FUNDAMENTALS OF NATURAL LAW: Artificial Entities – Again!

I know I have written on this a great deal the last few months, but it seems that those who most need to learn the lessons I am trying to explain are also the most resistant to their Truth. This time, I am going to try to explain it from a different direction.

First, let me address those who have been referring to me as a Marxist because I have turned on the idea of a ‘Natural’ Right to own something that was created by man. I think Marx would find it odd that you are forcing me onto his ideological camp when I actually support the individual’s NATURAL RIGHT to own, operate and control the means of production. Marx was against this, so I know that he – as the highest authority of the ideology he created – would tell you who now call me a Marxist that you are wrong.

This then means that you are doing so for the purpose of tainting me in the eyes of my readers. If so, that would mean you are making an ad hominem attack: something that many of you who once called me an ally when I still believed the fiction you continue to support used to cry about ‘Liberals’ doing to you and your supporters. And you wonder why I have come to see you as the flip side of the same coin as the ‘Liberals’ you oppose? It is because you are no different. And the fact that you have not addressed my argument but only accused me of being a Marxist and of ‘switching sides’ only serves to solidify the likelihood that this is exactly what you are doing: trying to defeat my argument by calling me names. Well, don’t bother. The Left is far more vicious and I have shrugged off every name-calling fit they ever launched in my direction. I seriously doubt your will even compare.

Now, let’s look at what I am actually saying – and not what my enemies on both sides want you to believe I am saying. We have a Natural Right to make a living. If this means we have to make hoes, then we have a right to the materials and tools we use to make hoes. We have a right to anything into which we impart our labor and which is used to sustain our lives. But I have yet to see a corporation laying around in the jungle. Nor have I ever seen the argument that successfully demonstrates how we are born with land attached to our free will or body. This is because the right to ownership in both land and a corporation are the product of government.

Now, if we read Bastiat, or any of the founders – all of whom are quoted by the very people now calling me a Marxist – we find that government is created to protect our rights. But this leaves us with a problem. How can we be born with a Natural Right to something if that something must first be created by something else that is itself created? Confused? Well, if you are, you should be – because it is as easy to follow as the distorted reasoning which arrives at the conclusion we can claim a birth right – simply by being human – to own something that has to be created by something else that we have to create. In short: your right to own land or a corporation rests upon a double fiction, yet these people still want to call that ‘natural.’ I wonder, do these people also believe that witches and warlocks are also ‘naturally occurring’ entities? Because this is the sort of thing one must believe to assert a Natural Right to something twice created by man – after man is himself created.

Still, I do not have a problem with a CIVIL right to own land or a corporation. I have said this the whole time, but my enemies dare not admit it or it will destroy them. After all, how can one call me a Marxist if I am saying I have no issue with the CIVIL right to own land and corporations? Surely they wouldn’t be so foolish. That’s why they do not admit that I have ever asserted the right to create these CIVIL rights.

However, what I object to is the attempt to make these CIVIL rights and then – after they have been acquired – to argue they are now NATURAL RIGHTS and that the very people who created them no longer have any say over them. That is not only a perversion of the law; it is an attempt to claim the seat of God. Only God can create something from nothing, and that is what the people who argue that they have a ‘Natural Right’ to own land and corporations are doing. They are trying to use society to pass laws giving them the CIVIL right to own these things and then, after they have acquired them, to simply assert by their word and will alone that these CIVIL rights are now Natural Rights. This is both an absurdity and an usurpation and it should never be allowed.

At its heart, what this is about is power. The people claiming these ‘rights’ want to take something society has created and then claim society has no right to control it. They also want to use these CIVIL rights to excuse themselves from any responsibility for them. This is an abomination piled upon an abomination and it is the core of my objection. When someone claims the right of ownership yet rejects any personal responsibility for that which they claim to own, they have declared themselves to be an enemy of society – period. And so I say to my former allies: either re-examine the ground upon which you stand, or deal with the just attacks upon you and accept that you are guilty as charged. You are enemies of society – just as Jefferson and Franklin said you are.

30 thoughts on “FUNDAMENTALS OF NATURAL LAW: Artificial Entities – Again!

  1. Although a very interesting and insightful rant, I have to take issue with this statement, “This is because the right to ownership in both land and a corporation are the product of government.” on the grounds that if ownership of land is a product of government then it ceases to become a right but instead becomes a privilege and I’m sure you know the difference.

    1. phoebe,

      No, it does not NECESSARILY become a privilege — no more than government is a privilege. The government is created by the Social Contract, and we have rights in it. It is created to serve and protect us as much as every other citizen. The same can apply to land as property, as well as the relationship. The people make the govt. — and as Jefferson points out in the Declaration — this means they can change or abolish it. But so long as it is operating within the terms of the Social COntract, they are duty bound to abide by it. Well, if the govt. creates a CIVIL right in land as property, and you use it according to the law, then the govt/People are duty bound to allow you to treat it as private property. HOWEVER, if you abuse the CIVIL right, then the people retain the authority to alter or resend that CIVIL right. The distinction here is not between right and privilege, but Natural and CIVIL Rights 🙂

      1. By your logic govt created land, to go beyond that, or should I say, before that, people were on the land before there was a govt so why should we adhere to govt laws and regulations on land that was ours to begin with.

        1. The land was ours before govt? Really? 🙂 Were you born with a piece of property attached to your body? 🙂 No, we are not, so we have no “Right” in it — unless or until we put our labor in it. And even then, the right only covers the extent of the use, such as until we harvest our crop or quit working a field.

          The ability to claim a piece of land as personal property simply does not exist until govt. is formed and legislation passed. This is explained by the Natural Law philosophers, the Bible, Bastiat (and economist and legal commentator).

          And please remember, I have no problem with creating property rights in land ownership. I just want to see us return to a system of doing so that is in accord with Natural Law. What we have now clearly demonstrates that doing it our way does not work.

        2. The founders actually touched on this in their writings. They said the government should NOT own any more land than was absolutely necessary for government buildings, etc. The rest was to be sold/given to PEOPLE, who would work it to survive. Do you see the connection between putting our labor into something and ownership there? This is because they saw it that way, and they saw it that way because it is part of Natural Law.

          It is not a direct correlation, to be sure. But their words show they understood land rights along these terms. it’s just that we do not read the founders or the men who influenced their thinking any more. We are too busy looking for ways around Natural Law. This is all I am really objecting to 😦

        3. I look at things very black and white also particularly when it comes to private property.

          There was no social contract made by We The People, it was a one sided contract that can be changed at will by the govt. The govt has certain rights, none of which give them the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with MY property, property I did not purchase or enter into a contract of any kind with them. If I bought my land and paid cash, which I did, and since I don’t owe anyone anything for it then an allodial title should be a given.

          1. phoebe,

            I disagree. The government our founders built rejected Hobbesian ideology — which is what you claim we have. And we do have that — now! But not then. And the reason we have it now is because we fell asleep.

            Govt. has no rights: not in the sense you are using the term. This is part of that falling asleep I just mentioned. What govt. has are responsibilities and delegated authority to act accordingly. The people have duties: to each other and the Social Contract — but not to the govt. The govt. is not real. It is just a group of people who carry out and enforce the terms of the contract and nothing more. It is when we go to sleep and forget this that the govt. claims to be a person above each and every citizen, and then the coward in each of us submits to this beast we call govt. and that is how the beast always grows.

            Now, as for “YOUR” property: if it is yours, then how did you acquire it? It was here before you and will remain long after you. SO it is not part of you, and neither did your labor make it. So by what reasoning can you claim a Natural Right to land? YOU CANNOT! That land right you claim as “YOURS” is a product of the people. To then turn on and tell the people they didn’t make it possible for you to own it is to surrender to the Hobbsian view of govt. you espoused earlier. Do that you and you also surrender ANY claim you have to “YOUR” property.

            This one comes down to whether or not we accept there is a Creator and that HE established Natural Law. If you do not, then Hobbes it is and you have no rights other than what govt. gives you — period. But if you DO believe, then that land is HIS! HE made it. He just set forth certain parameters by which we can allow each other to “treat” it as our personal property. Read the Bible and you will find this is exactly how the Lord set up property ownership. It belonged to the individual for a time, but to the clans (NOT the govt) for all time. This ensured renewal. The bastardization we have created stops renewal and allows for concentration in few hands which inevitably leads to oppression of the people and perversion of the law — just as Scripture tells us it will, and just as we have demonstrated.

  2. Reblogged this on Phoebe's Detention Room and commented:
    Although a very interesting and insightful rant, I have to take issue with this statement, “This is because the right to ownership in both land and a corporation are the product of government.” on the grounds that if ownership of land is a product of government then it ceases to become a right but instead becomes a privilege and I’m sure you know the difference.

    Sorry, but most who call themselves patriots or conservatives are nothing other than sheeple themselves, they cry freedom but still play the game the govt plays. They don’t want to acknowledge the truth because then they would feel helpless and defenseless. This has been a sore spot with me and one of the reasons I don’t blog much because I can’t stand reading the drivel that passes as freedom watch or reblog the same news crap over and over and over again. We can repeat the same news stories over and over again but the outcome remains the same, we do nothing.

