Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Identify Natural Law with Capitalism

Learn to Identify Natural Law and Ethics:

Begin with Capitalism

Naturalist ethics could not have devised such a convoluted law as that "fathers' rights" law in one state that makes a man claim responsibility for a pregnancy before the pregnancy is known about, let alone confirmed--if he wants any rights. [see Natural Law continued ]

But before we understand why, we must understand why Capitalism is the foundation for a natural rights philosophy, given that capital does indeed exist. Capital did not always exist. Capitalism is a fairly recent development in the economic underpinnings of man's affairs.

Under primitive bartering civilizations, property used for barter must be given the same consideration as Capital in our world. In our world, Capital is the barterable chicken, the service of shoeing a horse, the dozen eggs, or the handmade implement that would be the subject of barter. Capital is property just like a cow.

Underlying all other rights is the right to property: first, to the property of one's own being; secondly to the values that may be produced by one's own being. The property of one's own being involves and includes individual sovereignty, where sovereignty is defined as "indigenous" ; "substantive ("inherent and inalienable") [Locke] ; or as "that state in which an individual would find him/herself if he/she was the only individual in existence."

That "state" is as natural as it gets. But in such a state, as a matter of fact until only a few short hundreds of years ago, capital was not even a consideration. But once its existence became a fact, became known, and its holders knew its value as intangible assets, its ownership had to be accepted as indigenous and substantive, inherent, and inalienable as the ownership of one's own being. The reason for this is because capital is the creation of the being of individual humans.

Capital as wealth is created, in the same manner that art is created, as a meal is created, as a home is created--by the mind and hands of men.

Ownership of one's own being is designated as 'individual sovereignty," and "was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.; Today, people scoff at the notion, presuming what modern education teaches, lacking as it is in its original "liberal" roots: that only nations can have sovereignty. Even the sovereignty of each American State is being whittled away by national sovereignty. "Liberal" education in its original roots led Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and others to consider and endorse at least the concept of "common sovereignty," derived from the "consent of the governed." It took the Americans to understand that what becomes "common" must have its roots in individualism first. No individual can contribute to what becomes "common" unless he or she first owns it in order to relinquish it up to the "common sovereignty."

Individual sovereignty is still is the common assumption today, among naturalists. Kelly Ross goes on to say, "If 'to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men,' this can only mean that something, from which people must be protected, threatens the exercise of rights to 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.'" Governments instituted through the consent of the governed get their powers only from those powers the citizens are willing to give to it. They cannot give to it what they, themselves, do not posses.

"The relationships between federalist political structure and the sovereignty of the individual," writes James M. Buchanan, "must be carefully examined, particularly in terms of the implications for current discussions in Europe, Mexico, and the United States."

"The explicit claim is that the individual is the sovereign unit in society; his natural state is freedom from and equality with all other individuals; this is the natural order of things." Joseph J. Ellis; "American Sphinx,The Character of Thomas Jefferson"

An extremely radical but acceptable view for millions, especially for Americans, runs in the Objectivist line of thinking, as with these quotes from "Objectivism and Thomas Jefferson; 6. The Non-Initiation of Force" :

"As a corollary to an individualist society, it is necessary that a nation not have the right or power to compel actions [such as conscription], even for its own survival. Were that right allowed, a nation of people would be permitted collectively to identify duties and responsibilities that individuals owed to the common good and then could compel with force if necessary unwilling citizens. To permit that would be inconsistent with the form of individualism in which individual rights actually mean that no human authority can compel an individual to do anything other than to desist from initiating force against another individual. Therefore, the 'non-initiation of force' is a necessary part of the philosophy of individualism." [ibid]

"Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson;" thus:

see Natural Law: Begin with Capitalism for continuation

Join the Financial Bailout Debate

What if you could sit side by side with a Cato scholar at a debate forum and offer suggestions on topics like the financial bailout plan, health care, national security and education?
The Cato Institute is participating in a debate series hosted by a new interactive site,
Google Knol. The debates on Knol are meant to offer a variety of in-depth opinions from experts, and afford visitors the opportunity to engage scholars on the ideas that are posted.

Gmail Goggles: Joke or brilliant self-censorship tool?

The folks at Gmail have developed a number of optional add-ons for their flagship e-mail program. Some let you improve your productivity. Others give you new ways to organize message. And now there's one designed to prevent you from sending inappropriate e-mails when you're drunk.

If our wildest dreams became reality

"It is not just those who built the QE2 who look on the ship with a special fondness. In an odd way, it is as though the boat manages to unite the classes, even though it represents what divides them. One reason it can do this is that the cruise ship has for a long time been the ultimate symbol of luxury, but at the same time it is something that most people could aspire to enjoy as a once-in-a-lifetime experience. People started work or got married with dreams of setting sail on a cruise for their retirement or ruby wedding anniversary, and often that's just what they did."

Note: I will be the featured speaker at the Center For Inquiry (CFI) meeting, October 16, 2008, in Portage, Michigan. The topic is "Atheism as a 'Religion' Protected by Courts According to the Establishment Clause" CEC

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the SM of the
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism TM, The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger TM, and
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra TM are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ®

blog comments powered by Disqus