➽ I've got to say this excerpt is leaving me with so many more questions than it resolved.
⇉ Natural Law is your unalienable right to protect all of your Natural Rights from those who would attempt to encroach upon and violate those rights. This means: If I attempt to harm you, my right to not be harmed by you is forfeit to you.
➽ I still don't know what Natural Law is, because I don't know what this author means by "Natural rights". It seems odd to use the term "right" to mean "right to protect rights", and I don't know how I would determine if a thing is a right or not, even given their example. Do I have the right to eat? Do I have the right to go where I please? Do I have the right to defend my person from the violence you use on me upon finding me on "your" property eating food from "your" tree? Do I have the "Natural right" to retaliate the violence you cause upon my son or friend who did this? Without some test as to what is and is not a Natural Right, I cannot use this definition of Natural Law.
⇉ Natural Law is Quid pro Quo. Something for Something. That Something could be a positive or a negative.
➽ Again, the same problem arises. What is the Something and when does it work logically? I take from you therefore you do not feel the pain of my beating you. You give me your shiny object and I leave you alone. You stop me from going where I wish and I attack your family. All of these seem to fulfill the Quid pro Quo set, but I wouldn't think any are very desirable. This test seems flawed, and another definition I cannot use.
⇉ Natural Law is YDOM (You Don't Own Me). YDOM is the initial natural state of being. YDOM is a self-evident truth. YDOM means: I don't own you; your life; your liberty, or your property. Since I don't own you, I do not have any authority over you. Lacking this authority over you, I can not delegate it (give it or sell it) to any body else. Since nobody else owns you either, Nobody else has authority over you either.
➽ YDOM is self evident, so everyone understands that they cannot own property of another. Except that it seems people very often don't understand such. Children must be taught that what they desire is not theirs, or they simply take it. So property cannot be self evident. Is liberty self evident? I have not seen many examples that children know they can go as far as they wish from their parents, but that may be learned behavior. This also seems at odds at times with property ownership- do you have the liberty to go onto another's property? I would think that owning yourself and your life might be self evident, but when grouped with the others here it makes me question that. If it is self-evident, is there anyone who disagrees (as such might be a case for why it is not self-evident)? A communist might say you belong to a collective. A religion might say you belong to their God. What makes Natural Law correct here and them wrong?
⇉ Primum non nocere Latin for First, do no harm. To put this in other words, Do not initiate force, violence, or harm against others. This does not preclude you from responding to initiated force and violence with your own defensive force and violence. The logical extension of Do no harm is to use only the least amount of defensive force and violence against the aggressor as required to stop the initiated force, violence, and harm. In other circles this is referred to as NAP and ZAP. (Non Aggression Principle and Zero Aggression Principle.) NAP and ZAP does not mean Pacifism. In my opinion, Pacifism is a method of inducing self harm by not protecting one's self from external harm.
➽ I do not see how "First" and "Do no harm" equate to "only do harm after another does harm", nor do I see how to determine from this what level of response I should have against aggression. A guy in my house at night without my permission is a threat to my life, and I will respond as such. Is that the "least amount of defensive force"?
I might have been able to just ask them to leave. That might have given them a chance to attack or kill me. How do I use this in any way as an objective measurement?
⇉ If you have, for whatever reason, initiated harm against another human, repair the harm to the victim's satisfaction. This should not be too hard to understand. Imagine if you were harmed in the same way. What would you want as compensation and repair of the harm? Offer that to the human you harmed, and if agreed to, make it happen, repair the harm you caused.
➽ "If agreed to" seems to be pulling a lot of weight here. What if I desire compensation you think unfair? You broke my wooden fence, therefore I desire you to build me a brick wall. If you don't agree, then how does this "rule" work?
⇉ There are no collective human rights without individual human rights.
➽ Not even going to post the rest of that. What is a collective right? This is another new term that is not defined. What collectives must I be a part of to get a "right"? Which collectives prevent my getting a "right"? Is the same as a "Natural Right" and denying it under these terms allows me to use violence upon you?
⇉ Natural Law Tool
⇉ I will give you one tool YOU can use to free yourself from your slavery: YDOM. YDOM means You Don't Own Me.
⇉ It's the mindset of a free mind.
⇉ Here's how it will work: Since you know that nobody owns you, you know that you do not need to obey the commands and demands that you know will cause you harm. Anytime a tyrant (a government official) or criminal (I repeat myself) attempts to control you, just assume they intend to cause you harm; be it financial, physical, psychological, or emotional. If you are a prudent person, you will have already decided and planned the best method to curtail such attempted victimization and use that method as planned. There are those who believe they own others in spite of "YDOM!" being shouted from the rooftops. These tyrants and criminals must be resisted at every opportunity. A society of increasing YDOMists, would have the self defensive duty of educating the brainwashed, indoctrinated, inculcated dumb masses who need to awaken to rejecting and resisting their slavery. YDOMists would know that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control, and would resist extortionists because extortionists do NOT own their victims.
➽ I can appreciate the desire to be free. I can also see quite easily how such a "tool" can be fatal for the person using it, especially if they have not been able to determine who is a "criminal tyrant attempting to control you". "Don't go on my property" "You don't own me!" (Gunshots ensue). Absent context, is this a property owner defending their house, or a tyrant stopping someone from entering unowned (or "collectively" owned) property?
"STOP! DONT GO IN THERE!" "You don't own me!" (Insert dangerous situation of your choice- electrical wires in water, fire that was contained rapidly expanding, dangerous animals attacking, delicate immunocompromised individuals dying) A dangerous tool that can be easily misused is not one I would give without warnings.
1329 Words.
