The origins of Natural Law?

The concept of Natural Law is found only in western civilization. This being the case, one wonders about the universality of the concept.

 

While the arguments related to natural rights and natural law certainly were certainly postulated by western political philosophers they have been embraced by individuals worldwide while not necessarily by political leaders. Natural rights limit the authority and power of government so the politicans, which always advocate control by government, are typically opposed to embracing natural rights as that would infringe upon their power.

Let us remember that even in western nations the United States is the only nation established upon the political ideal that the purpose of government was to protect the natural (inalienable) Rights of the person from being violated by others (including the government itself). Other western nations, and all nations historically, do offer protections of many natural rights but treat them as a legal privilege afforded to the people under the law as opposed to a Right of the person. Of course the violation of our natural Rights under the law even happens in the United States but those laws violate the political ideal that our nation was founded upon. The may not violate the US Constitution but they do violate the ideal established for government in the United States. This is not the case for any other nation as no other nation has established the ideal that the purpose of government was to protect the People from the violations of their natural (inalienable) Rights.

But we do see signs that the understanding and acceptance of natural rights are expanding even with the politicans and leaders of other nations. I was, for example, slightly encouraged last year when Egyption President Morsi addressed the hate video that sparked riots in several Islamic nations.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2...ponsibility/0ZP8XGFMrRslENJmipm7wO/story.html

As I've noted previously there is a difference between the Freedom to Exercise a natural (inalienable) Right and the Right itself. President Morsi, in his statements, is acknowledging that the individual Right of Thought and Expression exists but proposes limitations on the Freedom to Exercise that Right. Of course even we place limitations upon the Freedom to Exercise the Right of Expression of our thoughts as we have pragmatic laws against libel and slander as well as laws against inciting riots and panic though acts of expression.

Once agian though this deals with the law and government where it must be understood that for the protections of the natural (inalienable) Rights of the People that a government must pragmatically infringe upon our Rights by limiting our Freedom to Exercise those Rights. In a nation where the government has an established role based upon protecting our natural (inalienable) Rights such infringments must be to the least extent possible to provide for the greater protection of our Rights. It doesn't deny that the Right exists but instead acknowledges the Right but limits the Freedom to Exercise that Right to the least extent possible based upon a pragmatic necessity to protect the Rights of all Persons.

Egyptian President Morsi, in my opinion, calls for a greater infringments on the Freedom to Exercise the Right of Expression than is pragmatically necessary but he does acknowledge that the Right exists. If we look at Asian cultures we will also see this same acknowledgement of the Right but excessive limitations on the Freedom to Exercise the Rights of the Person. As noted though those governments are not founded upon the political ideal that the purpose of government is to protect the natural (inalienable) Rights of the Person as that is unique to the United States.

 

The use of natural law as a source of legitimacy is one of the things which distinguishes the American Revolution from all others.

Imo Morsi was simply mouthing platitudes. He is an observant Muslim. For faithful Muslims all rights flow from Allah. The Han have no conception of natural law, nor do the Hindus. Latin America has no similar concept either despite Bolivar or Bolivarianism.

 

Nor do the "Christian" nations of Europe. The Bible, as previously addressed, does not endorse the philosophy of natural Rights so no nation founded upon Christianity endorses the philosophy of natural (inalienable) Rights because it is juxtaposed to their religious beliefs. There is a fundamental conflict between religion and natural rights which is just as true when addressing Islamic, Christian and Hebrew religious teachings.

Overcoming religious beliefs is probably the greatest barrier to the acceptance of natural (inalienable) Rights by a people in any society.

 

BTW I find no fundamental difference between Morsi and US politicans like Rick Perry.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepo...ld-keep-gay-ban-gov-perry/#.URApGxaPwEs.email

 

Thanks for the chat.

