Time Magazine cover asks if the Constitution Still Matters

[jmdrake]

I tried to be make it as clear as possible that I wasn't defending the Confederacy, only the abstract concept of secession.

I agree that the Confederacy was wrong to impose slavery on people unjustly. But that doesn't mean that the Union was right to subjugate them, and it didn't just subjugate states, but also all the individuals who lived in those states with or without those individuals' consents.

I don't think I can buy the clean hands argument. That just strikes me as a variation on two wrongs making a right. I don't think Saddam Hussein had clean hands, but I also don't think that the regime in DC was in the right when it conquered Iraq, and it wouldn't have been in the right to do that even if liberating the Iraqi people from Hussein were the main reason. If some social injustice is going on somewhere, and I feel compelled to act in some way to end that injustice, I don't get a free pass to do things that are unethical just because the thing I'm fighting against is also unethical.

Apples and oranges. We had no legitimate reason to be in Iraq period. No constitutional reason, no "U.N." reason (which is illegitimate anyway), no treaty reason, none whatsoever. You were making the argument that even if the civil war was constitutional (and I will agree with those who say that's at least questionable) that somehow based on "natural law" there was no right to enforce the constitution. I simply disagree.

[jmdrake]

rofl

Well maybe I've added years to your life because laughter is the best medicine.

[LibertyEagle]

Well maybe I've added years to your life because laughter is the best medicine.

My, you're quick. I changed it right after I posted it. No, I understand your argument. I guess I've seen so much of the guilt-tripping over the Indians that I overreacted to it.

[awake]

Some day, when our knowledge grows to out strip our fear, we will turn over the defense of our god given liberties to the marketplace. Like all other goods that we desperately seek, the market is the only method that needs no monopolist and secures an ever improving supply of any good (even personal justice and security), but we have a lot of people who love to control the lives of others, they think that they can make a heaven on earth if only they could be bestowed with the power to force all the others to their will. Once these ignoramuses get it, that they are simply preventing a better world for everybody, we might make some headway a little faster than we are, but it might be awhile.

Humans freely exchanging have accomplished real miracles in spite of these regressives, and will continue to due so long as their paralyzing and parasitical numbers do not collapse the host. Big government means big trouble.

[erowe1]

Apples and oranges. We had no legitimate reason to be in Iraq period. No constitutional reason, no "U.N." reason (which is illegitimate anyway), no treaty reason, none whatsoever. You were making the argument that even if the civil war was constitutional (and I will agree with those who say that's at least questionable) that somehow based on "natural law" there was no right to enforce the constitution. I simply disagree.

But if you think the Civil War was right according to natural law, then why should it matter if it was constitutional?

And if it was right according to natural law, then why wouldn't the same argument apply to any regime that takes upon itself the responsibility of conquering any other country anywhere in order to right some wrong there?

[ClayTrainor]

Some day, when our knowledge grows to out strip our fear, we will turn over the defense of our god given liberties to the marketplace. Like all other goods that we desperately seek, the market is the only method that needs no monopolist and secures an ever improving supply of any good (even personal justice and security), but we have a lot of people who love to control the lives of others, they think that they can make a heaven on earth if only they could be bestowed with the power to force all the others to their will, so it might be awhile.

Humans freely exchanging have accomplished real miracles in spite of these regressives, and will continue to due so long as their paralyzing and parasitical numbers do not collapse the host. Big government means big trouble.

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

[jmdrake]

But if you think the Civil War was right according to natural law, then why should it matter if it was constitutional?

I think you're confusing who's making what argument. You're making the argument that secessionists had a natural rights claim to secede. I'm making the argument that A) natural rights are BS anyway and B) even if they are valid you can't claim them if you are violating them at the same time.

Look at it another way. Say if a parent was actively killing their children in the "privacy of their own home". Using your logic, nobody else should be able to intervene if the parents exercised their natural right to secede their home from the rest of society. After all if right of secession extends all the way down to the individual level, then certainly it extends down to the parent level. Now of course if the child is strong enough to extend its "natural right" then it can fight back. If not its just dead meat in the world constructed from your logic and there are no legitimate external repercussions.

