I stumbled across this meme on Face Book and found myself wondering: “How many people realize that there is one violation of Natural Law represented here, and both sides are equally guilty?”
To me, the implication is that the we are suppose to have less sympathy for the people at the top of the meme than for those at the bottom. This may be the politically correct way of looking at this issue, but it goes against the principles of Natural Law.
Under Natural Law, all persons are supposed to be treated equally under the law. Therefore, when the law is perverted for the personal gain of another, it represents a violation of the Social Contract. It does not matter what form the perversion may take: perversion is still perversion. Therefore, whether it is a businessman corrupting the law for his gain, or a group voting to have a law passed that benefits them over others, the law is perverted because it no longer treats all citizens equally. In effect, what this meme represents is the creation of ‘special’ classes of citizen, both of which are using the government to forcibly take from others and give to themselves. When you boil it all down, it means everyone in this meme is using the government o commit theft, and that is a blatant violation of Natural Law.
And to those who may think they are excused because of ‘entitlements,’ such as Social Security: under Natural Law, there is no such thing as an ‘entitlement.’ Anything the government gives must be taken — by force — from another. Not only is this theft, it also places the government in a position of war with the person who is having his property taken. Even Social Security is built upon the backs of others. It is a Ponzi scheme and cannot be supported unless people pay in more than they will ever receive. This is the only way people who never pay in can receive money, or people can receive more than they pay in to the system. In all cases, this is theft and a violation of Natural Law.
So, while it may appeal to those who are benefiting from the corruption, everyone in this meme is guilty of violating the Social Contract, and that undermines the fabric of society — the very thing the Social Contract exists to guard against. (You can find a parallel post dealing with this same subject from the position of Scripture here.)
[NOTE: I no longer think of my voice as anything special. There was a time when I believed I had something important to say, but not so much these days. I write now because I feel driven to do so. Something inside me will not let me rest until I post the pages you just read. I’d just as soon not bother anymore. It all seems like no one is listening and I do more harm than good. So I have come to trust that whatever it is driving me has all this under control. Personally, I believe it is God, but others may not. All I ask is that, if anything I write helps you, or you think it might help others in any way, please, share this page. Re-blog it, share it on FB or send the link to your friends. So long as you feel it will do more good than harm, then please, use this page however you wish. Thank you.]
4 thoughts on “LESSONS IN LOGIC: Two Forms Of The Same Violation Of Natural Law”
Reblogged this on Starvin Larry.
It seems different in the UK as all law is based on the medieval feudal system. That goes something like this.
There are those who have it all and those who have what is given.
Not what is left because nothing ever is.
Even scraps and waste is of value to those who have everything.
Thus the majority of people have existed on handouts over 100’s of years.
Bred carefully into the little people not to enrage their masters.
Understood, but the feudal system is still a violation of Natural Law. In fact, most of human history is a record of man trampling on the rights of others 😦
On your note. Keep writing if you have the time. Make the time if you can. Put out the information, you do not know who will find something from it. I do not know what you mean when you say ‘God’ but do keep it up. Even if it is for your own self knowledge that you did something, said something. It seems clear a paradigm change is occurring, on a scale of which I cannot think of before. Having this information out in the world will help not others, but I think most importantly yourself.
If you see someone about to walk off a cliff, you have no obligation to warn them. No one else may even blame you or know that you did not, but you would. Being as thoughtful as you are evidenced from what you write about, not quite sure you would be happy with that.