 

Professor Edward S. Corwin, a historian of the Constitution of the United States, wrote an essay entitled The "Higher Law" Background of American Constitutional Law. It was reprinted in 42 Harvard Law Review (1928-1929). In this work he recalled the names of the great thinkers of their time: Demosthenes, Sophocles, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Ulpian, Gaius, John of Salisbury, Isidore of Seville, St. Thomas Aquinas, Bracton, Fortescue, Coke, Grotius, Newton, Hooker, Pufendorf, Locke, Blackstone. Clinton Rossiter, who wrote a prefatory note to the essay, noted: "It should do us good to remember at the height of our power and self-esteem that our political tradition and constitutional law are late blooms on a sturdy growth more than two thousand years old and still vigorous."

It is recorded: "There are certain principles of right and justice which are entitled to prevail of their own intrinsic excellence, altogether regardless of the attitude of those who wield the physical resources of the community. Such principles were made by no human hands; indeed, if they did not antedate deity itself, they still so express its nature as to bind and control it. They are external to all Will as such and interpenetrate all Reason as such. They are eternal and immutable. In relation to such principles, human laws are, when entitled to obedience save as to matters indifferent, merely a record or transcript, and their enactment an act not of will or power but one of discovery and declaration." Professor Corwin noted that this concept was translated into our Ninth Article of our Bill of Rights, which declares: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The "Higher Law", or "Natural Law", is founded upon the principle: "Men do not make laws. They do but discover them"; from which follows: "An unjust law is not law". Cicero was quoted on his conception of the Natural Law: "True law is right reason, harmonious with nature, diffused among all, constant, eternal; a law which calls to duty by its commands and restrains from evil by its prohibitions... It is a sacred obligation not to attempt to legislate in contradiction to this law; nor may it be derogated from nor abrogated. Indeed by neither the Senate nor the people can we be released from this law; nor does it require any but ourself to be its expositor or interpreter. Nor is it one law at Rome and another at Athens; one now and another at a late time; but one eternal and unchangeable law binding all nations through all time..." It is later noted: "We are born for justice, and right is not the mere arbitrary construction of opinion, but an institution of nature"; from which follows: "...that which is established on account of utility may for utility's sake be overturned"; and: "...unconstitutional statutes are unconstitutional per se, and not because of any authority attaching to the court that so pronounces them."

Professor Corwin wrote of the Roman practice of incorporating into their statutes a saving clause "to the effect that it was no purpose of the enactment to abrogate what was sacrosanct". Legal maxims were developed, some of which governed the legislative process; one such maxim "prohibited the proposal of any law containing two or more matters not germane."

The term "sovereignty" has been defined by some as declaring that: "The King can do no wrong", meaning that the King can do whatever he wishes and the subject must obey. Often, in the course of a hearing in a federal court, a prosecutor is heard to say that the government is "sovereign" and cannot be touched by the people. The "Higher Law", or "Natural Law", dictates that this popular phrase is analyzed to read that the King can no more do a wrong than any one of his subjects.

John Adams had written that in his observation of the systems of the laws, ancient and modern, "the liberty, the unalienable, indefeasible rights of men, the honor and dignity of human nature, the grandeur and glory of the public, and the universal happiness of individuals, were never so skillfully and successfully consulted as in that most excellent monument of human art, the common law of England." He wrote that these laws were confirmed by successive administrations of power, and confirmed also by Magna Charta. The Common Law of England was based upon the customs of the people, and what was reasonable.

Confirmation of the law is hardly a new concept. It is written in the book of Nehemiah, in the Bible, that Ezra, the scribe, had assembled the Israelites in the square in front of the Water Gate and read to them from the Book of the Law of Moses; and they wept at how far they had strayed from this.

Edward I, in his Confirmatio Cartarum of 1297, ordered the justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers of the law to acknowledge the Great Charter as the Common Law of the Land; and that any judgment contrary to this was to be "holden for nought". Archbishops and bishops were to pronounce the sentence of the Great Excommunication against all those who by deed, aid, or counsel, proceeded contrary to the Charter, or in any point transgressed it. Persons who were illegally imprisoned by sheriffs were given complete recovery as if the authors of the wrong had no official capacity whatever.

