Founding Fathers

Natural Law

Natural law truths had to be backed by both evidence and analysis. As the evidence of a natural law reduced down in terms that were incomprehensible to most, an analysis had to be submitted along with it that couldn’t be misinterpreted or misunderstood. Thus, the need for developing linguistics to work out the analysis aspect of natural laws.
As the ultimate, Formal Truth can’t be defined as its evidence is unapproachable, always existing on the other side of the wall, so to speak, evidence of it can be expressed in practical, informal truths. While our Founding Fathers declared the evidence of certain truths to be self evident and the analysis of them to be unalienable, their conclusions when taken as a whole natural law are an expression of the Formal Truth. Therefore, our nation is unique in that it was founded not on an ideal, but on the Truth. And if it is the Truth that sets us free, then there exists no need for any further political manipulation.
As Christians, we can think of this in more intimate terms. While legal precedence of the law led the minds of the Disciples to order the multitude to go care for themselves by buying and selling at the local market, the Truth knew that these nations of distraught and desperate souls would never return to Him. So, instead, He had them recline where they stood after which He commanded His Disciples to go feed them. Therefore, as the best servants are converted tyrants, legal precedence is a “necessary tyranny” saved, redeemed and transformed to serve our Civil Purpose.
While many may doubt that our Founders were Christians, no one should doubt that they were not logical. This is because the use of logic had fallen out of favor during their time as is evidenced in the formal document of The Declaration of Independence. While the method of the natural law they declared is established more on Plato’s best principled “Theory of the Forms,” the latter part of the answers they gave to further prove their argument that the king was indeed a tyrant was based more on Socrates’s inductive questioning truth engine he called “Dialectic.” Nowhere in either formal documents of The Declaration of Independence or The U.S. Constitution do our Founders use Aristotle’s logic.
This is because Aristotle’s logic fell out of favor after the persecution of Galileo. Galileo had taken on the mighty Aristotle, who’s works had become included as an important part of the Catholic bible classified as “God’s natural laws.” As Galileo used a platonic dialogue to take on Aristotle and to attempt to prove him wrong, logically speaking, Descartes later used a platonic best principled statement, “I think, therefore I am,” in hopes of keeping all of rational thought from being thrown out with the logic.
Consider this, the cognitive sciences weren’t developed until after the time of our Founding Fathers as Immanuel Kant was their peer living during their time. Immanuel Kant went on to be known as the father of epistemology, the precursor of such cognitive sciences as psychology, sociology, and political science.
So, the method of natural law was used by our Founding Fathers when establishing our new nation because logic had fallen out of favor and the cognitive sciences had yet to develop. It wasn’t until after the time of our Founding Fathers that the use of logic was redeveloped.
This is copyrighted material. Any forum or political entity supporting the spirit of Ron Paul has the right to reprint this material. Because of “Freedom of the press, any individual also has that right to reprint it. However, no commercial media or any individual working for such, as they no longer represent the people, have that right.

[tremendoustie]

