Have you ever heard someone say that they are attacking an organization, but not the people who belong to it?  For example: they might attack a political Party, but say that their attack does not apply to the members of that Party.  Well, as popular as this sort of thinking is in our society, this line of thinking is a violation of Natural Law.  The person cannot be separated from the organization to which they belong.

First, we start by looking at the definition of the word ‘group.’  Individuals cannot be separated from any group to which they belong.  If we could separate the members from the group, there would be no logic in the concept of ‘group’ at all: it would become a meaningless word.  This is because the very idea of ‘group’ implies a collection of ‘individuals.’  A group is not a real thing.  It is just a short hand way of referring to an entire collection of individuals with a common interest or characteristics. You can never point to a ‘group’ without seeing the individuals.  So, rather than listing each person separately, we to refer to them as a group (or organization).  This means the individual and the group are inseparably linked, and this is a fact because they are linked by definition.  Remove the individuals and there is no group.

This brings us to the principle of Natural Law in question.  In this case, we have a simple matter of logical extension.  Free will demands personal responsibility.  Membership in an organization implies consent to anything that organization does.  Consent implies agreement.  Agreement is an indication of will.  In other words, if a person is a member of a group, the individual indicates they agree with anything the group does.  Agreement is also connected to actions.  Therefore, if the group violates the law, every member of that group is guilty of violating the law.  It is that simple.

Now, I understand that humans will never be in perfect agreement with each other.  This is part of Human Nature.  This means that, if we were to hold everyone personally accountable for everything an organization does, there would never be an organization of more than one person.  Under such circumstances, it would be foolish to be a member of an organization consisting of more than yourself.  If the other member(s) did anything wrong, you would be held equally as guilty.  Fortunately, there is a solution to this dilemma, and it is found in the principles of Natural Law.

One of the fundamental principles of Natural Law (and the Social Contract) is the notion of the rule of law.  We can have organizations that do things against the will of some of its members without imparting guilt to the members who object.  As  long as an organization does not violate the law, the members who oppose a given action bare no guilt for that action.  This is because there can be no guilt where no law has been broken.

On the other hand, if an organization does something that is against the law, every member of that organization has a duty to object and report that action, and seek to have the person or persons who actually set that action into motion and performed the action held accountable to the law.  Any member of an organization that does not object and seek to see justice done admits to being complicit in that crime (in this case, by the act of remaining silent).  Once again: membership implies agreement, and agreement implies the group acts in the name of every member.  Therefore, sine no one can transfer responsibility for their actions to another person or thing, remaining silent implies consent, which is an admission of guilt.

Now, I can already anticipate objections to my argument.  First, some will try to say they cannot be held responsible if part of a group does something without their knowledge.  I agree, but then, members of a group have a duty to be aware of everything that group is doing — especially since it is being done in their name.  This also applies to those members who choose to remain silent after they learn the group committed a lawless action.  Such members become guilty after the fact (remember:silence implies agreement/consent).  This is why I said any member of  a group who learns of a violation of the law by that group after it has happened has a duty to renounce the action and seek justice against the members who committed the action.  By seeking justice, an individual demonstrates they are not only innocent, but support the law.  Anything less is an admission of complicity, which makes the individual equally guilty of the crime.

This is true because the act of joining a group is a willful action.  By joining a group, a person is accepting a duty to be aware of everything each member of the group does in the group’s name.  By joining a group, the individual also agrees to accept responsibility for every action performed in the name of the group.  Continued membership in a group is a continual affirmation of these duties and responsibilities.  It is simply a form of the Social Contract, only on a smaller scale.  This is why people should be careful about joining a group and, if they join, vigilant in their duties and responsibilities as a part of that group.

[NOTE: In some cases, this may mean that members of a group are continuously acting in the name of their group.  Examples would be membership in the military, police force, or elected office.  In each of these three examples, the job description stipulates that there is no time when members are considered to be free of the requirements of that group (or job, function, etc).  In other words, members of these groups willingly give up their claim to ‘privacy’ when they join the group.]

