Natural Law

Some of you have NO clue

Here's some LOGICAL clues presented as Socratic Questions. See if you can think beyond the brainwashing of your Public School (Government Indoctrination Center) and the Main Stream Media regurgitating the Government Indoctrination.

1. Do you have a Right-to-Life?
2. Would it be reasonable to expect other humans to not try to kill you?
3. If other humans do try to kill you do you have a Right to Defend yourself from such an attempt to kill you?
4. Would it be reasonable to expect that you are allowed to increase your defensive use of force to the level required to stop the attacker from attempting to kill you?

If you answered "No" to any of those four questions, you have in effect answered "No" to all four questions. You have just identified yourself as being against the concept of Natural Law and against another human having a Right-to-Life.

I have read Statist's claims that the CONstitution (sic) is the social contract. I have also read Statist's claims about some unwritten Social Contract.

Every human has the right of defense against any entity that caused harm, attempted to cause harm, or intends to cause harm. Any human in need of defending against harm, has the right of choosing what is the best method of protecting, defending, and securing themselves from harm. In this context, harm means: injury; damage; loss; pain; appropriation of property; usurpation of rights.

I find that if it goes without saying, then it needs to be said. The right to life is the unwritten social contract. You don't initiate harm against me, I don't initiate harm against you. Natural Law means challenge my right to life at your own peril.

Morality of Natural Law is very simple and very cut and dry, regardless of what those pushing moral relativism claim. If you do something to me and you cause me harm, you have done an immoral act. For the moment I am only focused on deliberate acts of harm.

Deliberate acts of harm are when someone decides to kill another human; steal from another human; physically harm another human; tell lies to or about another human; (often used) to defraud another human.

Causing harm by failing to use due diligence in deciding on an action could be considered inadvertent acts of harm. Unless the person refuses to do due diligence because that person just doesn't care if they harm another human or not.

Natural Law Matters
Natural Law mattered when the Magna Carta was written in 1215.
Natural Law mattered when Locke wrote the Second Treatise of Government in 1690.
Natural Law mattered when the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776.
Natural Law matters when another human attempts to harm you.
Natural Law matters when another human does harm you and refuses to fix the harm.