IPFS News Link • Tea Party
-
Special Editions
- Global
- Due Diligence
- Love Bus Liberty Tour
- Vaccine Education Summit
- Bitcoin Summit
- US-Arizona
- US-Tennessee
- Ernie's Favorites
- THE R3VOLUTION CONTINUES
- "It's Not My Debt"
- Fascist Nation's Favorites
- Surviving the Greatest Depression
- The Only Solution - Direct Action Revolution
- Western Libertarian
- S.A.F.E. - Second Amendment is For Everyone
- Freedom Summit
- Declare Your Independence
- FreedomsPhoenix Speakers Bureau
- Wallet Voting
- Harhea Phoenix
- Black Market Friday
IPFS News Link • Tea Party
Current News | Contents By Subject
Additional Related items you might find interesting:Related items:
Letters to the Editor •
Globalism
Federal Register & Executive Order Seem To Be In Opposition
News Link •
Government
Doug Casey Recommends Off-Shore Gold in Foreign Safety Deposit Boxes after FBI Raid of US Safety Dep
News Link •
Government
Your Property Rights Have Been Taken in All 50 States. Here's How to Get Them Back
News Link •
Government
Jason Christoff Breaks Down the Mind Control of Television/Movies, Alcohol and Coffee
News Link •
Government
Video - Explaining the Alex Jones/Tucker Carslon Controlled Opposition Limited Hangout
News Link •
Government
The Rest of the Story - Steve Kirsch's MIT Speech on NZ Whistleblower Barry Young's Revelati
News Link •
Events: America
Ernest Hancock and Etienne Kick Around Liberty on the Rocks - Sedona - Nov 3-5th
News Link •
Government
Understanding Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and Monopoly Seed Consolidation
News Link •
Government
Etienne & Jason Christoff - Why is 666 Hidden in Cartel Company Logos, Trump's OK Sign and Twitt
News Link •
Government
2 Comments in Response to Natural Law vs Positive Law
Why does there have to be a conflict between Common property and individual property? I just don't see it. Some crap is common property, like our sewers. Who would want to personally own the sewers? And if they did, would you be cool with pay-per-flush? On the other hand, my farm or house should be mine, mine, mine. Period, hands off. Now, if I choose to start up a "plastic burning" business on my front yard...someone should stop me. The air on my land is mine. But I can't be allowed put crap in it that will go elsewhere than on my land, any more than I can be allowed to toss grenades from my yard into other people's yards. But if the shrapnel stays on my land, I should be allowed to huck grenades around all day long. I don't see the conflict. Where is it hiding? I also don't see how we can have ANY personal rights without having personal property rights first. But I'm all ears, Oyote.
Oops, flawed. The concept of "natural law" I believe was advanced by John Locke who, if you can read into the language of the day, was not only a philanderer but an ethusiastic teller of ribbald tales.
Locke's unmistakable bar-room humour stated one immutable fact: men, I either have or will sleep with your wives and daughters, and this would be an actionable offense, and such do we have laws to enforce mutual property rights.
That's why I love Locke above the paranoiac Hobbes who was truly afraid of the "brutality of men". Locke was more like "be the man" and admit that our liberty really should be subject to certain restraints because hells boys, we know what we're made of!
So in a way, as Hobbesian law might be that of "somebody come help me if the big man comes", Lockiean law suggests that "we really shouldn't beat up on little men but rather protect them of our own self-interest" comes into play.
Natural Law is fully manifest in either scenario: it is the right of all beings under God to ask for help. Otherwise prayer would be illegal. It is also the right of all beings to render help and to nurture and to grow, for each of us is given a talent. Therefore under Natural Law does abundance exist.
You are within one half-mile of the truth if you are with me so far. Abundance exists from where? From nature. What is "natural law"? Abundance. An Earth that grows whether we tend it or not and it produces "wealth" for lack of a better word.
Given our epistomology of ownership, where did "common law" derive from?
The commons.
What were the commons in "common law"?
The center of commerce. The vast supermarket we used to know as "the land" where we got all the stuff we needed or in time, all the stuff we needed but could not grow.
The "common law" was mostly about how we equitably share what we owned in common. Positivistic action was a method of redress.
Taken to the extreme, I would say that without common property, there is little case for positivistic action in society whatsoever. And therefore does BP substitute water for oil in a formerly very lucrative and valuable resource.