So, the next time you hear someone claim that they are excluding or excusing members of a group, understand that — under Natural Law — that person is acting lawlessly.  They are trying to excuse the individual accountability of the members of that group or organization.  That is a violation of Natural Law.  Likewise, if a member of a group tries to claim they are innocent of some action performed by that group, and that person has not objected to that act and sought legal recourse against those who committed the act, that person is violating Natural Law.  One simply cannot join their voice to a cause, movement party or organization and then claim they are not responsible for whatever is done in the name of that cause, movement party or organization.  Nor can we excuse the members of that group.  This is because a person can choose to leave a group. Therefore, if a person remains part of a group, and that group is lawless, we are justified in calling that person lawless.

If this society still understood and believed in the principles of Natural Law, the current argument over healthcare would be simple to resolve.  Here is a simple outline of how healthcare would look under Natural Law.

SECTION I:

1 — No person can or will be forced to provide insurance for another.  (This effectively removes the government from the equation.)

Any person who does not purchase their own healthcare policy will be allowed to suffer the consequences of their choice!  Government has no responsibility and no authority to provide for healthcare in any way.  This is because it must take from one and give to another simply for the good of the receiver.  This tramples the rights of the person being taken from.  To do so would be another form of slavery, or forced servitude, both of which are not only violations of Natural law, but already outlawed by our current Constitution.

[Note: This would also end employer-provided health insurance.]

2 — The government will not hinder private charity. 

[Note: The government has pushed churches and other private charities out of the health care industry.  Before that happened, they were the primary means of caring for those who truly needed help, and they are still the best means of doing so because they are best able to determine who needs the help and who does not.]

SECTION II:

Because corporations are products of legislation, they remain under the control of legislation (i.e. the public).  Therefore, the following changes will be made to the laws governing health insurance:

1 –Healthcare insurance will be sold for catastrophic or long-term care only!  No routine care will be allowed under a healthcare insurance policy. 

(This will bring down costs of routine care by forcing both health care providers and the customer back into the free market.  Since the key to obtaining cheap rates is to get a long-term policy while as young as possible, this also solves the problem of keeping costs low and extending coverage to more people.)

2 — All policies will be sold similar to life insurance: over a set period of years with a fixed benefit amount and fixed monthly cost. 

(This solves the problem of price increases.

Ex: a policy may be sold for 20 years, or until age 65, cover a total of $500,000 in catastrophic medical expenses at a fixed monthly cost of $100.]

3 — An insured cannot be dropped for filing a claim.

(This solves the problem of existing conditions.)

4 — Rates may not be increased if an insured files a claim. 

(This keeps rates low for those who need to use their insurance.)

5 — Policies will be allowed to be sold across State lines.

(This is the free market.)

CONCLUSION:

There will be a need to address some other details, such as setting limits for when an insurance company will be allowed to drop an insured for lack of payment, or extending coverage to children born with life-time health care issues.  But this is what the basic outline for how healthcare insurance under Natural law would look.

Notice the problems this outline solves:

1 — The government would no longer be able to force one citizen to pay for the healthcare of another.  This would return the government of its proper role of protecting the rights of all citizens equally, without the current bias against ‘the rich’ and for ‘the poor.’

2 — No more problems with ‘pre-existing’ conditions.  A child will be born with coverage, and persons who develop long-term problems later in life will be able to keep their policy.  What’s more, the premiums will be fixed, so the insurance company will not be allowed to drop a person who gets sick, nor will the insurance company be allowed to raise premiums on those people who file claims.  It is assumed that the company would have factored all the risk into the original price of the policy.

3 — The government will lose its ability to control the People through their employer or government-funded healthcare.

4 — The cost of routine medicine would be returned to market forces.  This would lower the cost of a doctor’s visit, as well as for most medications.

Naturally, this does not cover everything, but then, this post is not intended to be a replacement bill for the current mess we’ve made of things.  Obviously, other details would need to be addressed, such as malpractice insurance.  But that is not the purpose of this post.  The purpose of this post is merely an outline detailing how healthcare insurance could be addressed under the principles of Natural law.  However, it should be noted that anything outside the basic boundaries addressed in this outline would be outside the principles of Natural law.

