True story: My partner was arguing before a tribal judge (he was a lay judge, as often happens). The judge had the robe and all the trappings, but he looked Indian, and had the long braids, and all. My partner argues laches. The judge leaned over the bench, looking down at my partner and said "We don't recognized laches."

I always wanted to get one of the character painters you see at carnivals and whatnot to paint that scene and then below it the caption: "LACHES! LACHES! We don't know no stinking LACHES!"

Anyway, I found Tribal Court to be little different than any other court. Maybe a little less "sophisticated" and more arbitrary, but only more honest in that regard.

So you're basically saying that if a law does not derive from this Natural Law™, then you refuse to acknowledge it as a law? — Isaac

Again, I don't know how many of you people actually read a thread, but that horse has been beat to death. Asked and answered.

So are there any laws which you currently refuse to acknowledge on those grounds? — Isaac

There are many, but I'm afraid that if I delineate a single one, eyes will be taken off the ball. We'll end up going down a rabbit hole regarding whether Natural Law or the law is right or wrong or good or bad in a given instance. That has already been hashed out as irrelevant.

Or is that case that by astonishing good fortune, despite hundreds of changes of government, revolution, civil war, slavery, despotism, and corruption all laws just so happen to have nonetheless derived from this source? Phew! — Isaac

Asked and answered.

. So all you're saying is that you think there's a natural law that ll laws refer back to but you've got nothing by way of argument from necessity to support that guess. — Isaac

Only laws based on reason. If I rule by fiat, that is no reason, and is therefor no law.

Again, if I referenced a universal external reason for the selection I'd be begging the question. — Isaac

No, you would not. You'd be using reason in support of your law.

The issue at had is whether laws result from natural law. — Isaac

It does. If it does not, then it lacks reason and is therefor not law.

You can't argue that they do from a position of assuming they do. — Isaac

I don't assume they do. I demand they reason to be law.

What arbiter of 'legitimate' would normally restrain someone from refusing to recognise a law as law? — Isaac

Natural law.

No 'natural law' of passcodes is required. — Isaac

It is if there is reason.

Your example is flip and references no reason for any selection. That makes it arbitrary and capricious and subject to the legitimate refusal to be recognize it as law.

LOL! You may find this surprising, but I agree with everything you just said. I guess our only disagreement lies in the distinction between what is (you) and what should be (me). I always found man's purpose was aspirational and based on ideals. Sure, all that comes down to earth, hard, in the work-a-day world of the practice of law. But it is not a distinction between attorneys and philosophers. Rather, it is a distinction between the drudgery of the guild, and those who believe the guild has fallen off the search for truth and justice.

I remember telling clients who wanted to fight on principle that principle costs money. I hated to say that, but it's true. Your practice sounds similar to mine, though you have been at it longer. I divided my time equally from state and federal administrative agencies, Tribal Courts, State municipal courts up to the State Supreme Court and Federal District Court. When I wore what I called a white hat, I lived hand to mouth. When I wore a black hat, the cash came rolling in but I couldn't sleep at night. Some members of the guild don't have that problem.

This would rescue positivism because the overall purposes of the body of law as a whole need not be aligned with any external morality. — Isaac

I don't think anything can rescue positivism. Reference to the body of the law as a whole, or the spirit, or whatever you want to call it, is reference back to Natural Law. We generally look to our organic documents for that, and they themselves are founded upon reason and what we "feel" is right.

Saw this on social media this morning. Nails it:

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" Isaac Asimov

I would add that it springs from this notion that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Yeah, they are. But does their right to be stupid entitle them to have others give them equal time? Not so much. If you've got chops, the adults will let you in the room. We are the gatekeepers. Get used to it. You want to engage, go get an education and learn how to think.

From the POV of the oligarchy, the plutocracy, or the kleptocracy, who the hell wants public enlightenment? Keep the masses as uninformed about their reality as possible. — Bitter Crank

:100:

Is hearing both sides an outdated concept? — Nikolas

Someone has to be the gatekeeper. In a private for profit organization like Faux News, they aren't going to let the opposition have a fair shake because the truth has a liberal bias. Just like Rush Limbaugh controlling the mute switch on callers. We got rid of the fairness doctrine and now the gloves are off. Even though private for profit organizations use *our* public air waves, they don't have to be fair. And who wants to hear some wack job? Is he entitled to be heard? And what about third and fourth views? Do they get equal time? And gets to speak for a side? And how are they vetted?