 

This is a point worthy of thoughtful consideration. The development of thought related to natural law based upon natural (inalienable) Rights was not instantanious and continues to this day and hopefully continues far into the future of mankind. It is our responsibility to take that which has been established before us and to move forward with it. All of the quesitons have not been answered so it is our responsibility to seek out those answers.

When it comes to government and natural (inalienable) Rights of the Individual Person no document has ever matched the importance of the Declaration of Independence in it's universal and logical reasoning. It summarizes, in five sentences, thousands of years of political philosophical thought.

It is a poweful document that instituted significant changes in our political thought. Sovereigny, which had long been considered to assigned to a king or nation, was established as belonging to the individual in the words, "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Government has no authority (power) that isn't inherent in the Individual. It establishes that the very purpose of government is to protect the inalienable Rights of the Individual from being violated by other individuals (which includes actions by the government which represents all individuals). It establishes "who" has the "right and duty" to overthrow a tyrannical regime and establishes the criteria for doing so.

Never have five simple sentences been so powerful to my knowledge and I believe we can state uncatergorically that the Declaration of Independence represented the zenith in political philosophy and ideology so far in human history. From that point in human history we have not changed the importance of these few words but instead have the challenge of adopting the ideals expressed within it. Our problem is not that we don't have the ideal expressly defined but our failure to fully embrace the ideal and bring it to fruitation. We will never have a "perfect" society where no individual violates the inalienable Rights of another Person. That would obviously be to reach the ideal and government would no longer have a reason for existance.

Instead we have government which is a pragmatic necessity but, as is often quoted, "government in it's best state is a necessary evil" as the very existance of government is an infringement upon our natural (inalienable) Rights. Our government's reason for existance is to limit the violations of our natural (inalienable) Rights from being violated by other Individuals. In doing so we accept the infringement upon our Rights but such infringements should always be based upon a pragmatic necessity to protect our Rights and the infringement should be to the least extent possible in providing that protection.

 

My notion that Cain's accusation was the basis that a natural law exists leads us to the next Covenant - The Noachide Covenant that is an integral part of Jewish law, and therefore has worked its way into the Opening Line here about Ancient Roman law. Paul invented the Roman Welfare State and poisoned the mindset in the West unto subjection, as Paul lived out the last five years of his life under protective custody of Caesar. If you have any doubts read the Book of Acts.

​

There is no doubt that Paul taught the Seven Noachide Laws in Asia Minor. When the Sanhedrin inquired, concerned Paul was trying to convert the pagans to Judaism in an hour of preaching Paul admits so much. See Acts 15:20, 15:29 and 21:25:

This law set bled over heavily into the foreign memorandum as laws of nature and nature's law:



The plain unbiased reading of the Book of Acts shows, as in the opening post here, that Paul avoided and refused for cause the warnings he got from the Holy Spirit not to go into Jerusalem. Of course that should have been obvious as Paul paid the collected alms due the Asia Minor minister's families to buy Roman citizenship papers. Paul was not entitled but he was eligible by his birth in Tarsus, Celicia. [Remember how the Roman soldier wondered how Paul got his papers at no cost?] Paul's hoping to be accepted by the Jewish community, even the Herodean Guard while carrying his Roman citizenship was a risky business indeed. To the Jews (Sanhedrin) that was espionage and to the Guard on the Temple Mount it threatened to expose they were only Caesar's administration of Jewish customs before God. So Paul lied and was supported by a Mnason's perjury, (thinly encrypted) so he was released on probation (a shaved head stood out in Jerusalem) while the Sanhedrin investigated - checking the ship's charter, which may have taken about five days to run up to Tyre and back.

When the Sanhedrin got word that Paul's ship indeed had stopped in Cyprus, allowing Paul to buy the Roman citizenship papers they wanted to execute the death sentence with a vengeance! Paul escaped by climbing over the city wall with a rope and ran to his friend Felix in Tyre, who began Paul's protective custody immediately. The rabbis swore to get Paul and that they were not going to give up on that contract so Felix remanded Paul to Caesar in Rome where in the comfort of his welfare state he wrote epistles and especially Romans 13:

Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. If you find this take interesting click here.

