Excellent piece Alex. I was the MC at a wedding recently, international crowd, my first toast was to 'natural law, serendipity and attraction'. Natural law, as I grow older in the countryside of St France, is unambiguously the only one that matters...
Wikileaks just dumped all of their files online. Everything from Hillary Clinton's emails, McCain's being guilty, Vegas shooting done by an FBI sniper, Steve Jobs HIV letter, PedoPodesta, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Bilderberg, CIA agents arrested for rape, WHO pandemic. Happy Digging! Here you go, please read and pass it on..... https://file.wikileaks.org/file/... These are Clinton’s emails: https://file.wikileaks.org/file/clinton-emails/
I have been in court for the past four years with a problem that the courts have no easy solution for: I am seriously allergic to mold; it has damaged my heart and kidneys. It's next to impossible to sue landlord for exposure to it. I've been in federal court on a case for the past 3 years. My opponents are 3 national corporations with 5 defendants. I am conducting this case pro se. There is also an ongoing state case against landlord; in both suits I am not seeking monetary damages I simply want them to eradicate the mold. Through this process I have had to learn law as I've gone along. I am a seeress and so understand that there is a psychic component to it. The more attuned to oneself, to one's inner being the better one fares before the bench as is true in all areas of life. I believe that students in school should be trained to represent themself on the more basic, simpler cases in court which iempowers one as an active citizen. Thanks Alex, great conference!
HI Alex, I'm not sure if you read this if so I would love to chat with you. Unfortunately what the speakers spoke on at that conference is not an accurate depiction of the system of law we are in. They aren't the only ones, many people interested in 'freedom' have seemed to gotten caught up in mythology, echoed by what you picked up about what they were saying regarding contracts and contracting away things with birth documents, etc etc. Those aren't accurate depictions...and unfortunately foster a belief in peoples minds that actually end up creating more chaos (and subsequent order that would follow) and many respects impacts the freedoms that are found in law.
Law simply is nothing but agreements between men, and just because agreements were made that established the system of law we are in now when I wasn't around, it doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. If that was the case, integrity would be out the window and no one would trust anyone.
Regardless, when you examine the system of law from its origins things make much more sense, unfortunately few do that. And end up speaking about it in a foggy way, like for example when people speak of natural law, almost relating to it as if it is the law of nature, two distinct different things in law.
This is getting long but if you are interested I would love to shed some light on it as someone that has studied it from its origin.
The "inalienable rights" of the many are opposed by the political and economic power of the few. No system of self-government has yet been perfected which can prevent the concentration of such power, the subversion of any constraints, and the abuse of those "rights". The present system resembles the "democratic despotism" predicted by Alexis de Toqueville nearly 200 years ago in his book "Democracy in America" (1835):
"After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate... Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd." rawhistory.com/democratic-despotism-as-described-by-alexis-de-tocqueville/
Natural law are the laws of nature. It is a dog eat dog world in nature. Laws of the jungle have nothing to do with property. You are not granted an acre of land with a 3 bedroom 3 bath home at birth. Property boundaries require man-made laws. Killing, rape, assault, theft, and cheating are givens in natural law. A grizzly will eat people in nature. Then you belong to him.
To combat the king of the jungle with the biggest nuclear weapon, the "State" must be employed.
Ludwig von Mises is correct,
"One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the State: the protection of Property, Liberty, and Peace.”
Perhaps Sultan Mehmed II could have benefitted from these speakers. Despite his noble soul and love for the beauty of Constantinople, he gave the city over to his soldiers for the customary 3 days of burning and pillaging which he couldn’t in good conscience deny his army after their trials in taking the city. It was their right, and they had earned it.
Oh god, Letsrock! we're in the same boat. My things are also in storage. perhaps we should continue this conversation in private. My email is luhren@gmail.com
Ok, despite the general excitement about this post - it seems to me that speakers (and Alex) had summarised and generalised modernity’s take on law, freedom, rights.....etc. There is nothing wrong with that if you acknowledge that this is a particular, historical formulation of how we understand law. As Hannah Arendt said, there are no human rights, there are only political rights. The idea of inalienable rights is nice, but if there is no state to enforce it....
Excellent piece Alex. I was the MC at a wedding recently, international crowd, my first toast was to 'natural law, serendipity and attraction'. Natural law, as I grow older in the countryside of St France, is unambiguously the only one that matters...
Off Topic perhaps but IMPORTANT!!!