The People’s Civil Purpose;
In the Defense of Our Founding Fathers

Natural Law

Natural law truths had to be backed by both evidence and analysis. As the evidence of a natural law reduced down in terms that were incomprehensible to most, an analysis had to be submitted along with it that couldn’t be misinterpreted or misunderstood. Thus, the need for developing linguistics to work out the analysis aspect of natural laws.
As the ultimate, Formal Truth can’t be defined as its evidence is unapproachable, always existing on the other side of the wall, so to speak, evidence of it can be expressed in practical, informal truths. While our Founding Fathers declared the evidence of certain truths to be self evident and the analysis of them to be unalienable, their conclusions when taken as a whole natural law are an expression of the Formal Truth. Therefore, our nation is unique in that it was founded not on an ideal, but on the Truth. And if it is the Truth that sets us free, then there exists no need for any further political manipulation.
As Christians, we can think of this in more intimate terms. While legal precedence of the law led the minds of the Disciples to order the multitude to go care for themselves by buying and selling at the local market, the Truth knew that these nations of distraught and desperate would would never return to Him. So, instead, He had them recline where they stood after which He commanded His Disciples to go feed them. Therefore, as the best servants are converted tyrants, legal precedence is a “necessary tyranny” saved, redeemed and transformed to serve our Civil Purpose.
While many may doubt that our Founders were Christians, no one should doubt that they were not logical. This is because the use of logic had fallen out of favor during their time as is evidenced in the formal document of The Declaration of Independence. While the method of the natural law they declared is established more on Plato’s best principled “Theory of the Forms,” the latter part of the answers they gave to further prove their argument that the king was indeed a tyrant was based more on Socrates’s inductive questioning truth engine he called “Dialectic.” Nowhere in either formal documents of The Declaration of Independence or The U.S. Constitution do our Founders use Aristotle’s logic.
This is because Aristotle’s logic fell out of favor after the persecution of Galileo. Galileo had taken on the mighty Aristotle, who’s works had become included as an important part of the Catholic bible classified as “God’s natural laws.” As Galileo used a platonic dialogue to take on Aristotle and to attempt to prove him wrong, logically speaking, Descartes later used a platonic best principled statement, “I think, therefore I am,” in hopes of keeping all of rational thought from being thrown out with the logic.
Consider this, the cognitive sciences weren’t developed until after the time of our Founding Fathers as Immanuel Kant was their peer living during their time. Immanuel Kant went on to be known as the father of epistemology, the precursor of such cognitive sciences as psychology, sociology, and political science.
So, the method of natural law was used by our Founding Fathers when establishing our new nation because logic had fallen out of favor and the cognitive sciences had yet to develop. It wasn’t until after the time of our Founding Fathers that the use of logic was redeveloped.
This is copyrighted material. Any forum or political entity supporting the spirit of Ron Paul has the right to reprint this material. Because of “Freedom of the press, any individual also has that right to reprint it. However, no commercial media or any individual working for such, as they no longer represent the people, have that right.

Sorry, to be perfectly frank, this seems to not address any issue clearly or substantively, and to me, borders on nonsensical in places. While the chosen verbiage may be clear to the author, to me it seems mainly to obscure any intended point.

The "Founders", in short, were a group of men who wrote some stuff on paper, and then made the irrational claim that doing so had imbued them with the right to impose their opinions and preferences on everyone else, as immediately evidenced by events like the Whiskey Rebellion.

I certainly recognize that returning the government to the bounds set for it in the constitution is a worthy goal, and I support those who are attempting to do so, but frankly, there can be no rational moral justification for aggressively violent behaviors by the men calling themselves "the state" at that time, now, or at any point in between.

It would make about as much sense for me to get some friends together, write "we now get to rob the neighborhood" on a piece of paper, and go up and down the street mugging people.

I recognize that this arrangement may have been the best that could have been done for liberty at the time -- after all, it was light years ahead of the monarchy that had previously existed, and taken as a whole, independence from the British government and the founding of the US government was a huge leap forward for liberty. Objectively speaking, however, the moral basis is hogwash.

[Tend yer biscuits.]

In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant wrote:


"... since Aristotle, logic has not required to retrace a single step …. It is remarkable also that to the present day this logic has not been able to advance a single step."

I'm not sure if that throws a wrench in whatever it is you're arguing here.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant wrote:



I'm not sure if that throws a wrench in whatever it is you're arguing here.

How could logic not have been advanced when Galileo clearly showed how Aristotle's logic was faulty? Friedrich Nietzsche viewed logic as a tyrant's best friend, as the conclusions drawn by its use generally led people down paths that were against their best interest. He developed something called "perspectivism."

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Sorry, to be perfectly frank, this seems to not address any issue clearly or substantively, and to me, borders on nonsensical in places. While the chosen verbiage may be clear to the author, to me it seems mainly to obscure any intended point.

The "Founders", in short, were a group of men who wrote some stuff on paper, and then made the irrational claim that doing so had imbued them with the right to impose their opinions and preferences on everyone else, as immediately evidenced by events like the Whiskey Rebellion.

I certainly recognize that returning the government to the bounds set for it in the constitution is a worthy goal, and I support those who are attempting to do so, but frankly, there can be no rational moral justification for aggressively violent behaviors by the men calling themselves "the state" at that time, now, or at any point in between.