 

This position of yours that there is a distinction between a right and the freedom to exercise that right seems somewhat disingenuous to me. It is an egregious sort of dissembling since it allows one to stand on the claim of inalienable right and justify their suppression in the same sentence.

Your position is not so common among Natural Rights proponents, most of whom would consider the shooting of a bicycle thief and his subsequent death a not unreasonable defence of the natural right to property.

The problem in the Black Hills goes far beyond your limited conceptions. Your position that the citizens of Deadwood have something approaching equal claim to the land simply by their continued presence is sorely mistaken. They knew they were trespassing when they first settled there and their descendants, and everyone else who lives there are very aware that the Sioux have never given up their claim to the land, granted by treaty with the US. The only thing that has allowed this trespass to continue is the might of the US government, which abrogated the treaty, subjugated the Sioux and took the Black Hills by force. The only pragmatic solution to this particular problem would be for the US government to buy out all the people living in the Black Hills and return the land to its rightful owners.

Natural Rights are really just an argument that might made right in the past but now that a few billion have been dispossessed of their ancestral lands, lets just let bygones be bygones. Your position grants an inviolable right to the descendants of usurpers and thieves through which they can maintain dubious claims. You grant them right by mere longevity of quasi-legal possession, regardless of its actual circumstance.

A huge problem in Central and South America is over land ownership. In many cases this pits indigenous inhabitants against those whose claim to the land was granted by the King of Spain hundreds of years ago. The US is flooded with migrants from Central America who have been turfed off their ancestral lands by people holding these claims, recognized and supported by their governments.

In other cases the long standing tradition of communal land ownership has been deliberately ignored by governments, who subsequently grant, or auction off communal lands to individuals, usually outsiders since the local language has no concept of private land ownership let alone words to describe it. The uprising in Chiapas, Mexico was a direct reaction to this sort of application of Natural Rights theory. To the Mayan people in the area it was like the conquistadors all over again, foreigners speaking Spanish coming into their villages with police and soldiers, claiming that all the land was theirs and the people must pay them to live there or get out.

In the Mayan culture no one can own land, it is a gift to all the people and the responsibility of all the people to make sure it is cared for so that they all can live. In keeping with this all decisions about the use and care of the land are made communally and have been since long before the first white man set foot in the Americas. To have some white man suddenly show up and tell them that it is his land and he is now going to make all the decisions about it was so alien to their beliefs that they could not even comprehend it until well into the forced evictions. They had to invent entire new ways of thinking and new words to describe it before they could gain an understanding of how this was happening to them. Then they revolted collectively, en-mass, drove the police and the army away in a mostly peaceful but very forcible manner and then made their way to the Capital to demand that the government pass into law a collective right to own land, which was not allowed.

The laws in Mexico have been adjusted somewhat but the issue has not gone away. The meme that only individuals can own land has been written into the laws of many nations by elite politicians educated in western schools on the ideal that adopting western ways was the way to advance their nations. The result has been nothing but trouble. Few peoples outside Europe recognized individual land ownership. For the very great majority land ownership was always tribal and its use communal.

There is a lot of cogent arguments that the rapid economic advance of Japan and Korea had more to do with land reform, where land ownership was transferred to occupants from feudalistic owners, than anything else. And the lack of land reform in South and Central America are the biggest impediments to greater advance in many of their economies.

 

The limitation of the Freedom to Exercise a Natural Right is a pragmatic necessity for individuals to live together in society. In a utopian world it would theoretically not be necessary but utopia does not and will never exist. For example the limitation of Freedom to Exercise the Natural Right of Freedom of Thought and Expression by prohibiting the yelling of "Fire" in a crowded theater which would cause panic would be unnecessary in "utopia" because no one would yell "fire" and cause panic in utopia. Once again the pragmatic infringements upon the Freedom to Exercise a Natural Right do not deny or disparage the existance of the Natural Right but should also be limited to the least possible infringement necessary for the greater protections of the Natural Rights of the Individuals in society. It addresses the problem that individuals have shown that they will not respect the Natural Rights of others because we don't live in a perfect world.

