Definitions · Law

Definition: Natural Law

PROPOSED FINAL DEFINITION OF NATURAL LAW

The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural Law)

Thou shalt not, by word, deed, absence of word or deed, impose or allow the the imposition of, costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (property-in-toto), either directly or indirectly, where those interests were obtained by settlement (conversion, or first use) or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange without such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. Therefore thou shalt limit thy words and deeds, and the words and deeds of others, to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of interests (property in toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly.

NOTE:

Fully understanding this one law may also require:

1) the knowledge that when we come together in proximity, we decrease opportunity costs, and therefore create opportunities, and that opportunities must be homesteaded (settled/converted/first use), and put into production, in order to demonstrate an interest.

2) the definition of the three synonyms: demonstrated interest, demonstrated property, or property-in-toto, as that which people empirically retaliate for impositions against *and* have demonstrated an interest.

3) The use of the common law (of torts) as the means by which we incrementally and immediately suppress new innovations in parasitism that violate the Natural Law of Reciprocity.

4) The use of Testimonialism (warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit) as an involuntary warranty on public speech in matters of the commons, just as we currently force involuntary warranty of due diligence on products, services, and our words regarding products and services.

If you understand the one law, and these criteria, nearly all questions of conflict, ethics, morality, politics, and group competition are decidable. (really).

This solves the libertarian fallacy of non-aggression by specifically stating the scope of property that we must refrain from imposing costs upon; the cause of that scope (retaliation), the empirical means of determining that scope(demonstrate action), and the means by which violations of that law are discovered, recorded, and evolve.

 

 

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Definition: Natural Law

  1. Natural law is the one law? I believe eternal law is the one law.

    Aquinas tells us there are four categories of law: eternal, natural, human, and divine.

    Divine law comes from scripture. Being an anti-mystic, I assume you give no creedance to scripture, except for those parts that comport with natural law. But, from Aquinas’s perspective, scripture is that portion of eternal law revealed by God.

    Human law, properly codified and enforced, is derived from natural law. And, natural law is that portion of eternal law applicable to human behavior that we humans can derive by reason. Thus, both human law and natural law stem from eternal law.

    The weakness of natural law is that it takes human reason to discover it. However, history has taught us — eg, the French Revolution, Marxism — that reason unanchored by empiricism and morality is something that cannot reasonably be counted on to deliver truth. Science (empiricism) allows us to uncover small slices of eternal law, to grasp an inkling of God’s design, but can science allow us to uncover natural law in a meaningful and defensible way? By refining Aquinas’s “do good and avoid evil” with your “impose no costs” have you done that? I can think of no way to universally quantify “good” or “evil,” but “cost” implies the possibility of universal quantifiability, and, if so, that seems to be a basis for making natural law scientific — ie, if my behavior forces you to shell out pesos, then my behavior is unlawful.

    If my understanding is correct, then eternal law is the one law. As an anti-mystic you may reject the existence of a physical god, but you apparently accept the legitimacy of a mythical god. In science we seek truth but can never be certain we’ve found it. We have operating hypotheses, some well tested theories, and near certainties we regard as laws, but scientific truth is always subject to refinement should new data come to light. If natural law is to be regarded as science, then it, too, must acknowledge that human reasoning is flawed and subject to new data. Thus, both scientific and legal truth are embodied in eternal law, the one law, while science and natural law are the processes we use to try to uncover truth.

    Like

    1. “from Aquinas’s perspective, scripture is that portion of eternal law revealed by God.”

      The notion that “god” cares if you build fires on the Sabbath or eat shellfish is absurd. Abrahamism is a control system.

      “I assume you give no creedance to scripture”

      No honest person gives that book credence.

      Like

      1. “Abrahamism is a control system.”

        What religion is not? Hell, propertarianism is a control system.

        “No honest person gives that book credence.”

        Many presumably honest men have and do. As an avowed Christian, Doolittle must give at least parts of christian scripture credence. After all, Western Civilization is rooted in Christian scripture.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s