I don't find natural right to be abstract nor hard to connect to political right. I'll be as short and succinct as I can. The way I see natural right is this:
The fundamental nature of Man is our higher level of abstract awareness. This unique high level of abstract awareness gives us something unique in the animal world: we know, we see, that we HAVE lives - we are not just alive and aware of the moment. We know, we see, we are very aware that we have lives that span years and decades. This is the fundamental human condition.
We are all equal in this respect.
I don't care what your IQ is, what your race is or anything that distinguishes one person from another: we are all equal in this regard. No one had to teach you this. Our higher level of abstract awareness "sees" this, processes this so well that even the youngest child "sees" this. No one is taught that they are a life in time, we only have to learn and be taught all of the ramifications. As humans all of our life and emotions are centered on how things affect this fundamental fact
It is right that you embrace this and GOVERN (control and regulate) your self and your days with this knowledge uppermost in mind that you are a life in time.
Personally, it is right that you do. Socially, this is acknowledged as the right to life. Civil right is tied to personal right is based on natural right.
This is not abstract at all. It is based on the fundamental metaphysical nature that makes us human beings. It is the very beginning point of self-governance (morality) and social government. Social government because in order to realize and actually have possession of our lives-as-lives the corollaries of our fundamental right must be understood and guaranteed in both the personal and social realms.
And obviously if the public institutions of government we create to serve, to protect, our right to our own life violate that principle for which those public institutions were created - if they work against the actual control and regulation of our lives-as-lives for which they were created to protect - they are not legitimate government. In fact, they then destroy government.
That's just the very very beginning of natural right as I think of it.
One thing more as I see it: This higher level of abstract awareness (and I'm not referring to thinking and reasoning which this allows us but the "sense" itself) is of the human soul itself - it is where the wheels of the human soul meet the road of the physical world.
As to one part of the straw man argument John Yoo so casually tossed out at you and Steve last week: is there such a thing as an immoral law? If a law passed by a legislature goes against a present day perception of natural law, would it be immoral? If there is such a thing, how should a sovereign citizen (not a judge) respond to prosecution of an immoral law, against himself or against someone else?
I don't find natural right to be abstract nor hard to connect to political right. I'll be as short and succinct as I can. The way I see natural right is this:
The fundamental nature of Man is our higher level of abstract awareness. This unique high level of abstract awareness gives us something unique in the animal world: we know, we see, that we HAVE lives - we are not just alive and aware of the moment. We know, we see, we are very aware that we have lives that span years and decades. This is the fundamental human condition.
We are all equal in this respect.
I don't care what your IQ is, what your race is or anything that distinguishes one person from another: we are all equal in this regard. No one had to teach you this. Our higher level of abstract awareness "sees" this, processes this so well that even the youngest child "sees" this. No one is taught that they are a life in time, we only have to learn and be taught all of the ramifications. As humans all of our life and emotions are centered on how things affect this fundamental fact
It is right that you embrace this and GOVERN (control and regulate) your self and your days with this knowledge uppermost in mind that you are a life in time.
Personally, it is right that you do. Socially, this is acknowledged as the right to life. Civil right is tied to personal right is based on natural right.
This is not abstract at all. It is based on the fundamental metaphysical nature that makes us human beings. It is the very beginning point of self-governance (morality) and social government. Social government because in order to realize and actually have possession of our lives-as-lives the corollaries of our fundamental right must be understood and guaranteed in both the personal and social realms.
And obviously if the public institutions of government we create to serve, to protect, our right to our own life violate that principle for which those public institutions were created - if they work against the actual control and regulation of our lives-as-lives for which they were created to protect - they are not legitimate government. In fact, they then destroy government.
That's just the very very beginning of natural right as I think of it.
One thing more as I see it: This higher level of abstract awareness (and I'm not referring to thinking and reasoning which this allows us but the "sense" itself) is of the human soul itself - it is where the wheels of the human soul meet the road of the physical world.
Kevin R.
Cheers!
As to one part of the straw man argument John Yoo so casually tossed out at you and Steve last week: is there such a thing as an immoral law? If a law passed by a legislature goes against a present day perception of natural law, would it be immoral? If there is such a thing, how should a sovereign citizen (not a judge) respond to prosecution of an immoral law, against himself or against someone else?