I've had numerous discussions with libertarians that are perhaps the foremost advocates of natural (inalienable) Rights and I have not heard any arguments presented by them that a disproportionate responses, such as killing a kid for stealing a bicycle, was justifiable. I have heard such arguments by "social conservatives" but they are not advocates of natural (inalienable) Rights but instead either refer to them for nefarious reasons or that have absolutely no concept of what natural (inalienable) Rights really are.

I can provide an example although I don't know how good it would be to exemplify this fact. A true proponent of natural (inalienable) Rights cannot support the death penality. While a pragmatic necessity does exist to infringe upon the Freedom to Exercise the natural (inalienable) Right of Liberty for a person that through their actions has demonstrated they would violate the natural (inalienable) Rights of others, such as the Right to Life, there is no pragmatic necessity to violate their Right to Life to protect others from their actions. Incarceration protects the Rights of Others while committing the premeditated killing of a person is unnecessary. The death penalty is not necessary to protect us from even the most heinous of individual. "Punishment" and "Protection" are not the same thing and under Natural Law, based upon Natural Rights, we as a society do not have the authority to extract revenge. We can take actions to protect ourselves or to deter an individual from future acts that violate our Natural Rights but we cannot commit acts of revenge. Once again the infringements must be to the least extend possible to secure the protection and the death penality (premeditatied killing of a person) is NOT the least infringement possible to protect us from even the worst possible actions of any individual.

Perhaps not a perfect example but it does show that many people that advocate natural (inalienable) Rights really don't understand them and their arguments are false and/or not well thought out.

Once agian we are addressing past violations of natural (inalienable) Rights and there is not a perfect solution. We can not undo the violation but instead must seek a pragmatic resolution to it. The solution will never be perfect because the past violation of natural (inalienable) Rights cannot be undone no matter what we do. We can't, for example, abondon Hawaii forcing all of those that are not of Hawaiian descent to leave and return it to the Hawaiian People because the individual Right of Sovereignty of Hawaiians was violated over 100 years ago. We cannot undo the violations of their natural (inalienable) Rights in the past. We cannot return the gold that was stolen from the native Mayans and Incas by the Spanish hundreds of years ago. We cannot remove Israel from the map and return it to the "Palestinians" that were Arabs, Jews and Christians before the immigration of European Jews that violated the natural (inalienable) Right of Sovereignty of the individual citizens and residents in what became Israel by an act of aggression commited by these European "Zionists" that invaded their land. We cannot undo the past so we are left with violations of natural (inalienable) Rights that must be addressed with pragmatic solutions where we attempt to do the best we can to resolve the problems created by the violations of the Rights of the Person. We cannot change history.

The solutions are always a compromise and are never perfect.

 

We can abolish the Federal Reserve and demand lawful money. Furthermore you might become party to the contract.

That statesman Matthew THORNTON arrived back in Philidelphia in November and was allowed to sign, opening up the door for you too to pledge your bond of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It is helpful to understand the linguistics of the sounds:

​

 

Roman law had it's roots in Greek law (predated by the Dorian, Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations) which originated before any of the Books of the Torah, later incorporated into the Bible, had even been written. Ancient Greece originated about 800 BC while the oldest books in the Bible are dated around 600 BC as I recall. If anything we could assume that much of Hebrew law originated from laws that were adopted by the ancient Jews probably from the Mesopotamia civilization. For example it appears that the Story of Noah was adopted by the Jews from the Epic of Gilgamesh which predated the writing of the Books of Moses. When we look at the evolution of religions there tends to be linkage to prior religions where parts of earlier religions are adopted and modified to create a new religion. The Aztecs, for example, adopted many of the Mayan religious beliefs. Christians adopted many of the Hebrew religions beliefs. Muslims and later Mormons adopted many of the Christian beliefs.

