Natural Law

Natural law is an important topic, and almost never gets discussed in depth, but somehow inevitably ends up in the conversation. This is because it's not properly defined for most people, and many times it gets brought up without anyone having heard that this is a real noun with a word and full definition.

"Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal. Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it."

- Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

     In other words, it's actually just law based on science. Natural law always gives us many options for how individual and groups can behave with one another. Natural law is determinable by (near)everyone with their sense of empathy, provided they didn't have it destroyed through trauma in their development phases. Most people have some idea of what empathy is, but few have the mental focus to combine what is learned from empathy and always commit it to real conduct outside. 

     Natural law is a law based on feelings and messages (both verbal and nonverbal, if applicable). It is the knowledge that certain messages will create certain feelings within the receiver, which are meant to provoke a response for the sender to acknowledge. We all have a basic knowledge about how these cause and effect relations work by the time we're adults. These are simply common laws of nature most people accept without hesitation. 

For example (generally speaking):

- Don't physically attack anyone without cause, that will provoke a strong negative response from everyone.

- Don't be passive aggressive with members of your family, the other person get the real message later rather than sooner.

- Don't invade a home in which the owner has a gun. Anything can happen.

- Don't try to kidnap a bear's cubs. The mother bear will attempt to kill you.

These statements are all rooted in causal relationships reasonably expected in general from the nature of reality. Kids may have problems understanding these relationships, but overtime people learn through experience and also learn to figure out misunderstandings without escalating conflicts anymore than necessary. Among individuals, this is natural law. Most individuals get along with one another perfectly well through this "common legal system of the people".

Groups and governments also know this legal system is commonly understood by their allies and opponents, but often act in complete disregard of these principles. Betraying common law is never without cost though, which the government can only recuperate by threatening and stealing from the citizens through taxes and inflation. Natural law also dictates this can't work forever. A blundering government constantly seeking to cover up their mistakes by passing the costs to other will soon find itself with no more hosts left.

There are other ways people misinterpret natural law as well. 

Notice the teacher telling the child his natural right to sit and stand came from the state. However, only a state can obstruct a natural right (such as to sit during a pledge) through violence. The state can't "grant" this natural option to a paraplegic, only to people who possess the right to stand or sit naturally already.

- When government bans a drug, the drug is never eradicated. The market simply moves underground and cartels may take over if the trade is lucrative enough. Open markets eliminate cartels, and the government is simply on a mad quest to fight human nature (or economics) itself. Most supporters of the drug war believe enacting the law keeps the drug under control, when in fact the higher black market prices encourages producers.

- When a parent punishes their child for doing wrong, it teaches the child nothing about why what they did was wrong, only that they shouldn't be caught doing it. The parent erroneously believes punishment proves to the child the activity is no longer a good idea.

- When a couple engages in hurtful "mind games" with itself. Each member of the couple believes plausible deniability can save them from ever getting caught, but eventually the coincidences and body language changes can send the couple going toward a sudden eruption of emotion. 

Force and hurtful intentions in general, (no matter how concealed) beget resistance. This is natural law, and natural law applies to all. Naturally, most people think it's smart to be on the side of natural law.

"Communism is simply the next stage in history. Capitalism is obsolete. This is because the workers have all the real power and as soon as they realize this, communism will take over and private property can be abolished. Communism is better in all ways than capitalism at everything, and therefore its takeover is inevitable. All humans would benefit from communism, so they will fight to establish it."

"Eventually, the black market will starve the state. This is because the true producers in society will simply have too little incentive left to continue trying to prop up the American society and government, and will prefer to a voluntary system of private property. The dollar will hyperinflate, and true capitalism will be restored. Capitalism is better than all philosophies that demand non-voluntary interactions. Human nature loves capitalism and will fight to restore it. This is inevitable."

"Civilization will bring itself to a toxic climax eventually and a major ecological catastrophe will wipe out global civilization as we know it. The only people left will be those that chose to exit civilization and live in harmony with nature. The imbalance civilized people feel because of their soul-less culture causes them to "de-humanize" the environment and harm things they actually depend on. When civilization collapses, even if it's just a few native Americans high in the Andes, the time of the primitivist will return. Nature loves harmony, and the steady march of evolution will shed the non-essential parts. This is inevitable."

Many other notable historical figures and documents have cited their support and appeal for societies to conform to natural law, as best as people know it.

Natural law theories have ... exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius,Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, as well as in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Declarationism states that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.

- Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Plato was also a fan of natural law.

According to Plato we live in an orderly universe. At the basis of this orderly universe or nature are the forms, most fundamentally the Form of the Good, which Plato describes as "the brightest region of Being". The Form of the Good is the cause of all things and when it is seen it leads a person to act wisely. In the Symposium, the Good is closely identified with the Beautiful. Also in the Symposium, Plato describes how the experience of the Beautiful by Socrates enables him to resist the temptations of wealth and sex. In the Republic, the ideal community is, "...a city which would be established in accordance with nature."

- Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

The United States of course, has largely no idea what natural law is or that its government is on a mad quest to destroy it from people's minds. To think about natural law demands independent critical thinking, because by definition it is a system of ethics and reasoning which one has to look for beyond authority to find.

The Harvey Two Face Strategy in Politics

American libertarianism is finally gaining traction. We can see this evidently from polls, the increased rate of escalation of the police state, and the increased vitriolic rhetoric from state-lovers. If there was any sign truly confirming that libertarianism is growing, it would be all the forces against it rising. But the higher rate of adoption comes with many costs. Will libertarianism go the way of communism and the tea party, being hijacked by a few clever but determined people seeking power over the movement at all costs? Or will libertarianism in the United States once again become the globe's beacon that rights and liberty are real, and prove that markets can function completely independent of coercion?

The latter seems preferable but comes at a price for the current ruling class. Corporations that depend on protectionism, cheap labor, and subsidies will fight libertarianism to keep their power. Politics is like a poker game. The players are cordial to each other, but everyone knows to win the game requires complete eradication of the enemy's chips. Libertarians understand this-- that what they're asking is for the ruling class to give up its power or for the black market in some form or another to starve the state. The ruling class also understands this perfectly well.

The battle isn't between libertarians and the state yet. The battle is currently between libertarians and themselves. There are presently two narratives about society and state that will decide which way the movement will go.

1) The current state is legitimate, and reformable. It may not be perfect, but it's not as if Congress is full of ex-KGB communists. Eventually political pressure will force the state to give up most of its power, through candidates like Rand Paul who can unite the conservatives and moderates.

2) The current state is illegitimate. They are perfect in their operations, complete with all the incentives necessary to make sure the ruling class makes lots of money from the working class in America, poised to try to dominate the world, and even contains the illusion of the chance of a free society through mass media and an electoral system that largely agrees but allows occasional outliers on the political spectrum (but carefully none in positions of power to change anything real).

To examine which is true, some basic facts must be established as true or false.

For the first narrative to be true:

• Rand Paul must provide evidence he will not be corrupted and bought out.
• Rand Paul must show he plans decentralizing power away from the state, not towards it.
• Rand Paul must find a way to sway powerful interests within politics to give up power.

For the second narrative to be true:

• Rand Paul (and even Ron Paul) will provide evidence they can be corrupted and bought out.
• Rand Paul will show he is planning on centralizing power further for the state.
• Rand Paul will find a way to compromise with powerful interests for power. 

If these premises are accepted, the evidence seems glaringly biased. 

Point #1: Rand Paul must provide evidence he will not be corrupted and bought out.

After the failed 2012 presidential bid of Ron Paul, a surprising video emerged on the internet of Penny Freeman. Penny Freeman came onto Adam Kokesh's show Adam vs. The Man in an effort to disclose truth about Ron Paul that wasn't found on mainstream media airways, although one would have imagined this to be broadcast by liberals-- considering they chose instead to focus on racist writings written by someone else. Although published under his name by some trusted source, Paul's positions on the drug war, poverty, and inflation clearly prove he's genuinely concerned about upward mobility for those in the working class, the most disadvantaged of whom being minorities and non-whites. Penny Freeman broke into tears during the interview discussing how she believed Ron Paul had been bought. Adam Kokesh asked excellent, penetrating questions about the specifics, and Freeman gave details on how she believed there should not have been any chance of Ron Paul failing given the ideas he had and his track record as a Congressman. She explains that she had experience in real grassroots campaigning in Texas, and that given how much money was donated to Paul's campaign from his supporters, there should have been a monumental grassroots campaign that couldn't have failed. Instead, the campaign stayed largely online and the campaign itself was managed by Jesse Benton, an outspoken neoconservative. Many in the liberty community refer to him as an obvious RINO (Republican In Name Only).

Jesse Benton is an interesting character. Benton is married to Ron Paul's granddaughter, and is currently working for Mitch McConnell. McConnell is currently the 7th most senior Senator and 4th most senior Republican. Unsurprisingly, he doesn't have any strong liberty voting record. Thomas E. Woods also had a few words to say about Jesse Benton. 

"...how much money would you have to be paid to work for an enemy of the things you’re supposed to stand for? Maybe now people will understand why Jesse would fly into a tirade after some of Ron’s most heroic moments, when the rest of us were cheering...

...Early on in the campaign I posted a note that under the circumstances I thought was astonishingly restrained. I said that if the fundraising success of 2008 was to be surpassed, the grassroots would have to be persuaded that professionals would be brought on this time, that debate coaching would take place as it does in all other campaigns, etc. Nothing could have been more obvious than that. And this was obviously the note of a friend, not an enemy.

