Why does Sup Forums not talk about the importance of the Law of Nations and its reference in the Constitution as well as the application to every day, real world issues?
I see threads about fascism, communism, anti-communism, BBC cuck threads, and conspiracy theories. Why is it that the very foundation and laws that govern the behavior of people and sovereigns has not been addressed much, if at all?
My (ir)rational mind reasons that the level of focus and vitriol on certain subjects should translate to at least a passing interest into the laws of nature and the same laws applied to nations (law of nations).
A deep and profound understanding of the principles laid out by intellectual heavy weights like John Locke, Emer de Vattel, and Hugo Grotius is necessary to the complete fulfillment of our civic duty. The founding fathers found the works of these men, Vattel in particular, so vital that they cited their works as references when working on the founding documents of the country I call home. How is it that we have not even opened discussion to their ideas? Every time I post a reply with the book Law of Nations there is zero response. Why is that?
Gonna break it to ya lad, but this place is shit for intellectual discussion
I think people
Matthew Green
Dont focus in the constitushun cause it s fucking 200 years old shitpst made out of hemp paper
pic related
Jonathan Martin
I am not focused on the constitution as much as the Law of Nations. The laws of nature applied to states is colloquially known as the law of nations.
It is the codification of behavior and the key to enacting whatever political ideology the people want.
Carter Gray
Gonna break it to here lad
No1 here reads anythign but shitposts
what is so grandios and what laws does it tell us we should follow in ur meme book
Owen Green
The law of self preservation, endeavoring to know our creator (the meaning of life faggy as that sounds), creation of societies and governance thereof, consent of the governed.
It talks about our duties and obligations to ourselves and society, our rights and benefits derived from our fulfillment of said duties and obligations and the endowment of the same because of our duties and obligations.
Oliver Roberts
It is the rulebook of society and government. Not what we should do, what we do everyday and what we can do if we are not satisfied with the current state of affairs.
Hunter Jackson
Man you know no one gives a fuck abiut tht shit
The closest thing to that on here people talk about is NatSock
Fuck man
tell me more tho how do we preserve our shit like what we gotta do mane
Xavier King
Bump for thread potential
Owen Davis
Unfortunately you are correct, the overwhelming majority of people on Sup Forums want to see cuck threads and bash niggers. I have nothing against either of those things, I just am sorely disappointed by the lack of diligence in exploring different avenues of thought and ideology.
I like nationalism, personally it has the most potential of all ideologies I have seen. There is more benefit than detriment in my opinion.
What we need to do is gain an understanding that we the people are the authority. Not government, government is delegated authority because of us.
Government itself is just a piece of paper, a title, a fiction. Government is powerless without people to enforce it, and people to delegate authority to it.
If we removed every single person from a position in government, the government would be incapable of doing anything. Logically, it cannot act on its own.
That means we are not subject to government, instead government is subject to us, the governed. We give up some of our rights (like my right to murder or steal) for protections from the same. Most people are okay with that because that is reasonable.
Government exists because of a contract with the people, the US has a contract called the constitution, and formerly it was the Articles of Confederation. The government is not upholding their end of the contract, the onus is on us to enforce it.
Liam Flores
bum,pp
Gavin Mitchell
Holy shit yo
Thats smart as fuck
So how does the people, or rather a citizen like me do what I need to do?
How do I keep the gubment in check
Parker Hall
Thank you, I appreciate the interest.
Nothing is ever done without human activity. Money pays for human activity.
The example I like is hyperbolic but expresses the sentiment clearly. Santa Claus built the north pole, without money. How is that possible? Activity, of humans or elves or whatever. Money is just a token, a tool, a measuring stick of the value you have provided to society. It is not inherently evil in the same way that hammer is not inherently evil. Both can be used to hurt or kill but are not necessarily for that.
Government is the same, it is not inherently evil. It has been used that way for quite some time and that is unfortunate. Government requires human activity to be useful, otherwise it is the same as piece of literature.
What type of activity? How do we make sure it aint the wrong type doe?
Ian Ross
Most people think that protesting or rioting are the answer, those are poor choices because when we disrupt the domestic tranquility and public peace we are giving government the right of necessity. One of the functions of government is to ensure peace, when we disrupt that we give them the "okay" to do what they deem necessary.
What needs to happen is using the administrative channels of the courts. We need to challenge their jurisdiction, challenge their authority and force them to answer the legal arguments we present.
Ever wondered why class action law suits are pushed? Because dealing with 10,000 people in one suit is much easier than dealing with 10,000 separate suits for the same thing. That clogs the system and requires them to devote resources and time.
Our goal is not to disrupt or harm the public peace, that hurts our cause. Our goal is to use the system that has been harnessed to wage war against the people harnessing it. Using their tools against them and forcing them to stick the knife in.
Educate yourself on the principles. Then apply those in productive channels.
Does thebook in Op talk about what youv listed in your posts too?
Camden Bailey
What do you mean? I quoted almost directly out of the law of nations. I'll find some quotes.
Christian Cooper
Oh really shit
Guess imma have to read law of nations den
xD
Landon Phillips
This is a quote by James Wilson in his dissertation "Of the Law of Nations, Lectures on Law" in 1791: "Let us recur to what the law of nature dictates to an individual. Are there not duties which he owes to himself? Is he not obliged to consult and promote his preservation, his freedom, his reputation, his improvement, his perfection, his happiness? Now that we have seen the law of nature as it respects the duties of individuals, let us see the law of nations as it respects the duties of states, to themselves: for we must recollect that the law of nations is only the law of nature judiciously applied to the conduct of states. From the duties of states, as well as of individuals, to themselves, a number of corresponding rights will be found to arise."
Law of Nations § 72. The object of society points out the duties of the sovereign.
"A wise conductor of the state will find in the objects of civil society the general rule and indication of his duties. The society is established with the view of procuring, to those who are its members, the necessaries, conveniences, and even pleasures of life, and, in general, every thing necessary to their happiness, — of enabling each individual peaceably to enjoy his own property, and to obtain justice with safety and certainty, — and, finally, of defending themselves in a body against all external violence."
Evan Morgan
Again James Wilson:
"It consists in the association of the individuals, of which it is composed. In what consists the preservation of this existence? It consists in the duration of that association. When this association is dissolved, the state ceases to exist; though all the members, of whom it was composed, may still remain. It is the duty of a state, therefore, to preserve this association undissolved and unimpaired. But in this, as in many other instances, a difference between the nature of states and the nature of individuals will occasion, for the reasons already mentioned, a proportioned difference in the application of the law of nature. Nations, as well as men, are taught by the law of nature, gracious in its precepts, to consider their happiness as the great end of their existence. But without existence there can be no happiness: the means, therefore, must be secured, in order to secure the end. But yet, between the duty of self-preservation required from a state, and the duty of self-preservation required from a man, there is a most material difference; and this difference is founded on the law of nature itself. A nation has a right to assign to its existence a voluntary termination: a man has not. What can be the reasons of this difference? Several may be given. By the voluntary act of the individuals forming the nation, the nation was called into existence: they who bind, can also untie: by the voluntary act, therefore, of the individuals forming the nation, the nation may be reduced to its original nothing. But it was not by his own voluntary act that the man made his appearance upon the theatre of life; he cannot, therefore, plead the right of the nation, by his own voluntary act to make his exit. He did not make; therefore, he has no right to destroy himself. He alone, whose gift this state of existence is, has the right to say when and how it shall receive its termination."
Dominic Sanchez
OP this board is a board of satire. You are taking it too seriously.
There is no Sup Forums identity. It is all things.
If you come here and post leftist comments, you will be trolled with right-wing responses. If you post right-wing comments, you will be trolled with leftist responses. And so on.
Lurk moar.
Sebastian Stewart
Thats insane
Thank you OP, I actually learned a lot today
Just got the pdf off of archive, gonna start reading it after I shitpost a bit more
Elijah Jenkins
Law of Nations § 119. Right of necessity.
"I say the same of the right of necessity. We thus call the right which necessity alone gives to the performance of certain actions that are otherwise unlawful, when, without these actions, it is impossible to fulfill an indispensable obligation."
We are allowed to do whatever is necessary to fulfill our obligations.
Elijah Clark
I have lurked for nearly a year, I have seen the very thing you are talking about. Whether I effect any change is of no consequence to me. When I do everything in my power to spread the truth then I can sleep at night, knowing I have fulfilled my obligation to perfect myself and, as a result, helped to perfect society.
Sup Forums is about being politically incorrect, what I am saying is not in the accepted range of topics and therefore is "politically incorrect" and thus I hope to open some eyes to the truth of governance.
I appreciate the bump with image. Thank you.
David Turner
Part of the issue is that natural law, as a basis, was jettisoned some time ago. Legal positivism reigns now.
What do you make of this?
Julian Martinez
Postivism draws from the fact that the "prevailing view of the day" becomes the norm. This is something that happens in our day and age with the spread of information being so quick, it is not a bad method either. Laws should conform to what society says is acceptable.
Our founding documents are based off of natural law, this means that regardless of societal norms the government is bound by natural law until a dissolution of the republic. That, to me, is a good thing because the laws of nature are applicable regardless of creed, station, status, wealth, or location. They are laws in the same category as gravity and thermodynamics. We can't legislate gravity to stop working, we also can't legislate people into not behaving as they do. Perhaps superficially, but when we distill down to the biological directions of behavior we are unable to change people.
Daniel Moore
I don't like legal positivism when it interferes with natural law simply for the fact that one is what is acceptable by society and the other is what is actually happening and can be observed regardless of the form of government or location it is observed.
Joseph Flores
>They are laws in the same category as gravity and thermodynamics. We can't legislate gravity to stop working, we also can't legislate people into not behaving as they do.
But natural law is merely a useful moral abstraction; it is not like gravity and thermodynamics. I cannot measure natural law with instrumentation like I can with gravity.
Indeed, this extends to moral claims in general. In a secular construction objective moral truths cannot be justified. They are merely limited to being truth apt within the context they are being asserted.
I see what you are saying, I don't think I articulated my viewpoint well enough.
Everyone always acts selfishly. Even donating to charity or helping a family member or friend. Everybody does it for their own reasons. That is a fact.
Everyone also acts in the interest of self preservation if they deem it necessary. For example, a person eating out of the garbage because they are starving. It may be illegal in some cases, it also can be degrading or humiliating. Regardless they will do it because it is necessary to their survival.
I dare say that people also think about the truths of life (i.e. what is life, is it worth it, what am I doing here, etc.) Those are behaviors that occur regardless of whether society says it is "okay". They are actions morally justified to the person partaking.
Laws are things that occur regardless of opinion, including society's opinion. We are always acting to perfect ourselves, whatever that may entail.
I am not a fan. Especially since his (utopianist) work on justice and legal theory has spawned the unfortunately popular and illiberal Critical Race Theory.
