Why is there not primacy for natural law in all democratic constitutions?

Surely basic primacy for such principles as the government being prohibited from creating something out of nothing (natural law that everything comes from something and nothing comes from nothing) is a worthy control of government power. It also acts to protect the populace from unworthy governance including when that governance is derived from their own foolishness.

If governments for example are allowed to create money (a claim on labour) from no money (no actual productive labour) then something is obviously wrong and the process is obviously against natural law.

There is an old saying that Natural Law can be denied but its consequences will not be evaded. This occurs regardless of opinion. It is time we placed Natural Law first in power.

To be clear, I am suggesting placing Natural Law above all other forms of power in all democratic constitutions, I am not suggesting some list of what constitutes Natural Law. Thus, real evidence gains a chance over manipulation of thought.

Happy thinking.

WIR
You certainly get the mental juices flowing in the morning.

Creating money? In what context - are you talking about taxation?

Or are you talking about government's borrowing money from OS and using that to create labour? In my basic economics classes I was always taught you can put money into an economy (even if you print it) to provide goods and services as long as that money is withdrawn again to prevent massive inflation.

If you are talking about money derived from taxes, it has been sourced via someone's productive labour and buys goods and services in the way of health, education, infrastructure etc as well as providing new opportunities for productivity.

I am not sure if you can use Natural Law in this context as Economic 'Law' is primarily a human construct evidenced in all its various shapes and forms.

If you are suggesting a survival of the fittest analogy - where no rules apply - I can see it descending into chaos and anarchy where those with captial survive and those who provide labour are at the mercy of those landowners - it sounds very medieval.

But maybe I have mistaken your meaning.

Natural laws have always determined what happens in operations of materialistic systems. They have controlled what happens to natural systems for eons. They have controlled what happens to the systems of civilization for millennia. They will continue for eons to control what happens. Humans only make decisions about what to initiate out of what natural laws make possible.
Economics deals with the flow of money in the process of using natural material capital to produce goods and services for the use of society and its civilization. It influences the decisions made by people but does not affect what actually happens.
The decisions of society would be much sounder if natural was first in all constitutions.

That's stretching the concept of "natural" a bit, Where_is_reason.

>>If governments for example are allowed to create money (a claim on labour) from no money (no actual productive labour) then something is obviously wrong and the process is obviously against natural law.<<

The context of creating money in this example would appear to be the act of borrowing.

I borrow the archetypal cup of sugar from my neighbour, they borrow my lawn mower, and so on.

This includes the concept of interest. When I return the cup of sugar, I take a bunch of flowers (if my neighbour is a babe), and when they return my lawnmower, a six-pack of beer comes with it (if my neighbour is a bloke).

All seems perfectly natural so far.

The government doesn't create money, so much as borrow it.

It is borrowed against future productivity facilitated by the "created" money, which is then collected in the form of taxation.

Nothing unnatural there.

You may need to help us a little more explanation, Where_is_reason, as to why you believe that government policy on money supply is "obviously wrong and the process is obviously against natural law"

Doesn't seem at all obvious to me.

EVERYTHING that happens in life, good or bad/right or wrong, is "natural law". Nature allows it to happen. Nature doesn't have a political opinion, nor does it have a conscience. Nature simply - - -IS.

When one starts applying one's "version" of natural law, then it just becomes another mere "ism", like communism, capitalism, catholicism, buddhism etc.

Greeting and thanks for your replies.

I can see that the sentence, "If governments for example are allowed to create money (a claim on labour) from no money (no actual productive labour) then something is obviously wrong and the process is obviously against natural law" is confusing the main issue. So that the main issue is not lost, it may be better to ignore this sentence for now or at least to see how it might be reframed in terms of the main issue.

Remember that the main issue is about including Natural Law as first priority in all democratic constitutions so that real evidence gains a stronger position over manipulation of thought.

Enjoy your thinking