Jesse, on the other hand, denounced me in a series of emails, and made perfectly clear that I was to be cut off from everything — the campaign, Campaign for Liberty, etc."

How was a neoconservative put in charge of Ron Paul's campaign? Perhaps it was just a mistake.

What is stranger still is how Ron Paul was still cheated out of the election at the end, as detailed here. What this means is something people can only speculate at, but evidence points to the liberty campaign being sabotaged from inside as well as outside.

Point #2: Rand Paul must show he plans decentralizing power away from the state, not towards it.

In this area, Rand Paul has a slightly mixed track record, but overall it's quite clean. For example, he is quite well known for his support for a balanced budget amendment, opposition to bailouts, rolling back military spending, opposition to unlawful searches, and opposition to gun control. Because they are well known, it makes little sense to cite them all, but they can all be read in detail here.

Point #3: Rand Paul must find a way to sway powerful interests within politics to give up power, instead of endlessly compromising to gain power for himself.

This is the most difficult (but also most important) area, and Rand Paul has been less than stellar. What's going on here?

• He supports stopping NSA wiretapping, but wants to imprison Snowden for whistle-blowing.
• He supports ending indefinite detention, but wants to keep Guantanamo open (why even keep Guantanamo open then?).
• He isn't too worried about nuclear weapons in North Korea, but willing to apply economic sanctions against Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons (nuclear weapons are also available to all through the black market).
• He supports states rights deciding on gay marriage, but supports the landmark United States vs. Windsor Supreme Court decision to federally define marriage as only for heterosexual unions.
• He opposes the PATRIOT act and warrantless wiretapping because of his principles to the constitution, but endorsed an establishment republican with complete opposite stances to block a liberty democrat.
• He opposes big government picking winners and loser in the market, but supports the creation of select cities to create "economic freedom zones" of lower taxes and regulations.. picked by the state.

These are the more curious decisions he's made, which don't include obviously political moves such as opposing the federal legalization of recreational marijuana, or his pro-Israel stance. Here, Rand Paul clearly falls into the same trap as the Libertarian Party. In order to gain power and influence, he is being forced to compromise his values. There is no other explanation for some of the things he's done and said, but is it all in vain? 

The truth is, the very fact that he has to become a "Harvey Two-Face" (a character from Batman whom no one in government can tell how virtuous he is, but secretly aids Batman) proves his ambitious quest is impossible. If what voters wanted mattered, there is no reason to compromise values. His job would then just be to prove to the voters his stances are what they want and need, and pursue the path of liberty and American exceptionalism to its fullest extent (according to Paul, American exceptionalism means unapologetic pride in the founding values of America) if that's what he really believes in. This is clearly not what is happening though. Paul understands his job is to infiltrate an organization that is morally vile and soulless. He understands there is no hope of accomplishing anything meaningful without being a darling of the mainstream media, owned by America's wealthy elite. The incoming election will expose everything to the informed participant of the election, but some indications of what will happen have already surfaced. 

According to Time Magazine's Zeke Miller:

"...several donors who have had private conversations with Paul about his foreign policy said those talks have not assuaged their concerns. And unlike his father, whose intensely supportive base was fairly contained, they worry that Paul’s smoother approach could make him a contender. “Can he win Iowa, yes. Can he win New Hampshire, yes. Can he win the nomination, maybe — and that’s scary,” says one former Mitt Romney bundler at the conference who did not want to be named.

On the margins of the conference, where attendees heard from four potential 2016 candidates who advocated for a strong American foreign policy and support for Israel, five donors huddled with a reporter pledged to reach into their deep pockets to ensure Paul doesn’t win the GOP nomination.

“The best thing that could happen is Ted Cruz and Rand Paul run and steal each other’s support,” says one of the donors, “but if not, we’ll be ready to take Paul down.”

Several prominent GOP donors at the conference suggested that Adelson, who spent more than $100 million backing Newt Gingrich and Romney in 2012, is likely to spend vast sums against Paul if he appears to be well positioned in the Republican primaries."

Full text is here

Only Time can tell what will happen (pun intended), but Paul underestimates how closed the political process really is. The simple fact remains that there are extremely wealthy people with a lot to lose and many resources at their disposal, and there is no shortage of propaganda (much of which has been discussed above, but doesn't even scratch the surface) that can be used to discredit him. Democratic opposition will be undermined by the Benghazi scandal, so it's likely whoever wins the Republican nomination will take the helm of the nation.

At best, Rand Paul is the closest thing to the perfect infiltrator. Just as an evil person masquerades as a good person to wreck havoc on unsuspecting victims, Rand Paul is doing the opposite. At worst, he's a great "public works project" to the liberty movement, steering vast amounts of money and resources fruitlessly away from ways to achieve liberty outside of the political system. This may be exactly what the United States needs to millions more of disillusioned anarchists, though. If Rand Paul can't do it, then who?