It would make about as much sense for me to get some friends together, write "we now get to rob the neighborhood" on a piece of paper, and go up and down the street mugging people.

I recognize that this arrangement may have been the best that could have been done for liberty at the time -- after all, it was light years ahead of the monarchy that had previously existed, and taken as a whole, independence from the British government and the founding of the US government was a huge leap forward for liberty. Objectively speaking, however, the moral basis is hogwash.

But our Founding Fathers were much smarter than we are today. See, that is what you fail to take into account. You don't seem to understand that a natural right is different from a civil right. A natural right is something you are born with. It is a deception when someone cheats you out of it, because such a Truth reduces beyond the five senses to exist in the soul (the conscience). This is how Locke worked things out. We are talking about the physical level here as the cognitive sciences had yet to exist. He really is just as important to the French Revolution along with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant as he is important to the age of Enlightenment and our Founding Fathers.

[JohnEngland]

Hmm, I consider natural law to be very logical. This is what I love about America's founders - they got it. Seemingly unlike any other government that has existed, the US understood that through reason we can understand God and the laws of the universe. This is why America was specifically a republic - how can you allow 51% of the people decide what is right and wrong when there is objective, inalienable truth out there?

[heavenlyboy34]

But our Founding Fathers were much smarter than we are today. See, that is what you fail to take into account. You don't seem to understand that a natural right is different from a civil right. A natural right is something you are born with. It is a deception when someone cheats you out of it, because such a Truth reduces beyond the five senses to exist in the soul (the conscience). This is how Locke worked things out. We are talking about the physical level here as the cognitive sciences had yet to exist. He really is just as important to the French Revolution along with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant as he is important to the age of Enlightenment and our Founding Fathers.

"More educated" does not equate to "smarter" or "better". The view of natural law philosophy at that time were new and unproven/unprovable-a total experiment. This is what YOU fail to take into account. I know you're hooked on existentialism like this, but in the real world, positive rights only exist to the extent one is able to defend them(or bargain for them). You also fail to take into account that we today have the advantage of hindsight (which is 20/20), and we can see clearly that the founders were wrong in their theories of (mythological) "good government".

[tremendoustie]

But our Founding Fathers were much smarter than we are today.

I'm not sure I'd necessarily make that statement, although it certainly must be recognized that individual rights had not been widely respected to that point, so understanding and promoting the idea of inalienable rights, to any extent, was a major advance.

Hopefully, in our generation, we can provide a similar advance.


See, that is what you fail to take into account.

I'm not sure how the intelligence of the founders negates my points.



You don't seem to understand that a natural right is different from a civil right. A natural right is something you are born with. It is a deception when someone cheats you out of it, because such a Truth reduces beyond the five senses to exist in the soul (the conscience). This is how Locke worked things out. We are talking about the physical level here as the cognitive sciences had yet to exist. He really is just as important to the French Revolution along with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant as he is important to the age of Enlightenment and our Founding Fathers.

If I must choose between those two options, I base my assertions on natural rights. Or, as I'd prefer to say, basic morality.

I certainly agree that we are souls, who have bodies, but I'm not sure I understand how that's relevant to the discussion of the founders.

[jmdrake]

"More educated" does not equate to "smarter" or "better". The view of natural law philosophy at that time were new and unproven/unprovable-a total experiment. This is what YOU fail to take into account. I know you're hooked on existentialism like this, but in the real world, positive rights only exist to the extent one is able to defend them(or bargain for them). You also fail to take into account that we today have the advantage of hindsight (which is 20/20), and we can see clearly that the founders were wrong in their theories of (mythological) "good government".

Good point. I've bolded the part I think is the most important. The rights enumerated in the "bill of rights" are those that are needed to defend other rights. (Freedom of speech, assembly, religion, the press, freedom against search and seizure etc). With those rights the citizens at least had the tools to at least attempt a defense of other rights. (Freedom to sell whiskey without being taxed for example).

