Info

You are currently browsing the archives for the natural law and rights category.

February 2012
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829  
Links

Archive for the natural law and rights Category

Jesus: the true American Dream

America, though often derided and hated — perhaps not explicitly, but silently — by the left, oftentimes experiences the opposite problem from its most ardent admirers, the conservatives.  In its admiration, perhaps condensed most perfectly into what is known as the American Dream, men elevate a nation into idolization because the nation elevates men.  One does not have to look far to see that in American literature, in the movies, in even the world of politics, Americans believe on a sincere level that in the United States, opportunity can be had by all who truly seek it, and that for this reason it is worthy of glorification. Read the rest of this entry »

The question of peaceable assembly and local government

The other day, I encountered an unusually poignant leftist argument, delivered in picture form.  The top of the picture was a bird’s-eye view of campers outside a theater, their tents disorderly amassed in anticipation of the new Twilight film’s first showing.  Atop the entire scene was a single word: LEGAL, expressing that such an act was permissible and unchallenged by government officials. Read the rest of this entry »

The moral parameters of private lending (a case against usury)

Though buried beneath a sea of absurdities and proposed injustices, Americans should take note that some of Occupy Wall St’s demands are not entirely garbage. Aside the attempt to ban electronically recorded voting machines, perhaps the next most sensible demand concerned the abolition of debts; for while these protesters erred in requesting the relinquishment of international debts (as wars have been started for far less), it is not entirely unreasonable to wonder whether the American economy can ever truly rebound when so many — most, actually — Americans are deeply indebted to bankers, if the nation is not itself already owned by the Federal Reserve and foreign powers. Read the rest of this entry »

Why true conservatives do not attend AIDS rallies

In the world of politics, there are perhaps fewer psychological weapons better disguised than a so-called charitable cause.   For though at first some causes appear to be rooted in goodness, in empathy, and in mercy, they can oftentimes be vehicles not only to safely advance causes which many find morally offensive, but also tools to silence opponents without the perils of argument.  And in this brand of political warfare, there perhaps exists no greater weapon than the fight against AIDS. Read the rest of this entry »

Are markets intrinsically moral?

The other day, a leftist Mormon acquaintance of mine and I had a brief conversation about Mitt Romney’s candidacy for president. I, being staunchly anti-RINO, and refusing to believe for one second that a candidate’s deeply-held religious beliefs are irrelevant (as true religion comprises the very bedrock of unalienable rights), declared my support for several of the more acceptable candidates before Romney, concluding that Romney lost the Las Vegas debate.  But my friend disagreed.  Citing statistical favorability amongst gamblers, he argued that market forces chose Romney, and that I, therefore, according to my own conservative appreciation of market forces, must be wrong, and that Romney was the most viable and acceptable option. Read the rest of this entry »

Reexamining the laws of assault

In modern American society, though men and women oftentimes pretend to support equal rights for both genders, they in actuality support systems which favor one sex over the other. Read the rest of this entry »

How feminism harms the lowest classes

It is oftentimes complained, partially unfairly, that the American lower classes are getting poorer and poorer. But enough has been written, by practically every conservative think tank, about how the welfare state and anti-discrimination legislation destroy neighborhoods, and promote the business interests of those with poor moral constitutions (leftists, primarily) by providing layabouts with an arsenal of unreasonable lawsuits.  This article, recognizing the above socio-economic maxims, will seek instead to show how feminism has played an equal, if not greater role in impoverishing American lower classes, an aspect of American poverty which has not been adequately addressed, perhaps because it is culturally offensive to do so. Read the rest of this entry »

Civilization versus the barbarian

One of the most important questions facing civilization, not only in light of the savagery of London’s riots, but in all of history, is how civilization defines barbarism. Read the rest of this entry »

Honor, shame, and pro-gay anti-bullying campaigns

The other day, as I was on my way to work, I was driving through a relatively empty parking lot.  Being in somewhat of a hurry, I was trying to save as much time as possible, taking the route in which I had expected the least amount of traffic and cruising over speed bumps.  But as I moved quickly to my destination, and a young woman crossed in front of me, a wave of impatience smothered my sensitivity and urged me to continue at my same pace.  Surely she can speed up, I thought.  And she did: I did not slow down. Read the rest of this entry »