And if it was right according to natural law, then why wouldn't the same argument apply to any regime that takes upon itself the responsibility of conquering any other country anywhere in order to right some wrong there?

Again, I'm not making the natural right argument. You are. I'm saying you can't legitimately make that argument on behalf of someone using his natural rights to suppress the natural rights of others. The reason we have no business intervening in some place like Iraq isn't because Saddam Hussein had a natural right to kill his own people. It's because it was none of our business. By contrast the U.S. constitution had a provision that the federal government should insure the states have a "republican form of government". That means states don't have the right to suppress others natural rights.

[osan]

Provocative? Perhaps, but that’s nothing new for Time magazine with a history of taking iconic American symbols and using them to make political statements.

On Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Time magazine editor Richard Stengel presented the cover of his new July 4 issue, which features the U.S. Constitution going through a paper shredder and asks does the document still matter. According to Stengel, it does, but not as much anymore.



“Yes, of course it still matters but in some ways it matters less than people think,” Stengel said on “Morning Joe.” “People all the time are debating what’s constitutional and what’s unconstitutional. To me the Constitution is a guardrail. It’s for when we are going off the road and it gets us back on. It’s not a traffic cop that keeps us going down the center. And what our politics are about – politics are about conflict. There was no people who argued more about defining principles of America than the framers of the Constitution. They argued both sides of the most powerful issues in American history – slavery, states’ rights, central government. So to say that what did the framers want is kind of a crazy question, I have to say. I write about that in the piece.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/23/ti...#ixzz1Q8JHVAVA

No wonder Time is going out of business. They hire imbeciles to write for them.

[RonPaulGetsIt]

Time is old media.

Once he last of the old dentists retire and don't buy it anymore for their waiting room, no one will be left who even knows what it is.

Good riddance.

[erowe1]

Again, I'm not making the natural right argument.

I have trouble seeing how you can think that you're not making a natural rights argument. What was the whole clean hands business if not a natural rights argument?

I get what you're saying, except the part about natural rights being BS, which I didn't know you believed, and unless I missed it, this is the first time you said that in this conversation.

But, given the premise that natural rights aren't BS (and "natural rights" is just another way of saying "absolute morality"), then what you said about the fact of the South's disregarding natural rights (which I agree with you on), being something that legitimized the North's subjugation of them doesn't follow. Just because some people in the South did wrong, that didn't give other people in the North the right to do other wrongs to other people who lived in the South.

Your example about parents killing their children is a difficult question to me. I don't know when it becomes my business to intervene in some act of evil like that. I don't think I have a general obligation to go around the world rescuing victims from evil. Perhaps I only have the obligation under certain circumstances. But even under those circumstances, whatever they may be, my obligation to intervene would only pertain to those specific individuals, not some collective group they belong to, or all the people living in some territory with them. And even if I did have that obligation, I still would not have the right to involve other people in helping me without their consent by doing things like conscripting them into my army, taxing them, or regulating their speech and businesses in such ways as to make my job of intervening easier.

Your final point doesn't solve the problem. Given that the regime in DC had no business rescuing innocent Iraqis from Hussein, how can it be the case that the regime in DC in the 19th century had any business taking over the South in order to make sure they had republican forms of government? If the regime doesn't have that right naturally, it can't get that right from the Constitution. Or, if it can, from where did the Constitution get that right in order to give it to the regime in DC?

And this is before even addressing the fact that the North's aggression against the South was not directed only against slave holders, but against every person there, and the fact that the outcome of the war was not to install a republican form of government, but to appoint rulers over the subdued states and prohibit them from electing politicians who didn't submit to the regime.

[jmdrake]

My, you're quick. I changed it right after I posted it. No, I understand your argument. I guess I've seen so much of the guilt-tripping over the Indians that I overreacted to it.

Fair enough. I was too harsh in my initial response to you. I should have pointed out that I don't believe in generational guilt anyway. I don't think today's German should feel guilty over the holocaust or that the prime minister of Japan needs to continue to apologize for Japanese WW II evils either.