Whoever opined that money equals speech was stupid. Speech is free. You can scream till your voice goes out. No; what money equals is being heard. There is a difference. All those candidates and all those vendors spend all that money, not because they are stupid, but because it works. And it works because the people are stupid. Those ads work because they are heard by dummies.

One of my favorite quotes comes from John Milton, in Areopagitica. Paraphrased: "Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the Earth, so truth be in the field. We do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple, for whoever knew the truth to be put to the worse than in a free and open encounter?"

But I'm afraid old John thought there might be reasonable, intelligent and wise people calling the shots. He didn't suspect that education now means cranking out good little producers and consumers who don't know the difference between *what* to think and *how* to think. Is it any wonder that guys like Holt look around and hear stupidity getting more than equal air time and thinking he may have to give the opposition more time? We just came out of five years of falsehood. It got it's shot. Now we can try some truth. And if some stupidity or falsehood gets slipped in from the left, well, that's just part of the pendulum swing. If we don't like it, we need to dump a metric shit ton of money into non-STEM education. I'm not sure if we are going to get a re-Enlightenment though. But we can hope.

I can understand Holt's frustration. Why give liars air time if idiots will believe them? If dummies want to drink bleach, I guess it's okay. Darwin at work. But should Holt give air time to the notion that the Deep State and Bill Gates are putting a chip in your vaccine? That's dangerous to everyone. Especially if the counter point is some un-American commie pinko left wing liberal knee jerk Dem scientist who would question our Pres in a time of war. That's just unsat.

Discuss among yourselves.

All laws of kind have principles from which they are made laws of that kind. It follows there must be at least one principle that makes any law a law, or that makes any law, lawful. — Mww

That sounds reasonable to me. One word that covers all principles is "reason." Reason was used to arrive at the law, regardless of the type of, but still based upon principle, and that is the reason for it.

Which succinctly quantifies the thread title...a law is a law is a law. — Mww

That too sounds reasonable. But "qualifies" sounds better, to me, than "quantifies." Thus, the law is the law is the law but the fact it is a law does not provide the reason for it's invocation.

which means dealing with laws that exist, not laws that I think exist, or should exist. — Ciceronianus the White

No one said laws don't exist, but if your gut tells you one should and it doesn't, I hope you bring that up. Maybe you'll have a case of first impression, and you can help make some new law, and bring some justice into a court of law. I guess that would be novel.

So, a moral principle becomes a law in that case? — Ciceronianus the White

It tries. Sometimes it succeeds. Often it must be tweeked and refined as it keeps running head long into Natural Law. Like the example above: 1. X can leave his estate to Y. It is law! 2. But wait! Y killed X! That don't sound right! Okay, 3. X can leave his estate to Y but Y is not entitled to it if he kills X. And on and on and on. I long ago tried to use the example of homicide and all the variant levels, defenses and punishments, each one of which is the result of a tweek as it arose and some judge, legislature, attorney, people said "that ain't right!"

It's my understanding that we used to be able to go outside and jump up to the moon. Then Newton came along, wrote down the law of gravity, and hence forth we could not longer jump to the moon.

So, Natural law is a set of moral principles. The law is not. Right? — Ciceronianus the White

Wrong. While Natural Law is a set of moral principles, so is the law. The law is just an effort to reduce Natural Law to writing.

I haven't maintained that morals and moral principles are never employed in making or interpreting, or enforcing laws. My only point is that doesn't make morals or moral principles law. — Ciceronianus the White

Sure it does. Once a moral principle is employed in making a law it makes it a law.

Too presumptive. — Banno

How so? I don't know where you live, but I qualified it to the U.S. If you are an American Citizen and you know of someone else who enacted the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, please advise.

I don't imagine they hold much sway in your part of the world, — Banno

Our (U.S.) Founding Fathers hold much sway. Sure, the courts try to stay within the four corners of an organic document or statute, but whenever there is ambiguity or conflict, they often hearken back. But reading the Federalist Papers and other docs will point up Natural Law. One need only look to the 9th and 10th Amendment. What could they have been referring to? Blackstone? I think not.