Teachers and the question of corporal punishment

In recent years, great controversies have spanned across all news networks, questioning the extent of the teacher’s control over children.  And central to these controversies is the question of whether or not a child should be disciplined by his parents or by his teachers, and whether or not the law should punish teachers who take action or refuse to take action against unruly, harmful student behavior. Fortunately for Americans, the answer lies within the works of a man who greatly influenced our very declaration of independence, John Locke. Read the rest of this entry »

Concerning the protection of Americans abroad

To what extent must Americans sacrifice to protect their citizens abroad?  This question was recently raised by the sitting American President, as he sought to avoid the death penalty for a notorious Mexican national who had raped and murdered a young girl on US soil. Obama’s concern, not unconsidered by many other Americans, asserts that if Americans execute foreign nationals, traveling Americans may be subjected to the judicial decisions of far less civilized countries, perhaps unfairly. Read the rest of this entry »

Problems with modern liberty of speech

In John Stuart Mill’s most influential and widely read work, On Liberty, he defended what he considered to be one of the most important pillars of any successful society, liberty of thought, and consequently of speech.  And it is plain from reading On Liberty that Americans have taken his suggestions quite seriously, not only supporting legislation to protect speech from governmental prohibition, but also instituting laws which protect against the so-called tyranny of private opinion.  But has this endeavor actually promoted discussion and rationality, or has it actually suppressed both? Read the rest of this entry »

When the pursuit of liberty is liberty’s greatest enemy

It has been said, by persons such as Abraham Lincoln, that the cause of tyranny can oftentimes be mistaken for and promoted as the cause of liberty.  If this is the case, then Americans must concern themselves most seriously with understanding what liberty is, and also what it is not.

John Stuart Mill, in what is perhaps his most famous and influential work, On Liberty, helped build the foundation for a modern understanding of freedom, one which an overwhelming number of Americans support.  In doing so, he argued that for a society to be properly liberated, its citizens must be guaranteed freedom of thought and speech, liberty of tastes and pursuits, and freedom of association.   Yet, expressly recognizing in the first chapter of On Liberty that these liberties were too radical without certain restrictions, he sought the boundaries within which they should exist.  And by setting those particular boundaries, like so many of his followers on both the left and right do today he unwittingly destroyed the foundation for the liberty he sought in the first place. Read the rest of this entry »

Sexual responsibility, and the question of sex with minors

Earlier in the month of February, The Telegraph reported that an English high court judge barred a man from having sex, due to that man’s incredibly low IQ and an inability to properly assess circumstances.  At first, the action seemed bizarre, and brought to mind eugenics programs of the Nazi Party.  But if one looks closely at the matter, this judge ruled far more closely according to the philosophy of John Locke than Adolf Hitler. Read the rest of this entry »

The crisis in constitutionalism

An overwhelming number of conservatives proclaim support for the constitution, and even liberals rally behind the rights they believe the Constitution protects. But is it possible for either side to truly be interested in constitutionalism?

If one considers that our bill of rights guarantees freedom of speech in very broad terms, it is only fair to ask what speech is. To list just a few examples, speech includes giving away military secrets and weapons blueprints, lying under oath, sexually harassing female coworkers (without hands, of course), phoning a bomb threat, engaging in insider trading, threatening to kill one’s neighbors, and conspiring to assassinate people. None of these, at the current moment, are legal, and common sense requires that many of them remain so. Read the rest of this entry »

Objections to God’s law

Of the many controversial stances I have taken, few have resulted in more opposition than my declaration that God’s Law is eternally applicable to human society.  As such, in the interest of sparing time, I’ve created this primer to explain the necessity of a Biblical foundation for law, and to address the most common objections against one.

Before addressing these objections, it must be known that the greatest reason for promoting Biblical principles within a Christian society is that God has established these principles in the creation of Israel.  As such, it is reasonable to conclude that since He is God, He is righteous, and Israel is His, He would not have dispensed a poorly crafted or quasi-moral legal system.  Rather, it is only sensible to accept that these are the highest legal and moral principles ever drafted, and that we can neither improve nor reject them if we are to live righteously and function optimally. Read the rest of this entry »

The question of imperialism

Of the many difficult questions a person can ask about the rights of man, one of the toughest is whether the people of a country are ever their own supreme authority. To err toward an absolute “yes” or “no” seems to lend credibility to a variety of atrocities, and trying to strike a balance between the two extremes can plunge the answer into useless subjectivity. But a good answer is readily available for those who concern themselves with sound principles. Read the rest of this entry »

Cruel and unusual to whom?

Most people in the West agree that a human should not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, as maintained by our eighth amendment and supported by an overwhelming number of Americans. But is it possible that the process of defining “cruel and unusual” has done Americans more harm than good? To understand whether or not this is the case, it is imperative to consider the concept of war, the purpose of law, and then eventually examine the unalienable rights which all human beings possess.

John Locke once described man’s natural rights as being the right to work for his food, to enjoy the products of his labor, and to live within the positive laws of Scripture (Second Treatise, sects 135 and 136). But since man cannot survive without the right to property and to secure the benefits of his labor, an assault on these rights is an assault on survival, an act Locke recognized as a declaration of war. He wrote of the matter, Read the rest of this entry »

Quitting kumbaya: why division is necessary

The other day, I greatly offended an Arabic associate of mine.  During a conversation about the social contract, I tried to use an example of a group forming themselves into a nation, and I had begun the example with the statement, “suppose that a group of people like you were to get together, and decide to build your own country, with your own laws.”

His objection to my statement was that Christians and conservatives oftentimes enjoy separating themselves from everyone else, that we believe that people like him are not part of our group, that we in essence discriminate. In this particular instance, I referred to him as people like you, leading toward an idea and an effect which I had not intended. Why, he asked, could we not just all be considered human, and on the same team? Read the rest of this entry »

God as the ubermensch

People oftentimes make the case that the God of the Bible, Yahweh, doesn’t act according to His own moral principles.  And I suppose that from an atheist’s perspective, in which Yahweh is actually a figment of the Jewish imagination, they would be correct: in two specific circumstances, one concerning the genocide of the Canaanites, and the other a pardoning of an adultress, He does seem to contradict His laws.  But ironically, this very argument against the Jewish God’s lawful nature further proves His existence. Read the rest of this entry »

Privilege, equality, and law

Few can resist the emotional appeal of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech.  Somewhere, deep within the human soul, we long for a time when true equality can be found in human interaction, the day in which people will be judged by one another solely according to character.  And oftentimes, at least in the West, those pursuing this ideal attempt to enforce it through what they define as perfect legal equality.

But if total equality under law were truly sought–meaning that no man would have a governmental privilege or power that another lacked–, what would become of those who administrate law?  Would we strip the policeman of his license to necessary and lawful force?  Would we give our war strategies to every member of the population, instead of only our military officials?  Would the authority to enforce law be taken from the judge?  The right to create law taken from the congressman? Read the rest of this entry »

On the benevolent state, and unsociable socialism

The other morning, as I was reading articles in my computer room, I heard a woman scream.   Immediately, my attention was wrested away from my writing, I sat up straight, and waited in silence, listening for any clues that someone was in danger.  My heart began to race. Read the rest of this entry »

The use of video evidence in a free state

Last year, I learned that the CIA had directly participated in a scheme against Osama Bin Laden, involving the use of fabricated video evidence. Their fake video, consisting of a campfire drinking session, was intended to destroy Bin Laden’s credibility with devout Muslims, by making it appear as though he had been breaking Sharia Law.  And if the drinking wasn’t enough to turn Osama’s followers against him, “Osama” spent his time in the video bragging about homosexual conquests. Read the rest of this entry »

Law in the empathetic society

Must an increase in empathy signal a decrease in law?

Let us consider, for a moment, that someone has wronged you by stealing your car.  When the person is caught by police, you have the option to press charges, but then discover that your neighbor–whose wife is dying from cancer, after they both lost their jobs–stole your car out of desperation to rush to meet her in the hospital, since he thought she was about to die.  Begging your forgiveness with tears in his eyes, the man sinks to his knees in court, clasps his hands together, and looks at you directly.  At this moment, moved with compassion, in an act of mercy you allow the man to walk free.