[sorianofan]

I don't think the Constitution prohibits secession. But if it does, then it's the Constitution that's wrong, not the secessionists. Natural law trumps the Constitution, and no one has a right to rule over others by conquest.

True. The Revolution was opposed to the rule of law. But, suppressing rebellion is not unconstitutional.

[jmdrake]

I have trouble seeing how you can think that you're not making a natural rights argument. What was the whole clean hands business if not a natural rights argument?

Okay. I'm going to try to nail this down for you one last time. If you are going to raise a natural rights argument (and you did) then the counter to that argument is that the person you are asserting it for must have clean hands. "Natural rights" are merely another way of saying what you think is morally right. There is no "natural rights supreme court" you can appeal to. And people disagree on what "natural rights" really are.

I get what you're saying, except the part about natural rights being BS, which I didn't know you believed, and unless I missed it, this is the first time you said that in this conversation.

Natural rights are okay from an aspirational sense. But they are BS in the way you and others here attempt to use them.

But, given the premise that natural rights aren't BS (and "natural rights" is just another way of saying "absolute morality"), then what you said about the fact of the South's disregarding natural rights (which I agree with you on), being something that legitimized the North's subjugation of them doesn't follow. Just because some people in the South did wrong, that didn't give other people in the North the right to do other wrongs to other people who lived in the South.

Cry me a bloody river. For the record, most southerners benefited long term from the outcome of the civil war whether they are willing to admit it or not. Read about the history of Birmingham Alabama for instance. It never would have become the "Pittsburgh of the south" without slavery ending and opening up a industrial labor market. Further the rich planters who voted for secession didn't give a flip about the poor whites they conscripted to fight it. Yep, contrary to popular belief, Lincoln wasn't the first to implement a draft. http://www.wtv-zone.com/civilwar/condraft.html So what about subjection of white southerners by white southerners? The rich planters cared even less about these people than they did slaves. The death of a slave was at least an economic loss. That's why when the south seceded, some areas of the south seceded from the south.

Your example about parents killing their children is a difficult question to me. I don't know when it becomes my business to intervene in some act of evil like that. I don't think I have a general obligation to go around the world rescuing victims from evil. Perhaps I only have the obligation under certain circumstances. But even under those circumstances, whatever they may be, my obligation to intervene would only pertain to those specific individuals, not some collective group they belong to, or all the people living in some territory with them. And even if I did have that obligation, I still would not have the right to involve other people in helping me without their consent by doing things like conscripting them into my army, taxing them, or regulating their speech and businesses in such ways as to make my job of intervening easier.

I put the most important part of your quote in bold. You're right. There is no obligation to go around the world. There's a saying "charity starts at home". Well so does justice. Let's say if my "Parents killing their children" argument was parents in Iraq or Sudan or even France. I would feel no obligation to intervene. I would pray for the kids. If there was something I could do short of military/police force to enact change I would do it. But that's it. On the other hand if I knew for a fact that may neighbor was killing his kids I'd at least call the cops. Yes I know in general that's a bad idea. But I'd make an exception. You see the problem with your earlier Iraq example is that it is around the world. We had no contract with the Iraqi people, not treaty, no nothing. Iraq had never agreed to live by our rules. We have neither the capacity nor the authority to intervene in every country on the planet for humanitarian reasons so why intervene in any country for humanitarian reasons?

Your final point doesn't solve the problem. Given that the regime in DC had no business rescuing innocent Iraqis from Hussein, how can it be the case that the regime in DC in the 19th century had any business taking over the South in order to make sure they had Republican forms of government? If the regime doesn't have that right naturally, it can't get that right from the Constitution. Or, if it can, from where did the Constitution get that right in order to give it to the regime in DC?

Read page 2 of Ron Paul's book "Liberty Defined" where he says:

If a state legalized infanticide it could be charged with not maintaining a republican form of government which is required by the constitution.

Now granted, were talking about slavery and not infanticide. But the "republican form of government" principle is still the same. By contrast Iraq had no relationship with the U.S. constitution under which it was required to maintain a republican form of government.