Wikileaks just dumped all of their files online. Everything from Hillary Clinton's emails, McCain's being guilty, Vegas shooting done by an FBI sniper, Steve Jobs HIV letter, PedoPodesta, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Bilderberg, CIA agents arrested for rape, WHO pandemic. Happy Digging! Here you go, please read and pass it on..... https://file.wikileaks.org/file/... These are Clinton’s emails: https://file.wikileaks.org/file/clinton-emails/
Index file! https://file.wikileaks.org/file/...
I have been in court for the past four years with a problem that the courts have no easy solution for: I am seriously allergic to mold; it has damaged my heart and kidneys. It's next to impossible to sue landlord for exposure to it. I've been in federal court on a case for the past 3 years. My opponents are 3 national corporations with 5 defendants. I am conducting this case pro se. There is also an ongoing state case against landlord; in both suits I am not seeking monetary damages I simply want them to eradicate the mold. Through this process I have had to learn law as I've gone along. I am a seeress and so understand that there is a psychic component to it. The more attuned to oneself, to one's inner being the better one fares before the bench as is true in all areas of life. I believe that students in school should be trained to represent themself on the more basic, simpler cases in court which iempowers one as an active citizen. Thanks Alex, great conference!
HI Alex, I'm not sure if you read this if so I would love to chat with you. Unfortunately what the speakers spoke on at that conference is not an accurate depiction of the system of law we are in. They aren't the only ones, many people interested in 'freedom' have seemed to gotten caught up in mythology, echoed by what you picked up about what they were saying regarding contracts and contracting away things with birth documents, etc etc. Those aren't accurate depictions...and unfortunately foster a belief in peoples minds that actually end up creating more chaos (and subsequent order that would follow) and many respects impacts the freedoms that are found in law.
Law simply is nothing but agreements between men, and just because agreements were made that established the system of law we are in now when I wasn't around, it doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. If that was the case, integrity would be out the window and no one would trust anyone.
Regardless, when you examine the system of law from its origins things make much more sense, unfortunately few do that. And end up speaking about it in a foggy way, like for example when people speak of natural law, almost relating to it as if it is the law of nature, two distinct different things in law.
This is getting long but if you are interested I would love to shed some light on it as someone that has studied it from its origin.
i appreciate this blog post, Alex.
i gave it to my 13 an 11 year olds to read and report back on as an intro to our discussion of 'law'..
Keep going to conferences with such good messages and then share the information with us.
I like your definition of freedom. It's important for us to know what we are fighting for.
The "inalienable rights" of the many are opposed by the political and economic power of the few. No system of self-government has yet been perfected which can prevent the concentration of such power, the subversion of any constraints, and the abuse of those "rights". The present system resembles the "democratic despotism" predicted by Alexis de Toqueville nearly 200 years ago in his book "Democracy in America" (1835):
"After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate... Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd." rawhistory.com/democratic-despotism-as-described-by-alexis-de-tocqueville/
God puts the law in our hearts. It is up to us to choose to do right or wrong. Genesis 1:26-28.
Hi Alex, Great as always. Very good, very informative and educational to me. Regards Peter
Powerful message, Alex, and undoubtedly, an eye-opening one. Thank you!
Congratulations - I am very impressed. With young people like that, we have a future!
Natural law are the laws of nature. It is a dog eat dog world in nature. Laws of the jungle have nothing to do with property. You are not granted an acre of land with a 3 bedroom 3 bath home at birth. Property boundaries require man-made laws. Killing, rape, assault, theft, and cheating are givens in natural law. A grizzly will eat people in nature. Then you belong to him.
To combat the king of the jungle with the biggest nuclear weapon, the "State" must be employed.
Ludwig von Mises is correct,
"One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the State: the protection of Property, Liberty, and Peace.”
Perhaps Sultan Mehmed II could have benefitted from these speakers. Despite his noble soul and love for the beauty of Constantinople, he gave the city over to his soldiers for the customary 3 days of burning and pillaging which he couldn’t in good conscience deny his army after their trials in taking the city. It was their right, and they had earned it.
Oh god, Letsrock! we're in the same boat. My things are also in storage. perhaps we should continue this conversation in private. My email is luhren@gmail.com
Ok, despite the general excitement about this post - it seems to me that speakers (and Alex) had summarised and generalised modernity’s take on law, freedom, rights.....etc. There is nothing wrong with that if you acknowledge that this is a particular, historical formulation of how we understand law. As Hannah Arendt said, there are no human rights, there are only political rights. The idea of inalienable rights is nice, but if there is no state to enforce it....