Compassion, then, is our friend.  A placing of ourselves in the shoes of others, imagining their hardship and deciding–in some particular instance, to side with them, to recognize that had you been in their position, you would have been desperate as well.  And this empathy, in many cases, is noble. Read the rest of this entry »

Defeating “Christian” liberalism, part 1: turning the other cheek

It’s not uncommon, these days, to see misinformed Christians parading around in favor of pacifism, as though Christianity demands that Christians can’t defend their families, as though we as a society must abandon moral stances, capital punishment, self-defense, and our right to bear arms. Going even further, some ignorant Christians even seek establishment of hate speech legislation, believing that dangerous ideologies shouldn’t be morally challenged or honestly discussed in public.  As a Christian, few beliefs irk me more than these.

Fortunately, if we take a close look at Jesus’ teachings, quite the opposite can be proven about His commandments.  For instance, one of the most widely-bungled teachings of Christ concerns the concept of forgiveness and non-retaliation, as most clearly stated in Matthew 5:38-42: Read the rest of this entry »

Questioning the dispensation of state violence

Imagine, for a moment, that your boss has been treating you poorly (for many of you, this may not be very difficult).  After weeks of abuse, you finally become so frustrated, that you start to wonder whether you should finally quit your job and join the ranks of the unemployed.  Perhaps this might lead to something better, perhaps not.  But there is one thing that you know, and it is that remaining where you are is simply unacceptable.

This freedom to abandon your employer is oftentimes taken for granted, oftentimes forgotten in our modern world of anti-corporate rhetoric.  But while many leftists decry the abuses of the business-owner, they oftentimes forget that the governmental remedy can be more dangerous than the poison. Read the rest of this entry »

Marx vs. Moses: a foray into Biblical economics

Is there a moral balance between liberty and security, or are the two mutually exclusive?

Can the rich ever become so rich, that they strangle the poor?  And what qualifies as “strangling”?

Must a capitalist globalization lead toward an impoverishment of the American working class?

Should the poor have a safety net, and if they do, how much of a net should they have?

Do the rich have an obligation to bolster the wealth of society, aside from providing jobs and infrastructure?

Since the dawn of civilization, man has sought timeless principles to address the concepts of wealth and poverty, justice and equality.  Karl Marx was one of these people. Read the rest of this entry »

When unity is wrong

Editor’s note: this article is dedicated to my first non-familial fan, Esky.

Why do we belong together?

This should not be an offensive question, yet it cannot seriously be asked in our modern political climate–particularly by conservatives–without expecting angry retribution.  But when John Jay wrote Federalist Paper #2, he did so out of the need to convince the American people that they must cede some of their natural rights for the sake of unity; that, although the states had distinct governments and oftentimes different interests, they would need to sacrifice some of these interests for a greater good.  Jay reasoned that this unity always comes at a price, but he was also able to guarantee that the overwhelming majority of identity and of morality would be preserved despite the institution of an American union.  Indeed, this small price for unity was one of his key arguments in favor of the US Constitution. Read the rest of this entry »

Why “fiscal conservatism” isn’t enough

The TEA Party has got establishment Republicans’ panties in a major twist.  While most party insiders argue that fiscal conservatism is the uniting factor which will bring Americans out of a socialist abyss, TEA Partiers (despite some obvious ideological diversity within their ranks) aren’t so sure that fiscal conservatism alone is the answer, bringing a serious brand of social conservatism into the mix.  Supposedly this foray into “archaic” and “unwinnable” social issues could cost Republicans the elections, but what could Republicans lose without social conservatism? Read the rest of this entry »

The irrationality of rationalism, part 2: the direction of rationality

It’s no secret that most of the secular public enjoys labeling Christians (serious Christians, anyway) as irrational, backward, and dangerous.  Ever since the Enlightenment, humanity has increasingly become its own god, replacing the West’s foundational religion, Christianity, with reason.  Supposedly, this transfer of sanctity is supposed to beget a golden age of unprecedented civility and creativity, unhindered by the archaic bondage of religion, progressing our species into a liberated utopia in which every man would be his own king.  But secular rationalists–meaning, those who rely on mankind’s rationality as the sole source of morality and social advancement–are not being fair: under their own standards of humanist evolution, even the process of secular rationality fails to achieve its own goals. Read the rest of this entry »

|