Many Liberals Reject the Idea of America

[Kacper]

Right, but in a natural law state immigrants would have to ask permission to enter, even to cross, my property.

Then natural law wouldn't exist because you don't need permission if it is your right just by being.

[Peter1469]

In fairness, "natural law" is viewed by the left the way "international law" is viewed by the right.

How so?

[Kacper]

How so?

They both only exist when it is convenient to pretend they do.

[Chris]

Then natural law wouldn't exist because you don't need permission if it is your right just by being.

Natural law has to do with having a property in yourself, your opinion and your labor. From this is derived the natural right to property, even unto the use of land. Under such a principle, I have every right to deny you entry to or passage across my property. Were such a principle to predominate and be protected and extend to private road- and water-ways, immigrants would have to ask permission.

But I get it, you're a natural law doesn't exist liberal.

[Peter1469]

They both only exist when it is convenient to pretend they do.

That is not a real link.

And it isn't true.

[Chris]

By coincidence I opened the collection of essays, The Betrayal of Liberalism, to begin one by Hadley Arkes, "Liberalism & the law," which begins:

Before there was a law under the American Constitution, there was an argument about the law. It was an argument, that is, about the ends of the law, and the framework of a lawful government. This was, of course, the argument over the Constitution, and it seems remarkably to have escaped recognition these days that an argument of this kind is itself a dramatic illustration of “natural law.” After all, the very appeal to first principles as the ground of a constitution is itself a move into natural law. If a constitution is to make sense, it must presuppose that there are certain principles of lawfulness that existed, as truths commanding our respect, even before a constitution was framed and enacted.

As John Locke pointed out, the legislature would be the source of the “positive law,” the law that was enacted or posited. But what, he asked, would be the source of the legislature? From what would that spring? The origin was to be found, as Locke said, in understandings that were "antecedent to all positive laws." The ultimate authority to establish a constitution and a legislature depends "wholly on the peope." Before there was a legislature or a constitution define that legislature, there is the right of the people to govern itself by froming a constitution and bringing forth a government restained by law.

...

[Kacper]

Natural law has to do with having a property in yourself, your opinion and your labor. From this is derived the natural right to property, even unto the use of land. Under such a principle, I have every right to deny you entry to or passage across my property. Were such a principle to predominate and be protected and extend to private road- and water-ways, immigrants would have to ask permission.

But I get it, you're a natural law doesn't exist liberal.

I am a natural law doesn't exist libertarian progressive actually. As I told you on the other thread, Hobbes is the only one who got it right.

[Kacper]

That is not a real link.

And it isn't true.

It is true and I have no idea where you get the link thing from since you did not ask for one and I did not post one. You are literally hallucinating.

[Dr. Who]

And natural law is the spirit of American positive laws. Without it, American positive laws sit atop intellectual and moral quicksand.

Natural law is no more natural than positive law. They are both the brainchildren of man. The only law not man made is the law of nature, which is still understood according to man's interpretation of nature. Natural law is predicated on the notion that this law is endowed by God and universally understood through human reason. Except that it is not universally understood.

Natural rights are derivative of natural law i.e. natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Well, the fly in that ointment is that this notion of the right to property stems from the fact that Monarchs, Emperors and other such rulers by familial or devine right owned all the property everywhere at one time - that has to be wrong. So John Locke posited that the earth was given by God to all men in common. Good, great even. However, in the fullness of time, virtually every square inch of the planet has been purchased or is held in allodium by governments. People are being born every day for whom there is no available property. So much for the natural right to property. He also posited that people had a natural right to life and liberty. Which people? The first thing that the founding immigrants to America did was deprive the native population of all of the above. They tried to turn them into slaves, but they simply stopped eating and died. So they captured Africans to use as slaves. A fair number of the founding fathers and so-called believers in natural rights were slave owners (14 of them - only 7 didn't own slaves) which is the antithesis of believing in natural rights or natural law. So much for the universality of human reason or the morality that supposedly stems from it or in fact the moral foundation behind the Constitution.

The Constitution was founded in moral quicksand, which is why it is internally conflicted.

[countryboy]

Historically speaking, the moral and intellectual foundation of America is the theory of natural law. Every founder believed strongly in the legitimacy of this theory, and they based their revolution and the founding of America on it. A cursory examination of the Declaration of Independence evinces as much. Despite this, many liberals openly reject the theory of natural law. Just as one example:


Such statements are common among modern liberals. Not only does this demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of the idea of natural law, it represents a profound disdain for basic American values and traditions.

So the question becomes: Why are so many liberals so hostile towards American values and traditions? Do they not realize that the amazing prosperity and freedom they enjoy is a direct extension of these values and traditions? What is really going on here?

I literally believe it is a form of mental illness. I'm not kidding.