There is little if any evidence that the ancient Greeks had any knowledge of ancient Hebrew teachings. We can also point out that the origins of natural law existed throughout the world including the ancient Americas and Asia thousands of years before the Hebrew religion even existed. In almost all ancient cultures murder, the violation of the Right of Life, was considered to be a "criminal" act. Theft, which violated the Right of Property, was generally prohibited even in the most ancient of civilizations. While these ancient cultures had not developed a philosophy of natural law or natural rights the principles behind them have been addressed from the earliest forms of civilization.

Once agian the Bible isn't a good source related to the development of a philosophy of natural rights and natural law as it rationalizes so many violations of natural rights and natural law. The story of Noah, for example, proposes that genocide of the entire population of the world except Noah's family could be rationalized. The Biblical story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is a story of mass murder, violates the philosophy of natural (inalienable) Rights of the Individual. The conquest of Canaan by the Jews in an act of war violated the Right of Sovereignty of the Canaanites. No, the Bible does not advocate natural (inalienable) Rights of the Person and, in fact, advocates the violations of those Rights.

Religions have never supported the belief in the natural (inalienable) Rights of the Person to my knowledge. Natural (inalienable) Rights is a secular philosophy and not a sectarian philosophy. That is, in my opinion, why Evangelical Christians in America openly advocate the violation of natural (inalienable) Rights same-gender couples in under the law in the United States today. Why would they advocate prohibitions against same-sex couples marrying when the marriage of same-sex couples does not violate anyone's natural (inalienable) Rights? There is no pragmatic necessity to deny same-gender couples the Right to Marry based upon the mutual consent of adults to form persoanl/financial partnerships.

There is no pragmatic necessity to prohibit polygamy or incestous marriage based upon the mutual consent of adults as they would be violating no one else's natural (inalienable) Rights. Why do we have drug prohibitions laws when the use of these drugs does not violate anyone else's natural (inalienable) Rights? Yes, under the influence of drugs a person might do something that would violate another person's natural (inalienable) Rights and we can (and do) have laws that prohibit those actions but the actual use of a drug by a person doesn't violate anyone else's Rights.

Why do we have laws that infringe upon the Freedom to Exercise our Natural Rights when no one else's Rights are being violated? Such laws don't have a pragmatic reason for their existance and they violate the natural (inalienable) Rights of the Person. They do not meet the test of "pragmatic necessity" to protect the Rights of Others.

 

I opened a book on the shelf here - The Bible as It Was by James L. KUGEL and the first sentence reads:

The quote you grabbed from me however is highly subjective. I am only saying that the Bible precedes your Greek origins if that really matters, presuming you are correct about the Greek writings.

I am not one to protect the Bible as a guide to natural law because of the same inconsistencies and subjective interpretations that can be bent to starting and justifying war and genocide more often than not. I like your rounded approach to applying the Roman civil law and Justinian Code etc. in understanding the nature and cause of natural law actions.

Which is pretty much what I felt that I said by quoting Paul's Book to the Romans.

 

Why don't we just insist on enforcement of the existing law which is not being enforced by the US Government related to redemption of Federal Reserve Notes?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411

The only "lawful money" in the United States are "American Eagle" coins being produced by the US Mint as they are not "promissory" notes being issued as legal tender but instead are "legal tender coins" and "money" is not a promissory note. Federal Reserve notes are promissory notes that promise redemption in "lawful money" and under contract law a promissory note issued without the intent to fulfill the "promise" is an act of criminal fraud.

The problem isn't the law but the refusal of our government to enforce the law.

Unfortunately so many "promissory" notes have been issued that the obligation in gold coins, based upon the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985, would require well over 300 billion ounces of gold to "coin" the American Gold Eagles (legal tender "lawful" money) necessary to redeem the "promissory" notes already issued.

Few people today even know what "money" is and confuse "legal tender currency" with "legal tender lawful money" which is merely "money" that is issued and certified by a nation. Money is and has always been a " commonly accepted commodity" used in the barter system. In an American Gold Eagle it is the "gold" that is the "money" and the coin merely establishes that it is "legal tender lawful" money in the United States. A Canadian Gold Maple Leaf is also "money" but it is not "lawful money" in the United States. Of note we are not, under the laws of the United States, prohibited from using Canadian Gold Maple Leafs in commerce in the United State. We're not required to accept them but we aren't denied the ability to use them if we choose to do so. We can also accept "raw" gold in commerce in the United States as well as it is "money" although it isn't "legal tender" anywhere.

