Natural Law Origins of the Common Law (Kevin Bjornson) - The Turney Collection - Libertarianism.org
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- Kevin Bjornson was one of the founding members of the Libertarian Party in the early 1970s, and is still active as the co-chair of the Libertarian Defense Caucus. He lives in Washington state.
In this video from an International Society for Individual Liberty conference in 1992, Bjornson speaks on the origins of the common law and a variety of other topics. He also shares the story of his own run-in with civil asset forfeiture law and the War on Drugs.
Download the .mp3 version of this lecture here: bit.ly/ZLBAeF
The Turney Collection: Never-Before-Seen Archive Tapes
Related podcast episodes and articles are available here: www.libertaria...
Whether common law by land or by sea, both draw their roots from natural law.
There are 105 universal or natural laws. They should be taught in grade school and high school and college in USA
Where can i find the list?
Rubbish! There are 7- No man may: Murder, Assault, Rape, Trespass, Coerce, Thieve or Decieve another man for any reason except in the case of a physical threat. In which case we may execute the minimum level of necessary force to neutralise the attack. Upto & including lethal force. Lethal force is not violence when taken in self defence. The two pillars of Natural Law are the "self defence" principle & the "do no harm" principle.
Aaron, you don't like my suspenders? I don't recall anything special about the attire of Michael Fox in Back to the Future. Although as an SF fan, I watched the movie. Or should I say, SciFi, as this was a movie.
The LP has been going downhill since 1972. John Hospers was the one LP POTUS nominee who understood libertarianism. Most have followed "non-interventionism" -- an apocryphal departure from classical libertarianism, with feudal origins. See my treatise: www.defendliberty.net
In 1976, they nominated McBride for POTUS. He's a follower of Rose Wilder, who viewed Islam through rose-tinted lenses and opposed US entry into WWII.
In 1979 they nominated Ed Clark, who also claimed the "non-interventionist" mantle. Yet not all his critics were good guys, I remember neo-nazi "anarchists" spray-painting "Ed Clark = statism" in the U district of Seattle.
Most subsequent nominees were worse. Gary Johnson ran the last two cycle for POTUS on the LP ticket. He was not even remotely libertarian, and so befuddled he was usually angry and/or incoherent. He gives potheads a bad reputation.
The "reform caucus" wanted the LP to go Republican moderate, left-leaning on social issues, including extending the requirement for a license for marriage to gay couples and violating freedom of association. The Johnson/Weld ticket is the apotheosis of that strategy.
Finally the LP seems to be waking from it's long slumber, and is trying to network with Kibbe and others on the Tea Party "right". Though I suspect they have ulterior motives, and wish to siphon votes from libertarian republicans.
I don't always recommend intervention, nor do I always recommend non-intervention.
Without intervention, there would be no military. Because that is what militaries do, professionally: they intervene. There is no point in having a US military, if it may never intervene, because then it would have nothing to do.
In deciding whether or not to intervene, we need to answer two questions: is the intervention just or unjust; and is it wise or unwise. If it is both just and wise, then to intervene is right.
To know whether an action is just, we need to answer this question: is the use of force initiatory, or defensive/retaliatory. If initiatory, the force is unjust. If defensive/retaliatory, it is just.
For any given conflict, there can be only one initiation of force (by definition). Because initiation of force means, the first use of force. To side with the force-initiator, is unjust. To side with the victim (i.e. defend the victim against force-initiation), is just.
Whether or not a use of force is wise, we need to consider the facts of the case. Are we able to successfully defend the victim? Who will pay for such a defense? and so on.
The ideology of non-interventionism is not the same thing at all as natural justice (Jus Naturale). The conflation of the two ideologies is a source of great confusion among self-identified libertarians.
The classical liberal tradition dates back to the roman republic. Non-interventionism as a theory of international law didn't arrive until after the fall of Rome.
If the US military were limited to within US territory, that would still be an intervention. They would act to protect those residing within US territory.
Jus Naturale is a product of a fusion of Latin common law (Jus Gentium) and Greek Stoicism. Natural justice pertains to all natural persons, in all places and times. Hence there are not separate rules for operating on one side of a political border, or another side. Justice is not one thing in Rome, and another at Athens; one thing today, and another tomorrow.
As a practical matter, not having the possibility of alliances would jeopardize just those without alliances, but would be a great aid to those who still have alliances. If all non-predatory nations discontinued alliances, predatory nations would band together and pick off victims one at a time. Thus, leading inevitably to the triumph of predatory nations. Which is why this categorical non-interventionism is just a theory and has no successful real-world examples.
