Common Objections and Answers to the Natural Law

-

 

Common Objections to Natural Law


1. Does this philosophy imply that all government laws and regulations are inherently illegitimate, and if so, what would replace them?
   - The principles of natural law assert that any law must align with universal moral truths to be considered legitimate; thus, laws that violate individual rights or freedoms are deemed invalid. In this view, a just society would be guided by a mutual understanding of these moral principles rather than imposed regulations.

2. How do we ensure accountability and prevent abuse of power among “lawmen” if they reject all forms of established legal authority?
   - To prevent abuse, the accountability of "lawmen" stems from their commitment to natural law and mutual consent, ensuring that they operate transparently and are held responsible by their peers in a voluntary and cooperative framework. This creates a system of checks that aligns with Ayn Rand’s emphasis on rational self-interest and ethical behavior.

3. Is there a risk that this movement could lead to chaos or anarchy, especially in cases where individual interpretations of “natural law” conflict?
   - While critics may fear chaos, the rejection of arbitrary authority in favor of individual responsibility encourages a society where cooperation arises from shared values and respect for rights, thereby fostering order rather than disorder. Natural law inherently seeks to protect against violence by promoting peaceful resolutions based on reason.

4. What safeguards exist to protect marginalized communities from potential violence or exploitation under a system that prioritizes individual liberty above all else?
  - A commitment to natural law necessitates that all individuals, including marginalized groups, are equally protected under principles of justice, as true liberty cannot exist without the safeguarding of everyone’s rights. This aligns with the objectivist view that individual rights are universal and must be upheld for a just society.

5. Could this ideology inadvertently justify harmful behaviors, such as vigilantism, by placing individual judgment above societal norms and laws?
   - The philosophy emphasizes that force can only be used defensively, meaning that any act of vigilantism or harm contradicts the core tenets of natural law, which prioritize the protection of rights over individual whims. Ethical behavior, as defined by objectivism, requires that one acts rationally and justly, without infringing on the rights of others.

In conclusion, common objections regarding abuse, chaos, and exploitation are indeed valid concerns, but they often highlight the inherent flaws of a man-made legal system instituted and implemented by men—where people are categorized into various groups beyond simply law-abiding citizens and criminals. In contrast, the laws of nature and consciousness are universal and applied to all equally. The rain falls on all regardless of their skin color, religious affiliation, gender, or sexual preference. The laws of nutrition apply to all equally. Everyone experiences the power of gravity them same and are judged equally for violations of it. No matter who you are, you life depends on your choice to think rationally. Only man-made laws can pretend that some people are different from others or more or less accountable to these Natural Laws. By emphasizing individual responsibility and the principles of natural law, we can work toward a system that truly protects everyone's rights without the divisive and often corrupting influences of arbitrary authority.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. (2025) Affirmative Opinion in the Voice of Justice Alito

-
Image
  Supreme Court of the United States Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. Opinion of the Court by the voice of Justice Alito Delivered January 14, 2025 Today, this Court renders a decision of profound constitutional and societal importance. At issue is whether the foreclosure proceedings initiated by Alliant Credit Union against Mr. Zachary Moore—based on a mortgage loan derived from fiat currency—violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This case also raises broader questions about the legality of a monetary system that facilitates perpetual debt cycles through fiat currency and usury. After careful consideration, we hold that the foreclosure proceedings, as applied to Mr. Moore, constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of his rights to property and due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Further, we find that the systemic exploitation inherent in the fiat currency system and its application to the facts of...
Read more

Citing RICO Violations to stop unlawful debt collections

-
Who is Zach Moore? and what to know about my movement If you’re reading this, take it as a call to prepare—for yourself, your family, and the world around you. At the heart of my movement is a simple but powerful truth:  any contract secured with a lie, or a claim not backed by anything real (like the U.S. dollar and debt), cannot be enforced.  Moreover, those who attempt to collect on these fraudulent contracts are committing crimes and are liable to RICO charges for perpetuating a system built on deception. I’m Zachary Moore, and I’m leading a movement to destroy the U.S. dollar, bankrupt billionaires, and end the tyranny of usury. I grew up in a trailer in Alabama, surrounded by the poverty and oppression that debt creates. I worked my way out, earning $550,000 a year as a top sales consultant, but in 2023, I realized I was part of the problem—a system built on lies, fiat currency, and the exploitation of human labor. So, I walked away. I quit my lucrative job, defaulted on...
Read more

Response to Alliant Credit Union

-
  Re: Loan Number XXXX To whom it may concern, My name is Zachary Moore, owner of the property at [address redacted]. I received a letter in the mail from Alliant Credit Union dated December 15, 2023 citing information regarding a mortgage contract between myself and Alliant. I am challenging the validity of this contract.  As you know, in order for a contract to be valid, both parties must put up valid property for consideration. Without consideration, no contract can be lawfully valid.  This property must be rightfully owned by each party.  In the case of Alliant, the money loaned would need to be an asset on Alliant’s balance sheet prior to closing. As the loanee, I put up my own property for valid consideration. I put up a promissory note representing my ownership of my work and labor, a down payment of nearly $100,000, and title to the property at [address redacted] What property did Alliant put up? Please provide evidence that Alliant provided me, the loaner wi...
Read more