We can't use natural law to defend libertarianism/anarchism.

Economics Political Theory
1

I was just thinking about natural law theory. I used to be somewhat of a proponent of natural law because it would give a justification to giving us more freedoms and things like that. The more I think about it-- the more I realize how opposite natural law is to libertarian theory in it of itself.

First of all, I would like to point out in this thread that natural law has become something of a buzzword that people have thrown around that justifies giving people their own freedom. We must have our freedom because God wills us to have our freedom. It basically says that in the natural state that we would be free, and able to do what we want. However,

Natural law theory is a philosophical and legal belief that all humans are governed by basic innate laws, or laws of nature, which are separate and distinct from laws which are legislated. Legislated laws are sometimes referred to as “positive laws” in the framework of natural law theory, to make a clear distinction between natural and social laws. Natural law theory has heavily influenced the laws and governments of many nations, including England and the United States, and it is also reflected in publications like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Natural law asserts that certain ideals are universal. While freedom may seem like it’s something universal-- it would be quite a jump to say that freedom is universal everywhere and that it is the governing principle of all human beings. People who justify the libertarianism or anarchism approach using natural law asserts that people’s best desirable state would be one free from other restrictions from government and that they would be better off this way.

Quite the contrary- most people are in some system or another and they are restrained with what they can do or what they cannot do by their actions within the system. People have choices, but are limited by the various power structures that currently exist. People also argue against their very freedom even though they think that by arguing for their security and giving up freedom temporarily that they are protecting their freedom in the long run-- something that seems to contradict natural law. How does natural law explain this?

Rather than argue that in the state of nature, or natural law that we should have all of these rights-- we should be talking about what is actually happening right now with elites and various power structures are oppressing the people and the people seem unable most of the times to rise up against the oppression that they face. If natural law were correct we would probably be living in a libertarian paradise and we would have the most freedoms in the world. Despite this-- many people claim to believe in natural law rather than the constitution so they can justify their certain beliefs, and states around the world have become more oppressive than they have in the past, using the logic of natural law.

So, I propose a different idea other than arguing natural law-- which doesn’t seem to exist in its true form in the real world. Spontaneity is good only so far, and individualism is also good if it’s taken so far. I think the real problem lies not with natural law, but with the oppression going on in the world. People are mentally and physically oppressed in Democracies and totalitarian governments. Perhaps we should be giving more of a voice and more power to these oppressed people-- rather than claiming that natural law is real, and that’s why we should have freedoms, when reality shows that this isn’t truly the case. We’re only given the illusion of freedom… we don’t quite exactly have the freedoms that people think we have. Why should we argue using a catchword that doesn’t have much meaning anymore?

2

Good call on pointing out that naural law is nothing more than bullocks and a buzzword.

3

Please define oppression. Can it include:

Price gouging?

Wage slavery?

Poverty?

Refusing someone free education and healthcare?

4

So what you are saying is that rights are absolute, not prima facie?

5

Aristippus- oppression can include any number of those things. I like to think of oppression as something that is intended to restrict the action of someone else and keep them from doing something that they would do otherwise if they were otherwise free. If you look at i that way, a lot of things in place in society are actually there to oppress us and keep us orderly. Now there is a difference between oppression and between rules. Rules help guide one and other people in their actions with what they can do or what they cannot do within the specific circumstance. Oppression to me is more like they would be able to get it, but there are rules or laws in place that prevents them from getting it.

On the flip-side oppression can also include forceful coercion, which MAKES them get something that they don’t want. It can also include exploitation or all these other things. That’s just the most basic definition of oppression to me… but certainly other things could be considered oppression. Censorship by the FCC is in my mind oppression. I hope that helps.

6

Lyle, that is not what I am arguing. I am not arguing that rights are absolute. That’s what the natural law position argues. Rather, I am arguing that rights are more of a desired position. However, in this current system that we live in there are many rules and there are laws that get in the way of our rights and keeps us from exercising (free speech codes, lack of privacy, protest codes, new camera laws, etc). So in short, natural law isn’t something that should be expected in the real world.

7

What are rights?

8

Silent,

Pardon my confusion. I understand the Natural Rights position to be absolute and the Natural law position to be prima facie. I guess I err in my understanding.

9

Legal philosophy tries to answer the question “What should be obeyed?” The two big branches of legal philosophy are legal positivism and natural law. Legal positivism answers the question with “Whatever those in power say”, which is just a formalism of might-makes-right. Natural law, on the other hand, answers the question with some abstract or “higher” system of values.

