From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Jan 14 2003 - 00:19:18 MST
Ron writes
> As a law student he [Robert L. Humphreys} got interested
> in the field of "Natural Rights" or "Natural Law." I
> believe one proceeds from the other. As a peace maker he
> felt there was one natural law that was absolutely universal
> and vital -- break it and you have the beginning of conflict.
> He said we must always remember that the poorest most down
> trodden person in the world loves their spouse (& children)
> as much as we do and is as interested in seeing those
> dear ones happy & successful -- natural law number one.
I don't see how this "natural law number one", which pulls
sympathy from us in favor of the poor, is of any more use
to those of us who treasure personal and economic freedom
than it would be to cradle-to-grave communists who would
want to use state power to *ensure* that the "poorest most
down-trodden" get what is "fair".
> ...However I have to ask this. If we do not recognize
> natural law and natural rights then why do we have a
> republic or try to place restraints on a government as
> to what it can or can or cannot do to its citizenry?
Well, as partial answer had I been alive in 1776 (in
hindsight, of course, being aware of the real works of
people like Jefferson who really were alive at
the time), I would have written as follows:
It is good and proper for men to be free, to pay no
respects to any King, to go about their own business
unmolested, and to worship or not in whatever manner
they wish.
It is clear that the greatest benefit & prosperity will
accrue to all if the above sensible liberties are secured
by law. It is the King's ministers and minions that now
repress our trade, diminish our fortunes, and infringe
upon our freedom as individuals. Noxious and peculiar
laws must nevermore oppress our nation and our people.
We are near two million strong, and have no need of the
King's redcoats, and can deal ourselves with the heathen
if need be. And on like score, we can have our own navy
when other nations attempt to intercede against us.
While, of course, all this be only my opinion, it is
simply not granted to any man anything further.
So, see, I could have argued just as well in favor of your
"restraints on government". The above seems true and logical
to me. We (a) want our rights, and (b) it works great for
all if we have them.
> I think we restrain governments because we intuitively feel there are
> natural laws and natural rights -- that it is wrong for a government to
> violate those laws. If we do not believe this then why is it wrong for a
> constitutional democracy to change its constitution to remove all restraints
> and then treat its minorities as it wishes?
Because it is (and was) evident to democrats everywhere
(e.g. Holland) that trade and prosperity are maximized
when the government butts out. Talk to any businessman
even today, and the story is the same as it has been for
centuries. His biggest problems (except for competitors,
of course) are regulations and the government.
I think that it is from the business community that most
of the impetus for freedom historically arose. Now, partly,
this was because it *worked*: It should have been obvious
to everyone that the government's only two wealth-producing
roles are to defend a nation from outside aggression, and to
enforce contracts and protection of private property, and
that the "Wealth of Nations" (1776 by A. Smith) arose in
deference to these notions, and that countries less free
were the poorer for it. England and the Netherlands were
fine examples already.
So, "intuitively" I don't feel the presence of any natural
laws (outside physics). I guess I never have.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST