Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Early Natural Law Affirmations v. "Redistribution"

Some would imagine that Natural Law was invented in the Dark Ages.

Not really. It's been around for a long time, and acknowledged as such...

...this reasoning was phrased by Aquinas but not invented by him but by ancient non-Christian philosophers: Aristotle who wrote of “natural justice”; Cicero who wrote “law is the distinction between things just and unjust, made in agreement with that primal and most ancient of all things, nature.” Cicero was the first one to write, “if the principles of justice were founded on the decrees of peoples, the edicts of princes or the decisions of judges, then justice would sanction robbery and adultery and forgery of wills, in case these acts were approved by the votes or decrees of the populace.”

What else than 'edicts of princes or ....judges' can Obama refer to when he suggests remedying the 'defects' of the Constitution?

It was not accidental that the Framers used the phrase "....Laws of Nature and Nature's God..." in the Declaration, folks. Jefferson & Co. had read Aristotle and Cicero--in the original Greek and Latin--and knew exactly what they were talking about.

The Natural Law insists that the fruits of one's labors are one's own. The disposition of those fruits are subject to moral imperatives incumbent on individuals, not States (although States are naturally allowed to provide for defense, highways, and some minimal social safety-net for the unfortunate or disabled.)

We argued that "In the FDR/Obama worldview, "rights" begin with positive law--that law made by the sovereign, or the Legislature. In the view of the Founders, "rights" originate from God, thus are "natural." BIG difference."

Obama's view corresponds precisely with that of the Princes--that all comes from the State, its Princes, and its judges.

Too bad it's not true.

HT: Roeser

No comments: