Statists think all law is created by man and therefore all law exists only because humanity enforces it upon society. But it is very easy to "debunk" statists' notion of "law."

Prior to any "laws" written by any human being, humanity already understood the difference between right and wrong. They knew that theft, for example, is wrong. Otherwise, how could they have eventually written rules on tablets and scrolls declaring theft to be a wrongful act—a crime?

Humanity's conception of rightful and wrongful acts sprang from within. Such morality was spontaneous—natural—and preceded any and all written laws. It is logically impossible for the inverse to be true, despite what statists say.

Legal Dictionary provides a reasonable definition of Natural Law as:

The belief that certain laws of morality are inherent by human nature, reason, or religious belief, and that they are ethically binding on humanity. [. . .] Natural Law is a philosophy that is based on the idea that 'right' and 'wrong' are universal concepts, as mankind finds certain things to be useful and good, and other things to be bad, destructive, or evil. This means that what constitutes 'right' and 'wrong' is the same for everyone, and this concept is expressed as 'morality.' As an example of natural law, it is universally accepted that to kill someone is wrong, and that to punish someone for killing that person is right, and even necessary.

Furthermore, notes the dictionary:

To solve an ethical dilemma using natural law, the basic belief that everyone is naturally entitled to live their own lives must be considered and respected. From there, natural law theorists determine what an innocent life is, and what elements comprise the life of an 'unjust aggressor.

In other words, because Natural Law inherently exists in us and has always applied to all mankind, it therefore predates man-made law.

Thus, in a voluntary democracy, voluntaryists would naturally want to study Natural Law—the science of justice—and make moral judgments accordingly in the Volcourts.

We previously noted that so-called "representative democracies" resolve into kakistocracies that serve the interests of oligarchs and not of the people. It is important to appreciate that "representative democracy" is not "democracy." From Aristotle onward, observant citizens in have criticised the failings of "representative democracy" and its tendency to facilitate oligarchies. To reiterate, "representative democracy" is not "democracy."