Tomi Lahren recently demonstrated that she does not understand nor support the Constitution.  She did this when she claimed she has to be ‘pro-choice’ or she cannot claim to support the Constitution.  She said that claiming to support the Constitution while being ‘pro-life’ would make her a hypocrite.  SHE IS WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS!  Here’s the video of her comment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOT3EiKCL-w

First, abortion is a violation of Natural Law — period!

Second, the Constitution specifically states that it protects the rights of the un-born.  The preamble of the Constitution states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The definition of ‘posterity‘ is ‘future generations:’ i.e. the un-born.

But more than this, the founders did not see the Declaration of Independence as being separable from the Constitution.  They understood them as being joined.  In fact, the Declaration, and not the Constitution, is the founding document of the United States.  The two documents were separated by the Progressives, so they could argue that our system of government is ‘secular.’  But the Declaration is the foundation of the Constitution.  Without the Declaration, you do not have a right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.  These things are not protected in the Constitution, and, under the modern, Progressive interpretation of the Constitution, if a right is not specifically protected under the Bill of Rights, it doesn’t exist.  This is how they can make the argument that abortion is not murder.

But the founders joined the Constitution to the Declaration, and the Declaration clearly states that life is a right given by the Creator from the moment of creation.  The Constitution then states that its purpose is to protect that right.  This means that the Constitution prohibits abortion — and the Supreme Court actually knows this (they just don’t care).  Any rational person who submits to Natural Law and the rule of law under it knows that abortion is murder.  And anyone who does not understand that Natural law and the U.S. Constitution both prohibit abortion is lawless period!

THE FOUNDERS WORDS AND EXAMPLE

As with most of the legal questions we think the founders never considered,, if we would bother to look, we will usually find that they not only addressed those issues, but they explained their legality under the Constitution and demonstrated intent by their own actions.  In the case of abortion, the founders considered it murder and, thus, illegal under Natural law, Common Law and the Constitution:

“Human life from its commencement to its close is protected by the common law. In the contemplations of law life begins when the infant is fist able to stir in the womb by the law is protected.”

— James Wilson, signer of the Declaration and Constitution

At the time, the earliest a woman could know she was pregnant was when she first felt her child move inside her.   This is because they did not have the means to tell sooner than this, as we do today.  If they had, the founders would have used language stating that the child is protected from whatever point the mother knew she was pregnant.  Some have argued this is not the case, but they do so only by ignoring what the founders said.  For example, Wilson expanded upon his position on abortion:

“Some nations have given parents the power of life and death over their children. But here in America, we have denied the power of life and death to parents.”

Thomas Jefferson, writing as a member of the Virginia legislature at the time, also stated that abortion is murder: the intentional taking of an innocent life.

This is one time when Glenn Beck is at his best.  Here is the first of a four-part series that lets the founders speak for themselves.  It does use research from Dr. David Barton, who has been personally attacked by those on the political Left.  But this is because Barton does not quote Left-leaning historians to support his work: he quotes the founders, themselves!  Dr. Barton owns the largest collection of writings from the time of America’s founding outside of the Library of Congress.  This is why he is attacked: because he actually owns the truth, and the truth proves that the founders rejected much of the Progressive agenda, and so does the Constitution.

The argument that a woman has a ‘right’ to abort her child because she has a right to control her body is a false argument — period!  This is a violation of Natural Law on several points.  It is past time we understand this, and understand that those who refuse to do so are lawless.

First, by definition, the un-born child is a separate person.  The life being ended is not the mother, nor is it part of the mother’s body.  It is a person all unto itself.  The un-born child has it’s own DNA and its own free will.  Therefore, it is a unique person which, by definition, makes abortion murder — period!

Furthermore, the claim that the mother has a ‘right’ to murder the un-born is a violation of Natural Law.  No one has a ‘right’ to end a life — not even their own!  The ending of a life is an attack on that person’s free will.  Even if it is that person taking their own life, it is still an attack on their own will.  Therefore, there can be no ‘right’ to murder another.  It is a violation of Natural Law to even make such a claim.

Finally, under Natural Law, the mother has a duty to the un-born child.  The moment she has sex, she has accepted any and all responsibility for the result.  If she is not willing to accept the possibility of pregnancy, she should not have sex.  This duty to any possible child is inherent in Natural Law.  When we commit others to a course of action without their consent, we have a duty to them.  Since the child has no ability to consent to its own creation, this imparts a duty to protect any child created to the mother who created it (father too).

