Natural Law or the Law of Nature?
How can you tell right from wrong?
According to the Law of Nature, the weak die.
There are two kinds of jurisdiction; one of them is based on several books that are supposed to regulate human behavior in every single possible way, while the according to the other, a bunch of people (sometimes labeled as a jury) make the law by judging specific examples of human behavior. The latter is supposed to based on “Natural Law,” an idea conceived during the freemasonry of the “Enlightenment,” when people were suddenly told they were born good and possess the ability to tell good from evil.
Already Aristotle observed it in Politics that about 70% of people deserve to be slaves, because they wouldn’t or couldn’t put up a fight for their freedom. I think, he was optimistic, based on the fact that about 30% of people possess the monetary sources and the acumen to be able to stand up for themselves. Eventually, it’s always the same 3%...
By natural law, men would have as many wives as they can keep and get rid of infants who would be a burden. The schoolyard bully follows the Law of Nature, because in Nature, the strong takes from the weak. The same applies to the gangbanger, collecting money from the keeper of a small shop, which would protect the shopkeeper from the gang. The police also has to maintain a fragile equilibrium in their precinct, which usually means collecting protection money from the presiding gangsters and truly protecting them from the competition, which keeps police records straight. By the Law of Nature, if someone falls into a pond and cannot swim, must die, at least according to Herbert Spencer, the American philosopher, who applied the “survival of the fittest” to humans. Strong men must rule over the rest and get any woman they want, whether the women want it or not.
So, there is a choice.
Are humans only animals, who would normally behave as such, was it not for the cultural codes that prohibit such behavior? Are such codes necessary to create a civilized environment for its inhabitants?
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that Natural Law is infinitely more suitable for humans than the Law of Nature. The trouble is that Natural Law is culture-dependent.
Is there such a thing as “the best” culture?
A happy land is where people are happy. Okay, there is no such place, but how about a place where people feel relatively save and enjoy some freedom to make choices over their lives? I know, this is a manipulative question, but I have no intent to manipulate.
The ultimate choice in a ideal world would be for you to have the option to select your culture. The globalists are busy creating a utilitarian place where they preside over their cyborg slaves. Unless you are one of them, that would probably not be your choice.
I dare you: what would you choose?
This is actually a very big topic. It is actually all about what is going on today, socially and politically speaking. In this sense we are at a threshold of deciding whether we want to live in a compulsory collective society or in a voluntary cooperative one. The founders of our country engineered a cooperative system that endorses individualized liberty and sovereignty.
I don't know what law of nature you're talking about. I know - as just one instance - that the leader of a herd of deer kept as his favorite all his life a female who had had a broken back and was weaker than the others. She was always protected. The nature I have seen has so many variations.