BTW I have been involved in exchanges in commerce using American Gold Eagles which are completely legal under US law. I own a small business and produce a product that costs me about $450 in materials (plus labor) that I will sell for $1800 in Federal Reserve or for $50 in American Gold Eagles. In the first case it reflects a $1,350 profit while in the second case it reflects a $400 loss to the enterprise and the IRS agrees that I can accept either Federal Reserve Notes or American Gold Eagles and show the profit or loss based upon either transaction. Of course if I sell the American Gold Eagle for more in Federal Reserve Notes then I'd have to declare the profit. So far I've never sold an American Gold Eagle so my tax returns do show a loss on the sale when I sell my product for American Eagle gold coins. The IRS has no problem with this as both are legal tender in the United States and $50=$50 under the tax laws.

 

P.S. Back in 2000 or so City METRO Code Enforcement wanted to bulldoze this mans home, simply for being off the grid:

​

The remedy was really quite simple.

The remedy was between my ears, not his. So he still relies upon me but one nuisance neighbor has called the cops on him so many times that they are ready to jail her instead if she keeps calling. They only visited the first call and when my suitor friend began to describe his "utilities" the cops put their hands over their ears and chanted "Lalalala" like five-year olds.

 

That is true but there is no real evidence that the Greeks or Romans adopted any of the Hebrew religious teaching and were probably unaware of them prior to them being put down in writing. I won't even argue that the Greeks and Romans were the origins of the philosophy of natural Rights as those origins seem to be spread throughout all civilizations around the world going back to the earliest historical rightings. The explicit establishment of natural Rights really didn't coalesce into a philosophy until the writings of John Locke and others but we can look at what I would call the universal historical foundation upon which John Locke based much of his writings. The Right to Life, for example, didn't just exist in Europe, Rome or Greece but instead was "recognized" to a greater or lessor degree by virtually all people throughout history (although it was often violated). Locke attempted to put all of the pieces of the puzzle together. I would also state uncategorically that we have progressed since the writings of John Locke and today the understanding of natural (inalienable) Rights has evolved to a more universal and less sectarian philosophy. Locke based his arguments on "God" but we know today that "God" has nothing to do with natural (inalienable) Rights but in Locke's time "God" was a compelling argument so he invoked "God" in his arguments.

 

The links don't work (on my computer anyway) so I will merely comment on what is said.

WHY would they want to bulldoze the house?

That makes no sense to me with one possible exception. I have heard of people using the electro--magnetic field created by a utility transformer to generate their own electricity. This saps the electricity from the utility company which is, in effect, theft.

 

According to the courts US notes are lawful money while Federal Reserve notes are only redeemable in lawful money.

and

Milam helps to clarify that we are entitled to redeem the notes:

​

Julliard explains that US notes are still in circulation:



The Treasury explains that US notes are still in circulation too - last paragraph. To prevent the US notes in circulation from wearing out they are preserved "in circulation" in the Fed Bank vaults, backed by this monument on the SE Corner of the Golden Rectangle.

​

 

Please read the US Supreme Court decision in Juillard v Greenman which addressed the Constitutionality of Legal Tender notes.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/110/421

In that decision the Supreme Court established that a legal tender note was a promissory note authorized under Article I Section 8 Clause 1 that authorized the federal government to "borrow money" on the credit of the United States which is unrelated to Article I Section 8 Clause 4 that authorized Congress to "coin money and regulate the value thereof".

Of note even Article I Section 8 Clause 4 does NOT authorize the government to "create money" and Congress cannot "create" the actual "money" which has always been gold and silver in the United States. It is authorized to "coin" that gold and silver into tokens (coining is a manufacturing term) where the metallic content is certified and to assign a value (regulate the value thereof) which takes into account that different forms of "money" (i.e. gold and silver) are being used and there needs to be a market relationship established between the two so that one is not preferable to the other.