This responsibility to the un-born supersedes the argument of abortion in case of the mother’s life being threatened.  The willful engagement in the act of sex binds the mother to her duty to the un-born child.  This extends to the point of — if possible — sacrificing one’s own life to preserve the un-born.  The only time there is even a possibility of making a case for aborting an unborn is if the mother will certainly die before the un-born matures to a stage where it can survive outside the womb.  Such conditions are extremely rare, and it still leaves us with the fact that we are trying to justify the killing of an innocent person and abandonment of personal responsibility.

The only possible exception to this is pregnancy as the result of rape.  In this case, both the mother and child are innocent victims.  However, no matter what argument we make to justify abortion of a child conceived out of rape, the un-born child remains an innocent party, in which case, abortion is murder.

There is one last aspect to this issue: the responsibility of the father.  A father is equally as responsible for the care of the un-born as the mother.  He accepts this responsibility when he willingly engages in the act of sex with the mother.  There is no way to separate the parents from their duty to their child.  It is inherent under Natural law in that they created a new life without its consent.  Thus, they are responsible for the care of that child until such time as the child can totally care for itself.

This is my blog.  It is dedicated to the principles of Natural law — as our founders understood them (i.e. Locke, not Hobbs).  It is further dedicated to the manner by which our founders applied their understanding of Natural Law to the foundation of this nation and its government.  Comments are welcomed and encouraged.  And you should feel free to disagree.  I do not shy away from differing opinions.  However, because this site is dedicated to Natural Law, and the principles of logic are a part of Natural Law, fallacious arguments are not going to be permitted on this board.  If you disagree, you need to either make a sound, valid and rational argument supporting your position and/or present some sort of evidence to support it.  There are three major examples that are especially egregious, and care should be taken to avoid them.  They are:

First, ad hominem (or, ‘against the man’):

This is when someone assumes information cannot be correct because of its source.  For example, if I cite something written from Adolf Hitler, and a reader claims it cannot be trusted because it came from Adolf Hitler, that is ad hominem.  It is a mistake to assume that something must be wrong simply because of who said it.  We must look at what is being said and show why it is wrong.  After all, what if I say Hitler said the sky is blue and a reader claimed it can’t be true because it came from Hitler? In that case, Hitler would be correct and the reader would be wrong.

It is also ad hominem when a reader insults or attempts to destroy the character of another person. The example here is when we call someone a NAZI without providing a reasoned argument as to why the term should apply.  If the insult is intended merely to taint or tarnish a person in the eyes of others, it is ad hominem.

Neither forms are based in logic; therefore, neither will be well received on this board.

Second, appeal to authority:

This is when a reader assumes something must be true because of the source (where the source is usually highly regarded).  It is similar to ad hominem, only in reverse. For example: if a person says that something must be true because the Pope said so, even if the Pope was speaking about the Bible, it does not mean the Pope is correct.  People are human, and we all make mistakes.  This is why we cannot accept a person’s good reputation as evidence of truth anymore than we can assume bad reputation is evidence of falsehood.

Finally, unsupported assertion:

This is when a person makes a claim without providing anything to support it.  One must provide a rational argument or some other form of evidence to support their claim.  We cannot simply say something and just act as though it is true and must be accepted by others as true.  This is not sound reasoning.

There are many other forms of fallacy, and you can find them here.  Please understand, everyone is susceptible to making them.  Even the most disciplined of philosophers make them from time to time.  I will not censor a comment simply because it contains a fallacy.  No, it is by learning where we go wrong and being corrected that we learn.  This is why I welcome correction, myself.  However, once a mistake is pointed out, and correction is offered, if the use of fallacious argument continues, that reader’s comments will not be allowed.  This is because they are committing another fallacy, and, at that point, they are doing it intentionally (the fallacy of misdirection or unrelated issue).

The practices of Machiavelli and Alinsky simply will not be tolerated here.  This board is meant to help people learn and understand, and the people who follow Machiavelli and Alinsky seek just the opposite: to confuse and deceive.  They are natural enemies of Natural Law, and, consequently, of Liberty.