[heavenlyboy34]

Good point. I've bolded the part I think is the most important. The rights enumerated in the "bill of rights" are those that are needed to defend other rights. (Freedom of speech, assembly, religion, the press, freedom against search and seizure etc). With those rights the citizens at least had the tools to at least attempt a defense of other rights. (Freedom to sell whiskey without being taxed for example).

Thanks. It should also be emphasized that the Bill Of Rights was not in the original constitution, and the Federalists were aware of this weakness. The Anti-Federalists pushed the issue until they were added.

[heavenlyboy34]

Kinsella makes some excellent points about Natural Law's failings in his analysis of the BoR:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,

–Well, yes, except for Africans and women, and young men who don’t want to be drafted or executed for desertion, and probably atheists and witches.

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,

This is not the reason governments form–to secure our rights. This is just a sales job for the criminal state.

deriving their just powers

This falsely implies the state can have just powers. It cannot.

from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends,

This implies government does not necessarily become destructive–that good goverment is possible. It’s not.

it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government,

But not to have no government, right? Why does it deny us the right to get rid of the state altogether?

laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

In other words, they should be free to try one utopian experiment after another.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

"More educated" does not equate to "smarter" or "better". The view of natural law philosophy at that time were new and unproven/unprovable-a total experiment. This is what YOU fail to take into account. I know you're hooked on existentialism like this, but in the real world, positive rights only exist to the extent one is able to defend them(or bargain for them). You also fail to take into account that we today have the advantage of hindsight (which is 20/20), and we can see clearly that the founders were wrong in their theories of (mythological) "good government".

You don't seem to quite get it. There were no cognizant sciences. No political science, no psychology, and no sociology. So, our Founders worked things out with the natural science of the day with this being the method of natural law. Also, they did not utilize logic when drafting either The Declaration of Independence or The U.S. Constitution. To designate certain terms as formal in both documents, they wrote them in the higher case. Example, as young people partake in shallow, carnal (l)ove, older people develop a deeper, platonic (L)ove for each other.

[heavenlyboy34]

You don't seem to quite get it. There were no cognizant sciences. No political science, no psychology, and no sociology. So, our Founders worked things out with the natural science of the day with this being the method of natural law. Also, they did not utilize logic when drafting either The Declaration of Independence or The U.S. Constitution. To designate certain terms as formal in both documents, they wrote them in the higher case. Example, as young people partake in shallow, carnal (l)ove, older people develop a deeper, platonic (L)ove for each other.

I very much get it, which is why I disagree with it. It as outdated as leeching.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Kinsella makes some excellent points about Natural Law's failings in his analysis of the BoR:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,

–Well, yes, except for Africans and women, and young men who don’t want to be drafted or executed for desertion, and probably atheists and witches.

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,

This is not the reason governments form–to secure our rights. This is just a sales job for the criminal state.

deriving their just powers

This falsely implies the state can have just powers. It cannot.

from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends,

This implies government does not necessarily become destructive–that good goverment is possible. It’s not.

it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government,

But not to have no government, right? Why does it deny us the right to get rid of the state altogether?

laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

In other words, they should be free to try one utopian experiment after another.

Self Evident is the clear evidence of the truths while unalienable is the analysis in the deep theoretical supporting the truths by the use of our collective conscience. This is something very simple and bipartisan. As the king's soul did not share in this American opinion, he was declared a tyrant and we were divorced out from under, with this point being very important, his rightfully ordained authority.
Because these truths are self evident and unalienable, there exists no philosophical arguments questioning them and no legal arguments challenging them. References are not needed to back them up. This is it. If you have something better, then, please, present it. However, as our nation is the only one established on a Truth, please, go elsewhere to manipulate a better Utopia.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I very much get it, which is why I disagree with it. It as outdated as leeching.

Please, don't let me stumble you up. Still, I am of the opinion that the Truth belongs to the most desperate. This means, in regards to what is True, we need to look for the very least amongst us living on a street corner with this person being the menial prostitute. She really doesn't have time for thinking things out by way of dialectical truth engines or the leisure to find ways to increase her personal enrichment. As she has real problems, she doesn't have to make them up or fantasize about them.