I'll go get the popcorn. — Banno

I think we (Hanover and I) are in accord. So far, I've not seen much daylight between us. There are some spots where we could make an argument but a lot of that stems from our unique use of terms in this thread, separating law law (writing) from Natural Law.

So... now natural law is law? — Banno

No. Natural Law is Natural Law. The law is man's effort to reduce Natural Law to writing.

There certainly isn't a consensus here, hey. — Banno

Historically, there is consensus. The simple dictionary definition need not be appealed to, though it is clearly there. Then there is the debates of our Founding Fathers, as well as the philosophical discourse during the Enlightenment. The term "Natural Law" has been around since Christ was a Corporal and, I suspect, it was cited as authority for the first written law. Do I have proof of the latter? No, but without it, the law is, by definition, unreasonable. That renders it non-law to those who demand reason.

Do I have to come there and we have an arm-twisting contest on whose words we use? — tim wood

No, we can use the definitions found in the dictionary, as set forth by Hanover, above.

What is the substance of your point? — tim wood

I was trying to find the substance of Ciceronianus the White's point, as just explained to you.

Even, do you understand your own point? — tim wood

Yes. Someone was courteous enough to link the summary of my point on page six of this thread but I'll need a little schooling to figure out how to do that. I just assumed you'd been reading the thread and saw that.

is it a claim or reasoned? — tim wood

It's reasoned. See above.

You can have your claims, but what is your reason? — tim wood

Asked and answered.

What inhabits natural law that finds no expression in "mere" law? — tim wood

All that mere law has yet to address in it's historical march toward codifying Natural Law.

What does natural law permit that mere, written law prohibits or eliminates? — tim wood

You've got it backwards. Mere law is trying to address Natural Law through the use of prohibitions, acknowledgements, eliminations, etc. That's what distinguishes it from Natural Law.

and the obvious point is that moral principles are not law. — Banno

No one ever said they were. They are Natural Law, not mere law. I'm not sure if you've been following this thread, but we have been using the term "law" to refer to statutory, Constitutional, or written law, as opposed to Natural Law.

Which is OK, because 'majesty' can reference males, females, or God forbid, gender-liquified sovereigns or, for that matter, one's neutered cat. — Bitter Crank

That's okay, so long as you don't trigger me by pointing that out.

What I understand by the x=x=x (questionable metaphor alert) is akin to getting a meal in a restaurant. What went into making it may, could, even arguably should be of interest, but all that is nothing as to the meal itself: that is what it is and no prior circumstance or condition can alter that. — tim wood

That analogy breaks down because the meal is the sum of it's parts. Whereas the law is not the sum of Natural Law. It is a mere pretender to it. To straighten your analogy, no one would say the menu is the meal or the ingredients. The law is a menu.

As to the balance of your post, that goes to the issue of the adequacy of the law which is not in question. I think both "sides" to this debate agree that Natural Law and mere law can both be flawed, inadequate to a task or otherwise disagreed upon.

I wonder why you insist on calling such feelings "Natural Law." — Ciceronianus the White

Wonder no longer: "Natural law is defined as "a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct." See above.

This whole discussion is triggering so I demand you all stop immediately. — Bitter Crank

Fine, but you must refer to me as "Your Majesty."

Natural law is defined as "a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct."

Positive law is defined as "statutes which have been laid down by a legislature, court, or other human institution and can take whatever form the authors want. Compare with natural law." — Hanover

:100: I'm thinking that about nails it. Part of "human conduct" is "laying down statutes."

I would assume such people think that, when the world we live in fails to meet their expectation, it isn't their world. But the world isn't their world, nor is the law their law. — Ciceronianus the White

First, you assume too much. Second, it's not about expectation. Natural Law has nothing to do with expectation.

If someone smacks you upside the head for no apparent reason, then, even beyond the calmest, coolest most objective view of the situation, you will most probably have a feeling about the action or the person who executed the action. I will gareeonfreakingtee you, you will not have that feeling because someone told you to have that feeling. You will not have that feeling because it is written that you should. You will not have that feeling because the law said you would. You will have that feeling because of Natural Law. Natural Law tells you "That ain't right!" Most folks would agree with you, and at some point, when we learned how to write, somebody put it in writing just in case some idiot didn't know any better than to go around cuffing people upside the head for no reason. The law itself is better than that idiot and at least pretends to have a reason before punishing some idiot. That reason is Natural Law articulated.

I do not get the distinctions you're making, or why, — tim wood

This thread went down that rabbit hole at the beginning. I could not believe the OP would be saying nothing more than X=X (i.e. the law is the law is the law) so I tried to understand what he meant beyond that. When I took a stab at an alternative, I was reigned in. So I was left with the only possible distinction left and that is this: The stick exists. The X in the sand exists. The person who wields the stick honestly thinks there is an independent nexus between the X and the stick. I don't. So, while the stick exists and he can hit me with it, I see him hitting me with the stick and he see's himself hitting me with X. He recognizes his X (X=X=X). I do not. If he wants obedience beyond coercion, he must appeal to reason. Failure to do so leaves him with nothing but a stick. Most of your post was pre-X. Good stuff.

*sigh* If you say so. — tim wood

I do.

There's a difference between morality and the (positive) law. I don't think they can be conflated, nor do I think they should be. — Ciceronianus the White

And that is why some people don't recognize the law. It's not their law.

The idea that zealous advocacy confined by law, will somehow produce a legal result is like the forgiveness of sin for Christians: If you don't mind your p's and q's you will think that you are free to do whatever because, well, you're forgiven. The lawyer can do whatever, sans ethics, because, well, he's just pursuing the interests of his client. Like the corporation is legally charged with making money for the shareholders and can thus point to that mandate as it does something unethical.

But in the end, they all come back to Natural Law which forms the basis of the confines of the law, in equity or at law. But yeah, there are a lot of folks like Holmes running around thinking they are the law and they are ethics. And that is why the stick must be used. They have no reason.

All which you describe (from feeling to reason; from individual to community) precedes the reduction of it to writing, and it constitutes Natural Law (whether good or bad, right or wrong). It only becomes law when reduced to writing. The writing is the law. Or the law law. And it does not stand on it's own or spring from the ether. And it too can be good for bad or right or wrong.

How do you know matters were settled by the persuasion of reason prior to the time the first law was written? — Ciceronianus the White

To the extent the stick was used, they weren't. To the extent the stick was not required, agreement came by persuasion which is based on reason. Study of indigenous societies that don't have law are examples.

We lawyers don't practice natural law; we're not "natural lawyers." When we attended law school, you and I weren't taught how to be good,or just, or moral, nor were we taught that the law we were to practice was what God or nature established. We weren't admitted to the bar because we were learned in natural law or ethics. — Ciceronianus the White

You lawyers do indeed practice Natural Law, and you are Natural Lawyers. Someone just, obviously, had to write it down for you. As said long ago, the law is for people who can't take a hint. As to law school, speak for yourself. The law school I went to, and the bar I was a member of, and the test I took, was composed of a huge chunk of ethics. In fact, even to the extent that zealous advocacy was supposed to produce a result, that result was supposed to be just. Hence the law and rule framework within which we worked. You know, for those who didn't know better.

Which was when? Where? — Ciceronianus the White

When the first law was written. You name where. Anywhere.

So Natural Law is not the law. It seems we agree after all. — Ciceronianus the White

Correct, a parent is not it's child. The law springs from Natural Law.

Ah. I'm curious. When did the law operate by "persuasion of reason"? — Ciceronianus the White

Ever since it tried to get along without the stick. Life's a lot easier when people go along with you because they agree with you. You know, reason. But the reason that you better obey because I'll smack you if you don't, is not reason at all.

As demonstrated in the same post, Natural Law (justified) is not misusing the term "law." It's not addressing "law" at all.
— James Riley

Well clearly, to call something a law when it doesn't address law at all couldn't be a misuse of the word "law"! Who would think that something called a "law" would have anything to do with law? — Ciceronianus the White

You are failing to parse what you and I both have been parsing all along: A distinction between Natural Law and law. I even tried "law law" when I thought you were falling behind, but when you caught up, I figured I didn't need to do that any more. So, let me try it again: "As demonstrated in the same post, Natural Law (justified) is not misusing the term "law law." It's not addressing "law law" at all." Law law springs from Natural Law so, while it may address Natural Law, Natural Law is not going to spend a whole lot of time, if any, discussing law law which tries to live up to it's mentor.

Why would we assume this? — DingoJones

We assume it for the purposes of the dilemma.

They would have lopped my head off most ricky-tick. :death:

I find this interesting. First, it's not my "movement" so I won't tell others how to run their desires. And I kind of like the idea of putting homo sapiens on the same level as the rest of "creation." On the other hand, I'm too lazy to invest the thought it requires to consider the desires of each different individual I run into. This person want this, that person wants that. WTF? That presupposes I care, or that I should. Maybe I should, but I don't. 90% of the people I am introduced to, I don't remember their name two nano-seconds after it is told to me. If you have something I want, you have something about you that sets you apart, you are a really attractive woman, or something like that then, yeah, I *might* log your name in the back of my brain pan somewhere, but that's iffy. So for me to be told, and then to be expected to remember, that X want's to be called this or that, well, that's just too much for this old dog. If you give me shit for ignoring your desires, I'll just turn and walk away. I've got better things to do than to buy drama.

Capitalism relies upon the notion of personal property. Let's all tell ourselves a big fat lie and assume, for the sake of argument, that personal property was obtained through honorable, moral, ethical, legal means and that we all start with the current baseline as it stands now. With that assumption, I posit that capitalism mandates that all costs must be internalized by the parties to a transaction. That means the corporation could not possibly exist, for it is specifically designed to have government hold a shareholder harmless, and relieve him of liability which is, let's face it, just a legal term for personal responsibility.

Thus, the corporation is anti-capitalist. You can't be a capitalist and still accept the protections of government via the corporate veil. This draws the distinction between pure capitalism and some hybrid. So I want to ask, if we can drift off of pure capitalism and the self-described "capitalists" are fine with that, then why can't they possibly entertain the idea that socialism has different flavors too?

If I own the air I breathe (property), and X wants to pump poison into it, shouldn't he have to negotiate the contractual right to do so, with me, in an arm's length transaction? And if I, and others like me, refuse to sell, then should he not be required to attach a hose to his car's exhaust pipe, bring it around into the driver's seat and intubate himself with that shit when he wants to drive?

The right is fond of calling out environmentalists for being hypocrites if they drive cars. But the right does not understand capitalism. If I conserve a gallon of gas, the supply goes up, the price goes down, demand is simulated, and the right pumps more poison in the air, which I have to breathe. So self-consistency of conservation is self-defeating. It takes society, acting in concert, to clean the air. Just like the right doesn't go take out Saddam by themselves, society has to spin up to do certain things. Again, quasi-socialism.

So we all decide to pump the brakes, step back, and come to the table as reasonable people, and negotiate. We say look, the social benefit to be received by allowing greedhead here to employ people, make cars, pump oil, sell cars to everyone so we all drive, is worth some poison in the air, whether James Riley over there likes it or not. But in return for not forcing greedhead to take personal responsibly for his actions, we will tax him and use some of the revenue to help offset the costs. "Is that okay with you, greedhead?" "Well, I'd rather not, but yeah, if I don't have to be a capitalist, then yeah, I'll go along." How about you, James Riley?" "Well, I don't like breathing poison, but cars are sweet, so yeah, as long as we try to ameliorate the poison."

So, because greedhead forgets the agreement, and has an inflated view of his importance to the world, I propose the following legislation:

"Henceforth, all who seek incorporation shall, before the granting of same, sign the following oath:
'In return for big government protecting me from having to take personal responsibility for my own actions, and for allowing me to socialize the costs thereof onto the backs of innocent third parties who do not agree to assume the same, I hereby promise to not hold myself out to the world as being self-made, risk-taking, rugged, or personally responsible. I shall publicly refute any who so hold me out. I also promise not to whine like a little bitch when I am taxed a tiny portion of my profits. Nor will I use those profits to purchase the whores and gigolos in the legislature or executive to lower my taxes, or to legislate additional limitations upon my personal responsibility, beyond those I am receiving by this socialist incorporation, which occurs in violation of the tenants of capitalism. Finally, I also stipulate to the piercing of the corporate veil, and exposure of all my personal assets for claw-back, no matter how well or where hidden, should I violate this oath.'"

Yeah, I'm good with that.

Now, if anyone wants to talk about how personal property came into possession, we can talk about that too.

End rant.