We can see the huge failure of Congress in addressing it's responsibility to "regulate the value" of the "coined money" in the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985 where a $50 Gold Eagle contains 1-oz of gold while a $10 Gold Eagle contains 1/4-oz of gold. In the free market everyone would want five $10 Gold Eagles instead of one $50 Gold Eagles because they would have more "money" in the $10 Gold Eagles (i.e. 1.25 oz v 1 oz). Congress was stupid beyond belief in 1985 because they couldn't even add at an elimentary school level.

Bottom line, the US government cannot "create money" because "money" in the United States is gold and silver. It can "coin" money which is taking "money" and through the manufacturing process of "coining" it makes "tokens" of a certified weight and alloy content and establish that this is "legal tender money" good for all debts public and private (but cannot deny the People the Right to use other "money" in commerce). Additionally the government can borrow "money" by issuing promissory notes which are legally "notes payable on demand in lawful money" where the Note establishes how much "lawful money" will be given to the bearer of the "note" on demand under contract law.

The US government is simply refusing the enforce the laws of contract and the specific statutory requirements of Title 12 related to the redemption of Federal Reserve notes. The laws actually comply with the US Constitution and the Supreme Court decision in Juilliard v Greenman but the laws are not being enforced by the US government.

But remember, since 1977 the "gold clause" was reinstated under the Ford Adminstration so we can engage in contracts based upon mutual consent where only American Gold Eagle (lawful money) coins can be used. Two parties to a contract can agree that Federal Reserve Notes cannot be used based upon a contract and instead that only "lawful money" can be used to meet the conditions of the contract.

 

That is shown most prominently in Title 31 USC §5115. Especially revealing are The Notes. So there is a category of instruments that circulate as "lawful money" and bundling US notes into them has pegged the value to the declining value of the FRN.

The court cases were cited correctly. You apply the context of metals. Because of the above agreement you and I feel about Congress breaching fiduciary duty you cannot get "lawful money" redeemed in metal at all unless you are willing to pay the face value of the diminished FRN for it.

What I am saying is there are advantages to making your Notice and Demand as provided for by law.

 

Title 31 does not refer to "Notes" as being lawful money nor do any US Statutory laws refer to notes as being lawful money. They are promissory notes that promise redemption in lawful money.

Yes, a person can purchase "lawful money" in the Free Market which reflects the discount rate of Federal Reserve notes. All "notes" are discounted in the free market. A home mortgage is a "promissory" note and when these are sold between finanicial institution they are discounted for example. The discount is related to the ability of the bearer to secure that which the note promises. A credit card "note" for a debt is typically discounted by 50% because it is very hard to collect the debt owed by the credit card holder for example.

This simply takes us off-track related to natural (inalienable) Rights and natural law as we can show violations in literally thousands of cases. The fact that our government is violating our Right of Property by issuing and authorizing "legal tender notes" with no intention of requiring the redemption of those notes is merely a citation of a violation of a natural (inalienable) Right and it isn't even unique as many naturual (inalienable) Rights are being wrongfully violated by individuals and government all of the time. Simply listing them does nothing to stop them per se.

 

"United States note shall be lawful money."

"United States notes... shall be reissued and kept in circulation."

These are some of the things I have been citing above. They are plain English and easy to read and interpret.

Furthermore:

You can do your part and stop endorsing private credit from the Fed by non-endorsement; just make your demand clear like I showed you all above.

P.S. I was talking about decrypting code and finding natural law. You missed that because your security settings do not let you open up the links. I have started another thread if you would like to learn about redeeming lawful money.

My point was more about applying natural law; like with the suitor living off the grid:

​

 

The encryption I showed you above (click here) redacts to the optimized Table of Relative Weights (best resonance of the naturally occuring isotopes) to discover that the best standard is Germanium 72:

​

 

P.S. This may be a better example of decrypting natural law, since you cannot get the links: