The origins of Natural Law?

The excuse that we do not live in a perfect world does not defend the wholly unreasonable position that pragmatism is allowable in the contemplation of rights, which by definition are not to be subjects of pragmatism.

Well, that just shows the poor thinking and incomplete logic of natural rights. If the thinking was more cogent and the logic more complete there would be far less misunderstanding.

All solutions in human interaction are compromises and perfection in this can, and is often reached by all parties being satisfied. It is only when one takes a position that does not allow compromise that perfection becomes unachievable. In such a case the only explanation is that one, or both parties are insane.

Your position that the thinking of natural rights includes temporary compromise due to pragmatic considerations without actually accepting the reality that forces them does noting but take insanity to a whole other level.

 

I take that to mean we should have a Bible that is coherent with natural law?

Especially take in that last sentence in light that it is an internal memorandum. Click Here.

​

 

The Rights are not compromised but the Freedom to Exercise those Rights are compromised for pragmatic reasons in society. One must understand that the ability or inability to exercise a Right does not deny the existance of that Right.

We also tend to paint natural (inalienable) Rights with broad brush strokes leaving much to logical thinking as not every situation can be anticipated.

We can look at an example of the Right of Individual Sovereignty for example. Everyone would agree that we "own" our own bodies but what about the case of a pregnant woman. Yes, we know that based upon historical precedent that the "pre-born" are not considered "persons" that have natural (inalienable) Rights but let's assume that the precedent changes. There cannot be a conflict between the Right of Sovereignty of the woman and the Right of Sovereignty of the "pre-born" so we'd have to address where the transition occurs. At what point does the woman's Right of Sovereignty end and the Right of Sovereignty begin for the preborn as they cannot conflict with each other. It would be extremely hard to refine the definition of the Right of Sovereignty to address this apparent conflict in the natural (inalienable) Rights of the two. The arguments would be endless but, similiar to the Right of Use of the Land it can be addressed by defining the Freedom to Exercise that natural (inalienable) the Right. Both can be acknowledged as having the identical natural (inalienable) Right of Sovereignty but the Freedom to Exercise that Right can be limited based upon a pragmatic compromise. The Right is not compromised but the Freedom to Exercise that Right is. A compromise is not a "perfect" solution in such a case but it is a "working" solution. The "anti-abortionists" that oppose any abortions for any reason (about 7% of the population) would not be happy and the extreme "pro-choice" advocates that don't believe there should be any restrictions on abortion at all (also about 7%) would not be happy with either but it is a pragmatic solution to the problem that the vast majority would agree with. Not perfect but a pragmatic resolution to the issue.

The Right of Sovereignty would exist unchallenged for both but the Freedom to Exercise that Right would be limited based upon the pragmatic considerations related to the potential conflicting interests between the two Persons. The identical situation exists between the nomad and the farmer related to the Right of Use of the Land. Each has the identical Right but the Freedom to Exercise that Right can be pragmatically limited to avoid possible conflicts of interest between the two persons.

 

The right of individual sovereignty has evolved quite a bit over time in society. Slavery has been abolished, the rights of women and children have advanced so considerably that the current popular debate is over rights of the fetus. Until very recently children were not considered to be individual persons at all but extensions of their parents, who were free to do with them as they would. The church considers children below a certain age as not persons and therefore beyond sin. Interestingly enough, thinking on Natural Rights, with all its talk about them being inviolable and inalienable, has closely followed social evolution, mostly by blithely adopting the changing definitions of person hood that have coursed through society at large. That is not a deference of fixed principle to pragmatism so much as an adjustment of principle to reflect social change. Natural Rights has never been fixed in its principles, especially ones that it considers inalienable and inviolable.

Since the definition of rights must necessarily include the universal freedom and liberty to exercise them if the entire concept of rights is not to become some monstrous oxymoron, the position that there are rights but limits on the freedom to exercise them are acceptable due to pragmatic considerations becomes very problematic. Such a position can only be seeking to establish rights that do not exist, the extension of existing rights beyond social acceptance, or prevention of a impending rescission of some existing rights due to inexorable social advance.

The Right of Individual Sovereignty has reached an impasse due to the ever expanding definition of person hood. The slaves are freed, the children and women and gays are becoming emancipated and there is front line social warfare over extending that definition to include the unborn. And you, you just punt rather than outright admit that your theory is lacking reasoning necessary to defend people who are taking its assertions to their logical conclusions, or even a definition of terms that would allow it. It is no different with your Right of Use of Land.

Face it, Natural Rights theory is not really applicable to real world social organization since it is bereft of any mechanism that could even begin to resolve conflicting claims of rights, blithely punting them away to the never never land of pragmatism. This exacerbates social conflict to no end since those on the side of natural rights possess no theoretical thinking or logic that allows them to back down or compromise in the face of social opposition. It is a dangerous dogma hiding under a facade of incomplete reasoning and false logic.

 

Mike Zigler reported for Liberty Watch Magazine Nobember 2007:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On a 106-degree May afternoon in 2003, government agents raided several establishments belonging to Southern Nevada businessman Robert "Bobby" Kahre. With guns drawn, officials held more than 20 handcuffed workers in the sun without water as agents collected records and other materials.

Kahre hadn't committed a crime. He had upset the Internal Revenue Service by paying his workers based on the face value of gold and silver coins, versus the market value in the Federal Reserve system (the value of the coins in U.S. paper dollars). Even though the coins were in circulation, displayed a face value, and were regulated by Congress, the IRS's confusing and endless tax code did not determine how to handle these gold and silver coins if used for payroll. The tax code only references dollars. It does not distinguish between coined money and paper money.

Kahre didn't opt for the precious metal bullion system without first doing his homework. He consulted monetary experts, engaged in extensive research, and even met with congressmen. Kahre's conclusion was simple: While the currency in the precious-metal system was greater in value than the currency in the other system, as money and a medium of exchange, the law knows no difference between the face value of both currencies.

The IRS expected Kahre to report his workers' earnings based on the coins' market value in the Federal Reserve system. Instead, he didn't report or pay anything at all because the face value of the coins fell below the reporting threshold. The IRS alleged that Kahre and the other defendants paid at least $114 million (based on the Federal Reserve system) to workers. The use of these coins in trade is a direct challenge to the fiat money system now in place.

While the purpose of the case was to identify the intent of the defendants, the trial that followed tested America's dual monetary system and further validated that the U.S. greenback is quickly becoming more and more a worthless piece of paper.

...In the mid-’90s, Kahre began exercising this alternate system. He compensated workers for their labor in the form of these gold and silver coins versus FRNs. The workers calculated their income and tax liability based on the face value of the coins.

One gold coin with a face value of $50 currently equals $806 in FRNs. If a worker earns a $50 gold coin each week, that person takes home an annual income of $2,600 based on the precious metal system, which is below the income-tax reporting threshold for an employee. However, the value of the coins in FRNs — $41,912 — is not. That’s the basic idea.

The IRS did not fancy Kahre’s gold-and-silver payroll system, and after seven years of operating his family businesses in this fashion, he and eight others found themselves as defendants in a Las Vegas federal courtroom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


.

 

That slight of hand was done around Title 31 USC §5115. Especially the Notes.

See the trick? US notes are lawful money while Federal Reserve notes are only redeemable in lawful money - yet Congress bundled US notes into a broad category of lawful money instruments called United States currency notes so as to peg the non-elastic currency to the elastic FRNs in value.

 

This is a two-part question.
1. Do you have a right to life?
Neither US citizens have inalienable rights to life and liberty in any meaningful sense as evidenced by the thousands of boys who were drafted to be killed or maimed in Vietnam, nor other do people have natural rights as evidenced by the millions of minorities murdered by the Third Reich and other regimes. It appears that God-given, or "natural" rights guaranteed by nation-states are no more a useful mental construct to humans than they are to roosters and beef steers.

2. Is birth something granted to you by some moral philosophy?
Birth is not granted to humans, dogs, or cats, by some moral philosophy. However, the Golden Rule, particularly in it's negative version, which is almost identical to the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle, has been and perhaps can again be, a useful mental construct in assisting the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness among human beings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhHJ4DRZNZM&feature=youtu.be