And this is before even addressing the fact that the North's aggression against the South was not directed only against slave holders, but against every person there, and the fact that the outcome of the war was not to install a republican form of government, but to appoint rulers over the subdued states and prohibit them from electing politicians who didn't submit to the regime.

FTR the south fired first (Ft Sumpter). But all of that is irrelevant. Also the outcome was not to "appoint rulers". The natural outcome of giving voting rights to ex slaves and stripping them from people active in the rebellion was predictable, but that didn't last long. During the reconstruction period, one of the main tasks of the freedman's bureaus was to try to protect the contract rights of ex slaves. You see the former owners were used to free labor from them, felt that should continue, and would make agreements for work where they would promise to pay later then welch on the deal. I can fax you documentation of that if you like.

Last point. I don't think the north was 100% morally right by a long shot. Lincoln did abuse his power as president. And Sherman's "total war" was unjustifiable. But the planters decisions to bring the nation to war was also immoral not just to the slaves that they wanted to keep, but also to the free poor whites who they taxed and conscripted (IOW forced into slavery) for their own selfish ends.

[heavenlyboy34]

Some day, when our knowledge grows to out strip our fear, we will turn over the defense of our god given liberties to the marketplace. Like all other goods that we desperately seek, the market is the only method that needs no monopolist and secures an ever improving supply of any good (even personal justice and security), but we have a lot of people who love to control the lives of others, they think that they can make a heaven on earth if only they could be bestowed with the power to force all the others to their will. Once these ignoramuses get it, that they are simply preventing a better world for everybody, we might make some headway a little faster than we are, but it might be awhile.

Humans freely exchanging have accomplished real miracles in spite of these regressives, and will continue to due so long as their paralyzing and parasitical numbers do not collapse the host. Big government means big trouble.

+rep

[Theocrat]

Yes, the Constitution still matters. When voters fail to read it and the federal government fails to obey it, then we have the kind of government we see today.

If the Constitution doesn't matter, then our public officials should no longer be required to give an oath of office. They should skip that and just do whatever it is they want, and we won't have any grounds to hold them accountable nor tell them they are wrong for passing/executing legislation which violates our rights.

[erowe1]

Okay. I'm going to try to nail this down for you one last time. If you are going to raise a natural rights argument (and you did) then the counter to that argument is that the person you are asserting it for must have clean hands. "Natural rights" are merely another way of saying what you think is morally right. There is no "natural rights supreme court" you can appeal to. And people disagree on what "natural rights" really are.

I still don't follow this. You may not agree that there exist such things as absolute right and wrong, and that might be part of why we seem to be talking past each other here. But given the premise that such things do exist, how do you get the stipulation that when you do something wrong to someone I get to do something wrong to you and others?

Cry me a bloody river. For the record, most southerners benefited long term from the outcome of the civil war whether they are willing to admit it or not.

Again, nothing I've said has been intended to defend the South. I agree that the institution of slavery made them worse off economically. It's precisely because of this that I think slavery was bound to end with or without a Civil War, especially if the North had ended it there. I see the historical question of what the lives of southerners, both black and white, would have turned out like had the Civil War never happened as impossible to answer. But I don't think that the ethics of the Civil War depends on the answer to that either.

Read page 2 of Ron Paul's book "Liberty Defined" where he says:

If a state legalized infanticide it could be charged with not maintaining a republican form of government which is required by the constitution.

Now granted, were talking about slavery and not infanticide. But the "republican form of government" principle is still the same. By contrast Iraq had no relationship with the U.S. constitution under which it was required to maintain a republican form of government.

That doesn't answer my question. Where does the federal government get the authority to force anyone to have a republican form of government? You seem to be saying that they get it from the Constitution. But where does the Constitution get the authority in the first place, so as to grant it to the federal government? If it is illegitimate to use force to install a republican form of government in Iraq, I don't see how taking over Iraq would all of a sudden become legitimate just by writing something in the Constitution asserting that what was illegitimate before is legitimate now.