What is the paperwork and who gets it ?
Sense when is having drugs in your pocket? How does a man get injuried because some guy has drugs on him? I'm not saying drugs are good or a bad thing, I'm just saying that unless I have caused harm to or violated someone or their property then I have committed no crime therefore I am not subject to any penelty. I don't get how someone who has some drugs in his pocket is a crime.
Everything is about control.
OK I will bite on that. Idea is that under the influence of drugs you could commit crimes, since you would have lost control of your body. You may also become addicted and commit crimes to obtain illegal drugs. So illegal drugs may cause harm (and of course do).
If you have you "happy medicine" called drugs by them or what ever you are using such thing for claim it as property and don't call it what they assume it is. Their law is under assumptions and put the never place the burden of proof up on yourself. The courts are not common law courts you have to stand as a man and change their court into yours.
"idea" @@zedeyejoe
The problem with an eternal set of laws is that you need to be perfect and all-knowing for it to be a good thing. After all, if you aren't, then some time there may be someone with a better idea of what the laws should be. If someone some day has a better idea of what should be the laws, then your laws weren't really eternal. Your laws were the best at the time that they were written (and maybe not even that) and then later not as good as other more recently invented systems of law.
You could draft your laws by giving some impossibly difficult test to everyone and see how can do the best and having that person make your laws, but that person will be human just as you are. That person may be smarter than your average person. That's person MAY even make better laws than anyone to ever come before them. Even if this is the case (and it's doubtful it would be), those laws would still likely not be the best. After all, even the wisest and best of humanity 2,000 years ago would not be half as good as what the average person today could develop. After all, who among us would not put as law that you cannot own another human being? Yet, who of 2,000 years ago would put such a thing in their laws? I suspect there would be new examples that one could use 2,000 years from now of clearly moral things that today no one would put in place.
Alternatively, you may decide that there is some holy book you wish to put in place and say that this holy text is truly what morality should be. Before you do this, can you really objectively say that the holy book isn't just the word of humans? Humans, possibly not even as great as the best among us? Secondly, what kind of results have we gotten from theocracies through out history? Do you really think you'll get different results now? I think not. Certainly, I don't think you'd want the law of Moses to be put in place today.
TrakeM118 nope
@VOTERFRAUD BIDEN Natural law is not natural. We find homosexuality in nature and it is therefore natural. That's what the word natural means, found in nature.
The Bible isn't much of a history book. The Jewish people did not wander the desert for 20 years. There would have been a lot of evidence left behind had that happened. Also, the sun is older than the earth not the other way around.
Finally, even if those laws weren't meant for us now, if they are really from a deity they'd have been worth following at the time for the people who were being told to follow them. Deuteronomy chapter 13 isn't just immoral now, it's hideously immoral regardless of timing.
@VOTERFRAUD BIDEN The Bible is just a book of myths, and frankly deplorable. Just look at deuteronomy chapter 13. Do you have any evidence that the god of the Bible exists? Seems to me you are making claims and just citing the Bible as it was a book worth respecting. It's not. Read Deuteronomy 13
Seriously. It's short. Only a few paragraphs. It's also deplorable. If you have solid evidence to show your god exists, present it.
@VOTERFRAUD BIDEN I saw two responses earlier,neither with evidence for the existence of any god(s).
@VOTERFRAUD BIDEN yes, and I said that I agreed that natural and moral don't mean the same thing and that natural law isn't natural. It's just a euphemism for theocracy. I also pointed out that not producing a baby doesn't make homosexuality immoral.
so you can make your comment
Fuck I am confused.
Anything new??
Activist =Sovereign Citizen.
WTF no mention of brehon law, which was on the english door step but its influenc totaly ignored of its cultural impact up to common law an two of the origins of the english language. . that all said, . have to say thanku
Interesting!
20 years later and still the same &#!!$#!@
the britsh in austrailia used thier idea of natural law, where the original tribes were seen as fauna, as kangaro coala emue, so could also be shot for sport!! an were, an not just downunder
Right, the law of the jungle - the strong and able take from the weak and less able and the natural reaction to that when it is implemented in society is communism or socialism.
@@fredgillespie5855 to a point I agree, . cheers.. yet saying that one thing I have suffered from my whole life is capitalism
This was a waste of time for me. I want facts I can use. Not history or how unfair the world is.
World is so unfair in becomes fair with making everyone's unfair at least one time in all lives that began to exist and is to become.