    I have been calling for the largest non violent protest ever, the “just say no to Obamacare” protest, I get nothing but blank stares and the old “it’s the law” response. If EVERYONE would just say NO that would send the biggest message to Congress and Obama, the message that we have grown a pair and we’re not going to stand for this crap anymore.

    Nothing will ever change because we haven’t grown a pair and never will, it’s over folks so stop bitching about what you let happen.

    1. Oh, I understand how they control it. I think where I (me) am having trouble is getting people to understand that I am not saying the government CAN’T take something from us, I am saying they do so by violating the Social Contract (i.e. they are acting lawlessly). Jefferson didn’t say our inalienable rights CAN’T be taken, he said they could not be rightly surrendered or given away. Same thing.

      Please understand, I look at the PRINCIPLE in play, and I tend to see black and white in these areas because they are. I merely point the compass of what should be, but this is important. Without a compass, we get lost, and that is what has happened to this nation. This is why we think that we can make an artificial entity, then legally make it a person, then give ourselves a right to own that person — yet it is not slavery, it is property. We have un-pinned from reality and it is all meant for unjust gain.

  3. Joe,

    I think there is a lot of confusion about what you posted, so I have crafted an alternative perspective: I think that when you write, “People do not have a natural right to land”, you write from the same argument, that is, people do not have a natural right to welfare or to education or to technology. The misconception (not with your post, but with the general interpretation thereof), rests not so much in the fallacy the we have a right to human-made institutions (and the resulting products i.e. welfare), but in the presumption that the justification behind these similar “rights” is different. WE, and by we I mean society, have separated the right to welfare from the right to land because the inconsistancies within the right to welfare argument are much more visible than the inconsistancies within the right to land land argument. It is easy to see that I am not entitled to your money, because it is not a product of my labor; it is not so easy to understand that I am not entitled to land because it was not inherently fastened to me at birth. This, coupled with the emphasis on private property in the Constitution, have instilled ignorance in the minds of men who now misinterpret the words or Jefferson, Adams and Madison. As I would have it Joe, your argument about “the natural right to land” has less to do with government than it does with the “property of our rights” at birth.

    1. Lara,

      You just renewed my hope for this nation.

      Folks, this is a high school student, AND SHE GETS IT! Now why is it so hard for the adults among us to understand?

      EXCELLENT, Lara — just excellent 🙂

  4. If our inalienable rights came from God, show me where in the Bible it says that we have these rights.

    Government is a corporation, a business and I wish they would move their operations to another country and take their workforce with them.

    1. phoebe,

      That is a LONG argument, but it starts with the fact that the ONE thing Scripture says God has given us and will not take is our free will. Otherwise, we could not love or worship Him as those acts require free will. Read my extrapolation posts under the heading of NATURAL LAW on The Road to Concord. I’ve gone through this in detail, but the great Christian thinkers who derived this doctrine — such as Aquinas — have done so in even greater detail.

      1. No argument from me, I believe in God. This is something I have never thought about, it has just always been a given that we received certain rights from God. But now that you have me thinking…shame on you, I am curious as to where the validation came from, is it from the Bible or is it from the human mind? Did man not own property in Biblical times or was all land owned by kings.

        If govt has the power to tax our land then they have the power to take that land away, so in essence, we do not own property, we’re only serfs paying the king rent.

        1. Not ‘shame on me,’ this is not a quick answer. Demanding a sound-bite answer to deep theological arguments and telling me I am avoiding the issue by not giving it to you is ‘shame on you’ 🙂

          The right to property starts in Genisis. God gave the earth to Adam, and commanded Adam to both care for and subdue it. Subdue is a loaded word. It means to use the natural resources we have been given. HOWEVER, God did NOT give a right to own LAND to individuals. he gave that to the tribes. Every so many years, ALL land went back to the tribes and it had to be bought all over again. The founders tried to achieve something similar to this IN PRINCIPLE by mandating ALL inheritance HAD to go to living relatives and be divided EQUALLY (usually immediate family). The PRINCIPLE is to renew resources and prevent accumulation of wealth which will eventually undermine the rule of law — as it did in Biblical times and does today.

          That said, if God did not grant property, then why the commandment not to covet our neighbor’s stuff? Or to return our neighbor’s stuff if we see he has lost it? Or not to steal?

          As for natural law, you find that in Romans 1-2. John Locke, the Natural Law writer who MOST influenced the founders, drew the majority of his work directly from Romans.

          FINALLY, the founders did not like the idea of taxing land and neither do I. But this is a different discussion. I think the problem you and I are having is that you are angry with the government for breaking THEIR end of the Constitution contract. SO AM I! But we have to look at the philosophy behind the whole thing if we want to repair it. Without that, there is no compass pointing north, hence, no way to repair it. But me trying to fix the compass should not make me into your enemy.