If some of our states failed to have republican forms of government (and I would argue that none of the states have ever in their histories had such a thing, but for the sake of argument we can pretend otherwise), and if the rest of the union wanted to stand by the requirement that they all have a republican form of government, then the only recourse they would have would be to expel that state from the union, or to let it secede. Once that happened, there would be nothing that would make it any more legitimate to take over that state than it was to take over Iraq.

I really don't think you can get away from natural law in answering this. Either it is morally right to take over such a country, or it is not. If it is not, then it doesn't matter if it's constitutional, nor if that country has clean hands.

[erowe1]

I put the most important part of your quote in bold. You're right. There is no obligation to go around the world. There's a saying "charity starts at home". Well so does justice. Let's say if my "Parents killing their children" argument was parents in Iraq or Sudan or even France. I would feel no obligation to intervene. I would pray for the kids. If there was something I could do short of military/police force to enact change I would do it. But that's it. On the other hand if I knew for a fact that may neighbor was killing his kids I'd at least call the cops. Yes I know in general that's a bad idea. But I'd make an exception. You see the problem with your earlier Iraq example is that it is around the world. We had no contract with the Iraqi people, not treaty, no nothing. Iraq had never agreed to live by our rules. We have neither the capacity nor the authority to intervene in every country on the planet for humanitarian reasons so why intervene in any country for humanitarian reasons?

You say "Iraq had never agreed to live by our rules." That's true. "Iraq" is an abstraction, not a person with a mind capable of agreeing to anything. Even if there ever were some sense in which "Iraq" had agreed to live by our rules, it could only have been the regime that rules over the Iraqi people purporting to enter such an agreement on their behalf, which it could have no right to do; it wouldn't be each and every individual Iraqi. So I don't see how contracts or treaties could make a difference. If your conclusion is correct, that I have no authority to intervene for humanitarian reasons in any country, then I don't see how I could attain that authority just by writing it down on some treaty, contract, constitution, or whatever. Nor could I attain that authority if some third party, claiming to represent the people of that county, signed such a contract on their behalf, unless every individual in that country had delegated that authority to that third party. So, in the end, I'm left unable to see how the principle that made it wrong to intervene in Iraq wouldn't have also made it wrong to intervene against the Confederate States.

[PaulConventionWV]

Then you support John Brown's insurrection? Once he started it the federal government and the state he was in had no right to do anything about it? Why draw the line on the "right of secession" at the state boundary? As for ending slavery, while that wasn't the initial goal of Lincoln, he did try compensated emancipation in the slave states that didn't secede but without success. Compensated emancipation did happen in Washington D.C., but D.C. doesn't have home rule. Anyway to a certain extent "natural rights" are a bunch of claptrap and this is a good example of why. We can debate all day about woulda, coulda, shoulda, but that's got nothing to do with what is (or in that case "was"). The fact is/was that the south didn't have the military/economic strength to assert their claims. And John Brown, Nat Turner and others didn't have the military strength to assert their positions either. The Indians also lacked the unity, technology and economic strength to assert their natural rights to the land they had before the Europeans came. But on top of all of that people want to put a thin veneer of natural rights snake oil as if that somehow makes everything "right". It doesn't. Natural rights arguments let you assert moral superiority but only if the party they are being asserted for came to the table with clean hands. If they didn't then it's just sounding brass and tinkling cymbals.

I hope you two realize you are arguing over man-made concepts. "Natural rights" aren't an absolute moral obligation on everyone to support society. Anyone could disagree with them and you wouldn't have any objective basis to tell them they're wrong and force them to cooperate, even if only "for the good of society" (We know where that gets us). I believe my rights come from my Creator, and that is the only objective basis for law in any country. That's what Ron Paul believes, that's what the founders believed, and any reference to "natural rights" is just choosing these arbitrary standards for justice and applying them on everyone else. In essence, you are imposing your standards on other people by forcing them to cooperate with the concept of "natural law."

Now, don't get me wrong. I believe in natural law, but not in the way that a lot of people here believe in it. I believe God is part of our nature, and that is where we derive our natural rights from and the only true basis for any obligatory law.

[Guitarzan]

I hope you two realize you are arguing over man-made concepts. "Natural rights" aren't an absolute moral obligation on everyone to support society. Anyone could disagree with them and you wouldn't have any objective basis to tell them they're wrong and force them to cooperate, even if only "for the good of society" (We know where that gets us). I believe my rights come from my Creator, and that is the only objective basis for law in any country. That's what Ron Paul believes, that's what the founders believed, and any reference to "natural rights" is just choosing these arbitrary standards for justice and applying them on everyone else. In essence, you are imposing your standards on other people by forcing them to cooperate with the concept of "natural law."

Now, don't get me wrong. I believe in natural law, but not in the way that a lot of people here believe in it. I believe God is part of our nature, and that is where we derive our natural rights from and the only true basis for any obligatory law.

No...that's the beauty of Natural Law...no one imposes anything on anyone else. Natural law basically says that all I ask of you is that you ask nothing of me. That is why natural law is the only objective basis for any law.

[erowe1]

I believe my rights come from my Creator, and that is the only objective basis for law in any country. That's what Ron Paul believes, that's what the founders believed, and any reference to "natural rights" is just choosing these arbitrary standards for justice and applying them on everyone else.

If they come from the creator, they're not arbitrary. What you're espousing here looks like basically what I've been saying. "Natural law" and "rights that come from the Creator" are the same thing. Where I differ from you is in your opening sentence. The Creator's laws (i.e. natural law) are absolute moral obligations on everyone.

[PaulConventionWV]

No...that's the beauty of Natural Law...no one imposes anything on anyone else. Natural law basically says that all I ask of you is that you ask nothing of me. That is why natural law is the only objective basis for any law.

But what if some people don't embrace the concept you just described? Natural law is a standard in itself, and if you build a society based on natural law, then yes, you are imposing your belief in natural law on others who may not want to cooperate. If you truly didn't impose anything on anyone else, then you would have no basis for putting criminals in jail because that would be imposing your belief that they should cooperate with society. Furthermore, asking someone that they ask nothing of you is a standard in and of itself and you are asking something of someone, therefore violating their right not to be asked anything of. Natural law has no objective basis. It's just an idea with no objective rooting. If people want to disagree, then who are you to tell them they are wrong? The government?

[PaulConventionWV]

If they come from the creator, they're not arbitrary.

That is exactly what I'm saying. If they come from an absolute moral authority, such as the Creator, then there is a basis for obligatory law that allows the smooth function of society and the basis for forcing people to recognize other peoples' rights.

What you're espousing here looks like basically what I've been saying. "Natural law" and "rights that come from the Creator" are the same thing.

Natural law can only be an absolute law that applies to everyone if it comes from an absolute moral authority. In the absence of the Creator, there is no basis for it applying to everyone. If someone disagrees and thinks everyone's rights revolve around their discretion, then you have no objective basis to tell them they can't live like that.

Where I differ from you is in your opening sentence. The Creator's laws (i.e. natural law) are absolute moral obligations on everyone.

The Creator is the only basis for the obligation. Without the Creator, the only thing that gives you rights is the fact the government says so. Natural law without the Creator is simply a concept that is meaningless in terms of an all-encompassing law that others must obey.

[Guitarzan]

But what if some people don't embrace the concept you just described? Natural law is a standard in itself, and if you build a society based on natural law, then yes, you are imposing your belief in natural law on others who may not want to cooperate. If you truly didn't impose anything on anyone else, then you would have no basis for putting criminals in jail because that would be imposing your belief that they should cooperate with society. Furthermore, asking someone that they ask nothing of you is a standard in and of itself and you are asking something of someone, therefore violating their right not to be asked anything of. Natural law has no objective basis. It's just an idea with no objective rooting. If people want to disagree, then who are you to tell them they are wrong? The government?

Who am I to tell them they are wrong? I'm just a person who would try to convince them that they are wrong. Who are they to tell me that I'm wrong? They would have to convince me that I'm wrong, and that natural law somehow isn't the most objective basis for forming laws.