Among libertarians, there seem to be two different interpretations of natural law. One is the idea that we all have natural or God-given rights, such as those espoused in the American Declaration of Independence. The other is more sophisticated, taking an emergent view of rights and instead focusing on human nature and what forms of order arise spontaneously from human action and interaction. We can call the former the natural-rights branch of natural law, and the latter the natural-order branch of natural law.

SilentXtarian, you wrote, “If natural law were correct we would probably be living in a libertarian paradise and we would have the most freedoms in the world.” My response is as follows. First off, legal philosophy actually deals in values, not facts. The question “What is law?” is really the question “What should be obeyed?” Just because something has been declared as a law by someone doesn’t entail a prima facie obligation to obey it, all other things being equal. Hence there’s no way to prove one branch or another of legal philosophy as the correct one.

On the other hand, you talk about the real problem being with oppression. How do you define “oppression”, however? If you’re implying that there are certain near-universal standards for suffering (based on human nature), then you’re actually still arguing from a natural-law standpoint. Your real dispute would seem to be about tactics, not principles.

10

What are rights?

Rights are whatever acts that other people have agreed to provide protection for.

11

It seems to me today to be used as a shallow argument for religion via guilt. Like when people used to say that the US is Christian, the Soviet Union is atheist. Ergo, atheism will lead to Leninist hellhole. For these people, Christianity means nothing but a useful buffer between themselves and the government or some other foreign government. Or a reinforcement of the religious purpose that the US government has. Believed largely by Mormons, especially, but certainly other conservatives.

On the other hand, it is often used by conservatives as a means to irrational-y clarify their differences with liberals. Usually the conservative comes by this belief in natural rights by some magic that the liberals didn’t; so “I believe in it because I’m a conservative, and I’m conservative because I believe it.” “We believe in transcendental whatchamacallit, while the liberal mind only believes in materialism and big government and relativism.” Usually, it is someone with very little or no belief in ‘liberty’ using the religious or political argument for natural rights. Like Limbaugh or Hannity.

12

Half of myself wants to ask, “Are you serious?”.

13

I don’t even bother to follow links to Stranger’s blog. It’s the same stuff he was peddling here for 2 years.

14

On the other hand at least he has readership. Look at the number of comments. I’m green with envy.

15

I’m sure Paul Krugman has high readership, too.

16

How can we say that something is or isn’t consistent with natural law? The test is whether it is or isn’t conducive to the ability of each person in human society to achieve their fullest human potential. Natural law, as it relates to humans and human society, is determined by observation of how actions effect people and society.

When we look at human society, what we seek most, after life itself, is peace. Violence comes into human society when individuals seek their own good over the good of another (zero sum). Limiting violence by widespread acceptance, and proper enforcement, of the non-agression principle (NAP) leads to a society where both life and peace have a greater chance.

Government (the state), by contrast, increases violence in human society, by allowing a limited number of people to exercise coercion against others in violation of the non-agression principle. Natural law, i.e., those conditions that are conducive to life and peace in human society, is the perfect foundation for libertarianism, which opposes the illegitimate (according to natural law) actions of one group of people against another. All international law is based on natural law, because there is no global organization capable of producing binding global positive law. Judging the state as being illegitimate (such as when it acts contrary to the NAP) can only be done via-a-vis natural law, not positive law.

Do people wish to live? Yes, generally.

Do people wish to live in peace? Yes, almost always.

However, when a government takes from a person their right to choose, for example, what chemicals they will put into their own bodies (but such offenses against the non-agression principle are legion), is this action conducive to peace and human good? Certainly not! The ever-increasing violence spawned by the so-called “war on drugs” proves that it is contrary to natural law. But even without the level of violence we are now seeing as a result of the drug war, it is easy to say that every government action which exceeds the level of coercion permitted by the NAP is contrary to natural law insofar as it diminishes the dignity of human persons. No small part of human dignity is based on our right to choose, i.e., freedom.

17

OK I just started following this thread today, so tell me if I’m missing something Silentx.

  1. Is your point that you don’t believe in “natural law” because it doesn’t “universally” exist? Are you confusing the ligitimacy of a law with the enforcing of a law? Are you saying that because there are many instances of people being oppressed that means there is no such thing as a universal principle that it is wrong to oppress people?

The law against running a red light is not universally enforced either, but that does not mean it doesn’t exist.

  1. Or is it your opinion that man made law is superior ? Do you have examples of places where natural law is ignored and man made law is enforced where people live in total bliss?