          1. You are not my enemy, I would never reblog or read an enemies post. We are on the same path, just vary from time to time on which path is best but that’s what makes for a meaningful discussion. I appreciate and admire what you’re trying to do and even though we may differ from time to time, at least we both get it.

          2. The thing we all need to get past is the philosophy. If we can all remember the principles in the Declaration and where they came from, then we can set about repairing the mess we have made. But if we just say we want a certain list of things and then start demanding laws to ‘fix’ them in place, we will be no better than the cabal that has left us in the mess we’re in now.

            All I am struggling to do is help people understand how Natural Law works so they will better understand how to fix things PROPERLY — so we actually fix it rather than just move the chains.

  5. It would seem to me that some of the philosophers of the enlightenment that are oft quoted, are somewhat at odds with each other when it comes to what entails Natural Rights.

    You often quote Jefferson who says: “We’re endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

    But then we have Locke who the Founders’ studied and who is often seen as the person most responsible for the Founders’ interpretation of what constitutes “natural rights.” Locke identified natural rights as Life, Liberty and Estate…meaning property.

    Why did Jefferson change the last part? Did he know something Locke didn’t?

    1. Because Jefferson was wishy washy on property ownership, he was pro individual right to own property but also believed that it should be taxed thus leaving the path open for govt to control it which in turn makes us nothing but renters.

      Jefferson proposed in Notes on the State of Virginia that “Every person of full age neither owning nor having owned [50] acres of land, shall be entitled to an appropriation of [50] acres in full and absolute dominion, and no other person shall be capable of taking an appropriation.

      He also held to the philosophy that the land belongs to the living not the dead so therefore in death you have no right to leave your property to someone else and perhaps it should be reverted back to the govt.

      Interesting read on Jefferson’s views of private property ownership.

      1. OK, Jefferson was not talking specifically about land when he said the EARTH does not belong to the dead. He was talking about things such as corporations and trusts. When Ted Turner dies, he will lock nearly 1/3-1/2 of Montanan into a trust and no one will be able to do anything about or with the land unless/until we destroy the trust. THAT is what Jefferson was against.

        You will also find that Jefferson said there is no right in something if it does not include the power to use it as you see fit (providing you do not harm others).

        And he advocated even division of inheritance as a means of making sure land and wealth were renewed and NOT allowed to be controlled by the dead.

        As for taxing the land, the founders struggled with that as much as we do today, but they also tried (and sadly, failed) to tie the vote to land ownership. Had they succeeded, then taxes and voting would have been tied and we would be better off.

        But we must remember, Jefferson is but one man. What we are actually discussing is the notion of Natural Rights.

  6. Mr. G,

    Yes, and the founders were men and — hence — fallible. Locke was the most influential Natural Rights theorist, and Locke was drawing mostly from the book of Romans, Chapters 1-2.

    But here is the thing: the Bible grants property rights in “stuff,” but not in land — not as an inalienable right. But the Bible also stresses the importance of covenants — i.e. contracts. And people can agree to allow each other to treat land as their personal property while they are alive — so long as they do not use it to subvert society or the law. God did this by mandating ALL property return tot he tribes every 50 years, our founders through inheritance laws. The key here is that the founders recognized the PRINCIPLES in play and were trying to adopt them to their society. The Bible actually teaches this, but you only find it in the New testament.

    As for why Jefferson changed to the “Pursuit of Happiness:” this was another LEGAL term with a decidedly CHRISTIAN origin. It does not mean the right to pursue stuff, or hedonistic pleasure. It meant the right to pursue virtue, and the moral life. They were speaking of Happiness in a BIBLICAL sense.

  7. Here’s something particularly stupid:
    Taxing corporations.
    The first taxation eats into the profits, forcing the corporation to raise prices, lower wages, or fire workers.
    The second taxation taking the form of income tax when the dividends are distributed to the shareholders, execs, and employees.
    Third taxation in the form of capital gains tax.
    Fourth taxation in the form of possible inheritance tax.

    Govt. is double dipping at best.
    Just to get people thinking, what exactly does the government need all that money for…?

    1. True, but, at the same time, the People — as the creator of the corporation — DO retain some control over the corporation. If they wish to tax it, they can, although that is foolish, as you point out in your comment. On the other hand, the People have a vested interest in keeping a corporation from becoming so powerful that it can subvert the Social Contract. Unfortunately, this has already happened, and to the extent that it is very unlikely we can or will ever correct it. As a result, liberty has been lost!

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s