I think you and I both know, assuming that we both believe in natural law, that applying it's concepts is the only way a society can truely have laws that put individuals as equals in the eyes of the law. It's that simple, and I feel that if given the opportunity to be convinced, most people who are intellectually honest, would agree.

[erowe1]

But what if some people don't embrace the concept you just described? Natural law is a standard in itself, and if you build a society based on natural law, then yes, you are imposing your belief in natural law on others who may not want to cooperate. If you truly didn't impose anything on anyone else, then you would have no basis for putting criminals in jail because that would be imposing your belief that they should cooperate with society. Furthermore, asking someone that they ask nothing of you is a standard in and of itself and you are asking something of someone, therefore violating their right not to be asked anything of. Natural law has no objective basis. It's just an idea with no objective rooting. If people want to disagree, then who are you to tell them they are wrong? The government?

What do you mean by "build society"?

The description of natural law that guitarzan gave is one that would preclude any kind of building of society that involves imposing anything on anyone who doesn't want to cooperate. The only cooperation someone following that law could have would be cooperation with other willing participants.

Also, I can't follow the position you're advocating. Earlier you said you believe in rights from a creator. If you believe that, then how can you say that natural law has no objective basis? If there exists a creator, and if that creator has legislated a law for us, then that law must exist as an objective fact, not something someone could get out of just by choosing to disbelieve in it.

[erowe1]

Natural law can only be an absolute law that applies to everyone if it comes from an absolute moral authority. In the absence of the Creator, there is no basis for it applying to everyone.

Well yes, of course. Without a creator there's no such thing as natural law. Every time I referred to natural law in this thread I just took that as a given.

[PaulConventionWV]

Who am I to tell them they are wrong? I'm just a person who would try to convince them that they are wrong. Who are they to tell me that I'm wrong? They would have to convince me that I'm wrong, and that natural law somehow isn't the most objective basis for forming laws.

I think you and I both know, assuming that we both believe in natural law, that applying it's concepts is the only way a society can truely have laws that put individuals as equals in the eyes of the law. It's that simple, and I feel that if given the opportunity to be convinced, most people who are intellectually honest, would agree.

For the most part, I agree. All I'm saying is that, without an objective moral authority, there is no way to argue that someone is wrong. Beside, society doesn't "convince" people they are wrong. They either cooperate or are put away from society (jail). If you don't get the authority to do that from an objective law from an absolute moral authority, then it is simply imposing your belief that they should be put away from society because they won't cooperate.

I agree with you that natural law is the only way a society can cooperate. However, arguing about what should be included in this "natural law" is completely arbitrary unless you derive your law from an absolute authority, such as the Creator. The problem is that some people, although they may agree that it is the only way society can have laws, may not want to be a part of society, although they still believe it is their right to exist within a society and do whatever they want, despite that society's standards. This is why all of a nation's laws must be based on the rights given to us by our Creator.

[PaulConventionWV]

What do you mean by "build society"?

The description of natural law that guitarzan gave is one that would preclude any kind of building of society that involves imposing anything on anyone who doesn't want to cooperate. The only cooperation someone following that law could have would be cooperation with other willing participants.

Also, I can't follow the position you're advocating. Earlier you said you believe in rights from a creator. If you believe that, then how can you say that natural law has no objective basis? If there exists a creator, and if that creator has legislated a law for us, then that law must exist as an objective fact, not something someone could get out of just by choosing to disbelieve in it.

That is exactly what I mean. I think you may be misunderstanding my position. I'm not saying there's no basis for natural law. I'm saying that the ONLY basis for natural law is from God. Otherwise, it's people telling other people how they should live. What I'm getting at is that it's meaningless to argue what "natural law" is without reference to an absolute moral authority, the Creator.

[KingRobbStark]

No one has the right to anything. End of argument. The only "rights" that exist are only those that are mutually benificial.

[AFPVet]

The Constitution only recognizes our rights—it does not give them.

[PaulConventionWV]

No one has the right to anything. End of argument. The only "rights" that exist are only those that are mutually benificial.

If you believe this, then you must believe your rights come from the state, and therefore, the state can change them at any time.